Theory of Evolution anyone ?

[drsam]

evolution may be correct but how it is  that is a big auestion

i dont think what darwin taught is complete or 100% true  because of some live examples we see daily life that goes against his evolution principles

for example  strong and fit dies to save the weak and unfit very common thing

[Student of Allah]

evolution may be correct but how it is  that is a big auestion

i dont think what darwin taught is complete or 100% true  because of some live examples we see daily life that goes against his evolution principles

for example  strong and fit dies to save the weak and unfit very common thing

Shalom Aleikhom,

You are correct. Darwin was like Galileo, like Galileo he did not have perfect physics model. But modern evolution is not the same as the way Darwin proposed.

By the way, evolution does not really say that strong will always survive. The one that can adapt to change the most, usually survives. The effects of evolution is best observed across a huge sample like species. Not across a tiny case involving one person.

Peace
------------ Student of Allah

[sarah_bd_gemini]

I would say that it is. What one often doesn't realise is that, for evolution to occur, there are 'accumulation' of changes in addition to random mutations and natural selection. There is no need for outside forces.

Richard Dawkin's books 'The Blind Watchmaker' and 'Climbing Mount Improbable' are good for getting a deeper understanding of evolution.

[uq]

I believe that the theory of evolution as it's presented today is overwhelming. It's extremely hard to refute, in my view. But that's not to say that the theory is without its holes.

Perhaps the most gaping of these holes (and personally, my greatest concern) is that of random mutation. For I have yet to see a demonstration in the way of statistics which yields reasonable and practicable probabilities for the processes of DNA replication of nucleotides or of transcription coding for amino acids in such a way that will bear a viable enzyme or some other viable proteinaceous product which will contribute to the overall survival of a given organism, dependent on no other factor but sheer randomness. I cannot imagine, given any stretch of time, how such gross improbability is overcome.

And it should be pointed out that the probability of “devolution”, in this respect, has the exact same likelihood as evolution, i.e., if an ancestral individual of a species of bacteria evolved light-sensitive cells, then its descendants, by the same random processes with which it acquired those cells, are just as likely to “devolve” those very cells.

It reminds me of Henri Poincaré's experiment on equilibrium fluctuation in 1890. The experiment apparently violates the second law of thermodynamics. It goes along the lines of "no matter how wild and unlikely a fluctuation is, if one only waits long enough, it will occur." When I say “long enough”, I mean a length of time which precedes the current estimation of the age of the universe.

I believe this to be a major downplayed fact in the scientific community. It seems to me that this insurmountable facet of the theory is taken on good faith. This assumption of theirs is shockingly unwarranted.

Therefore, I am lead to believe that God “guides” random mutation, and perpetuates the permanence thereof. Or perhaps some other law is at work here. I don’t know.

"وما أوتيتم من العلم إلا قليلا"

I am still uncertain about what conclusions to draw from the above reasoning. I’m still thinking about it.

[Magnus]

I believe that the theory of evolution as it's presented today is overwhelming. It's extremely hard to refute, in my view. But that's not to say that the theory is without its holes.

Perhaps the most gaping of these holes (and personally, my greatest concern) is that of random mutation. For I have yet to see a demonstration in the way of statistics which yields reasonable and practicable probabilities for the processes of DNA replication of nucleotides or of transcription coding for amino acids in such a way that will bear a viable enzyme or some other viable proteinaceous product which will contribute to the overall survival of a given organism, dependent on no other factor but sheer randomness. I cannot imagine, given any stretch of time, how such gross improbability is overcome.
-------
Therefore, I am lead to believe that God “guides” random mutation, and perpetuates the permanence thereof. Or perhaps some other law is at work here. I don’t know.

The theory of evolution is pretty much a huge gaping hole.
"Random mutation" leaves plenty of room for almighty God to do His works, like you point out.

Then there's  the whole "natural selection" that seems way too simplistic. Sure, there's the pressures of survival/spawning that leads to practical adaptations, I can buy that argument. Where I feel natural selection falls the shortest is in explaining why so many life forms become beautiful in highly impractical ways. I just don't quite see how the world can be all about competition for life and turf and yet the peacock exists. An evolutionist might say that it's because animals want attractive mates, but in my mind there's an apparent contradiction in that since from an evolutionary perspective (being well adapted for survival) it's suicidal to look anything like a peacock, i.e. having non-utilitarian body parts or color schemes. One would think that the imagined "mother nature"  would favor practical adaptations over pretty every time because of the massive "evolutionary advantage"  of something like camouflage over splendid colors?

God says he shaped us from clay, like a potter. This implies a gradual process, and the evidence for this is indeed overwhelming. Exactly how the potter exerts His will on the clay seem a bit of a mystery no matter whom you ask. God surely knows best.

