Atlas of Creation

[alan]

Atlas of Creation,by Harun Yahya.
The biggest load of b.....ks ive have come across in a long time,we are at least being spared from anymore imanent publications by this man for a while,as he is in prison.

[Ron]

Why is he in prison? Where is he imprisoned?

[alan]

Legal issues, arrest, trial, and sentencing
In September 1999 Adnan Oktar was arrested following multiple scandals and further allegations that were fully covered by the Turkish media[52]. In that court case, Oktar was charged with using threats for personal benefit and creating an organization with the intent to commit a crime.[53] One complainant, a fashion model named Ebru Simsek claimed she was blackmailed.[54], and then slandered as a "prostitute" in fax messages sent to hundreds of different newspapers, TV channels, major business companies, foreign consulates and government offices for refusing to have sex with Adnan Oktar. The judicial process lasted over two years, during which most of the complainants' retracted their claims, repportedly because of threats or bribes from SRF members. As a result most of the cases against Oktar and SRF members were dismissed, with only two members receiving jail sentences for 1 year each.[55]

According to the indictment of the prosecutor’s office, cited by the daily Cumhuriyet, Adnan Oktar and associates raped young women many of whom were under the age of 18 on camera and blackmailed them by threatening to release the sex tapes to their friends and family members. Many of these young women were then forced to entice select young men from wealthy families with the promise of sex in exchange for attending events organised by the BAV. The court heard how in turn these girls were formed into a group called In 2008 he was sentenced by a Turkish court to three years in prison for "creating an illegal organization for personal gain."[10]of what they referred to as "odalisques" (cariyeler) and were ordered to videotape their sex sessions with these young men and deliver the tapes to Oktar.[56]

Amidst ambiguous circumstances all charges were dropped by that court only to be picked by another court 8 years later. In 2008 Oktar was convicted a variety of crimes including engaging in criminal threats.[53][49]
On May 2008 Oktar and 17 other members of his organisation were sentenced to 3 years in prison. Oktar intends to appeal these charges.[53]

There are other sources,these quoted from Wiki site.
(Oktar is the real name of Harun Yahya)Further referances to Reuters news,etc can be found on the Wiki site.

[ahmetsecer@yahoo.com]

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1250/1345527969_966b235c23_m.jpg

An Important Statement Concerning Harun Yahya

Because of his anti-Darwinist, anti-communist and anti-Masonic intellectual struggle, Adnan Oktar has for many years been subjected to conspiracies and slanders by certain dark forces. However, the courts have always acquitted him of these baseless accusations, and they have all been exposed as plots and slander.

1. Adnan Oktar was held in solitary confinement for nine months and then detained for a further 10 months in a mental hospital housing the most dangerous 300 inmates who had committed murders, all for saying “I am a member of the Turkish nation and of the community of Ibrahim.” 7 people were killed by inmates during his time there.

2. After being held in prison and the mental hospital for a total of 19 months, Mr. Oktar was acquitted and released by the court when the Prosecutor’s Office declared there was “no criminal offence in his words.” However, because of the mental report issued in his regard he was for years publicly portrayed as mentally ill and deprived of such rights as to vote or stand for office, to marry, to work for the state or purchase property. This conspiracy also eventually failed when the Military Hospital overturned the report.

3. Mr. Oktar was detained with no justification in 1991, and members of Ergenekon, a communist deep state that had infiltrated the state in Turkey, arranged for cocaine to be detected in his blood stream after being mixed in with his food at the Security Headquarters building. This was confirmed by the Forensic Medicine Institute. Mr. Oktar was acquitted and cleared when the court determined it had been a conspiracy.

4. Mr. Oktar has been the subject of 9 assassination attempts.

5. In 1999, Mr. Oktar and various members of the BAV (Science Research Foundation) were detained by police under the command of Adil Serdar Sacan, who is himself currently detained on charges of being a member of the terrorist organization Ergenekon. Those taken into custody were tortured by personnel at the Security Department, at the order and with the encouragement of Adil Serdar Sacan. As a result of that torture, the detainees were forced to sign untrue statements that had been drawn up beforehand.