[Pazuzu]

God says he shaped us from clay, like a potter.

That's not exactly accurate. This brings to mind the childish story of God forming a clay figurine in the shape of a man, and then "breathing" life into it, thus turning it into a living being, whom He named "Adam" and placed in the Garden of  Aden. Subsequently, this "Adam" became bored all alone, so God took one of his crooked ribs and created "Eve" from it.

This is the stuff that you find in the Old Testament.

What science has been able to prove so far, and beyond any shadow of a doubt, is that the earliest Homo Sapiens (fully developped humans like us), first appeared on this planet some 50,000 - 60,000 years ago, and that, for a time, they existed SIDE BY SIDE with primitive Neanderthals (Cro Magnon).

What science has NOT been able to determine so far is how / when exactly did the jump from Neanderthal to human take place. The answer, as the Quran tells us, is found in the "Histories of the Ancients"  (Arabic:  Asateer ul' Awwaleen).

Interestingly, the word "History" comes from latin Istoria which, in Arabic, is Oustoora The plural of Oustoora is Asateer, which is usually rendered as "legends".

The ancient tablets and scriptures of Yemen, the Nile valley, and Mesopotamia, all point to some divine power, sometimes expressed as heavenly beings (malai'ka - anunaki - etc...) commanded by some greater power (Rahman - Mardukh - Enki - etc...) to REPROGRAM the savage Neanderthal man and make him more "Godlike".

The Quran expresses this as "breathing of the Ruuh" into a primitive and bloodsheding species (Cro Magnon) and turning it into Homo-Sapien.  This basically means that there was some form of divine intervention that took place. The Quran mentions the "Histories of the Ancients" in a context that most Muslims today failed to grasp. In fact, when the rejecters during Muhammad's time heard him recite verses describing the Creation and Resurrection (Era of Judgement), they immediately dismissed Muhammad's words as "Asateer'ul Awwaleen". This means that the Quran is in fact not denying that its verses - as far as those subjects are concerned - are somewhat similar to these ancient "Legends".

As to what exactly is this "Ruuh" (Spirit of Divinity), we will not really know:

{And they ask you concerning the Ruuh Say: "The Ruuh is from the authority of my Rabb and the knowledge you were given was but very little.}...[17:85]

This means that some intervention must have taken place somewhere.

As for how the primitive and savage pre-humans came to being in the first place, I can say for certain that they did NOT evolve from apes.  The most correct theory, and the one that most agrees with the Quran, in my humble opinion, was first openly discussed by the scholars of Al-Andalus (Moorish Spain), in the 13th Century A.D, but it was never accepted by the official schools of thought (They considered it "aberrant" and tantamount to blasphemy of course): It talks about humanoids being born directly from the earth, hatching from embryos in the mud.

You might want to check out this thread:

 http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9602939.0

[good logic]

I suppose the point I made else where is also valid here.

Yes I sgree some good exchange of views. Well done all those involved.
I like to make a very important point to all this processes:

39:62″ GOD is the creator of all things, and HE is in full control of all things.”

He initiates the start of each process,  and guides it .
The chain of command starts and ends with the;

40:15″ Possessor of the highest rank and ruler of the whole dominion...  "

Keep your interesting debates going.
Peace.

[sarah_bd_gemini]

http://islamforwest.org/2012/01/09/deism-and-750-verses-of-the-holy-quran/

I disagree with the idea that devolution is just as likely. If there is devolution, then, natural selection will remove it from the gene pool, since it would reduce fitness. Evolution will enhance fitness, hence there will be larger numbers in the next generation.

[uq]

Thanks for the link Sarah, I was interested to learn of the deterministic tenets of deism.

I believe that if the statistical probabilities of random mutation were mapped out, then I do think that we would see a course of evolution that is as equally probable for devolution. However, you are correct in pointing out that the survival of "devolved" organisms would be mitigated by natural selection.

What is your position on divine intervention, or the lack thereof, in the evolution of life? and specifically in random mutation?

[sarah_bd_gemini]

What is your position on divine intervention, or the lack thereof, in the evolution of life? and specifically in random mutation?

that it's unnecessary, hence random mutation followed by selection, is enough. Accumulation happens of beneficial changes, it's not going straight from no eye to a human eye in one generation, but gradations, from no eye, to light sensitive cells, which increase in complexity over generations, or start working together, then compound eyes, made up of simple eyes, rods, cones. My point is there are many steps in between that we can't see because eyes don't fossilise easily, but there are creatures with simpler eyes today that probably existed before as well.

anyway, my understanding of things is still evolving, so I can't say I have a fixed position on this or anything else.