6. A journalist by the name of Tuncay Ozkan, who is also currently in custody charged with membership of the communist Ergenekon terrorist organization, was the one who prepared in advance the statements signed under coercion by the detainees and who gave them to the Security Department. After they were signed under coercion the signed versions of these false statements were sent back to Tuncay Ozkan by Adil Serdar Sacan, and Ozkan then used them to wage a smear campaign against the BAV members with full-page reports in the newspapers every day and reports on the television. This clearly and undeniably reveals that it is this communist deep state society behind the conspiracies against Adnan Oktar and the BAV that have been going on for so many years.

7. Under the influence of the police report prepared on the basis of these statements, court proceedings were initiated and some defendants were sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment. Together with Adnan Oktar, three young women, university graduates who had never seen the inside of a prison or police station or even received a speeding ticket, were also sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment on the grounds of running a criminal enterprise. These women are intellectual, devout, progressive and secular individuals who believe in creation.

8. In his latest legal opinion regarding the case, the Public Prosecutor stated that:

• All the defendants, including Adnan Oktar, had already been acquitted in the case;
• The statements taken under coercion and in the absence of a lawyer were invalid in legal terms, and that this had in addition been accepted by the court hearing the case;
• And there was no evidence in the case file to support the charges,
And therefore REQUESTED THAT THE DEFENDANTS BE ACQUITTED.

Adnan Oktar has never committed a criminal offense, and he rejects this charge. However, he respects the court ruling by all means.
Mr. Oktar has already been acquitted in the hearts of all rational people and of the entire Islamic world and Turkish nation. Nobody in Turkey believes he is the leader of a criminal enterprise. He is a man of science, an author known to the whole world. He preaches love, peace, tolerance and compassion, and recommends moral virtues. Lies and plots have never hindered Mr. Oktar’s intellectual struggle in any way whatsoever, and neither will they do so in the future. He will heroically, persistently and determinedly continue with his anti-materialist, anti-communist and anti-Darwinist activities that call Turkey to unity and union.

[alan]

The above posted by Yahya,s propoganda wing.

[Ratatosk]

Salam,

I checked out the publication. If indeed publication is the correct word to use when describing the HTML pages. I guess I'm an old timer from a glorious past, a mythical time when "scientific publication" meant actual, meticulous research, from a legendary era when "atlas" meant 'collection of maps' instead of 'collection of quackery'.

There are many gems in the atlas and it's related texts, such as "Darwinism, tried to be kept alive by engaging in demagogy and propaganda, has been refuted in all spheres and it is now widely recognized that it’s no longer possible to defend Darwinism by demagogy".

They don't make 'em like that anymore. Eh, actually they do.

Regards,

[Homer76]

So I am asuming you guys have read the book?

[Ratatosk]

Salam,

Ad hoc I will presume the printed media is the same as this (http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/atlas_creation/atlas_creation_01.php).

Yes, I have read enough to be convinced not to read it.

"What do you mean?", I hear you correct me. Wait, lemme splain ya.

I opened the HTML page w/ a somewhat open mind. Let's just say semi-opened, and leave it at that. I was mentally prepared to let tiny things and the odd logical fallacy slip me by unnoticed, just the get the.., well.., General Gist™ of the tale. Really big, whopping, ultra-mega-humongous blunders I'd naturally take issue w/ and let everyone and their uncle know what I thought of such objectionable insolence. At least, that was my honorable intention. Problem was, actually still is, I couldn't get past the first sentence w/out compromising my self imposed Warrior Code.

Awlroit, I know the preceding explanation doesn't really explain anything, although I said I'd "splain ya". Moreover, it's merely badly worded, grade school rhetoric. Clearly, I need to type a more elaborate response. Here goes.
___

Exhibit A) the First Sentence.
"Some 150 years ago, the British naturalist Charles Darwin proposed a theory based on various observations made during his travels, but which could not be supported by any subsequent scientific findings." (Copyright ©2008 Harun Yahya Publications, Inc.)
Not off to a good start, this Atlas of Creation. The theory of evolution is one of the most solid theories, if not the most solid, that we have. There's literally miles of bookshelf of peer reviewed, repeatable, predictable and falsifiable evidence and research that supports the theory of evolution. As I said, not off to a very good start, these Harun Yahya people.

Exhibit B) the Second Sentence.
"In essence, his theory of evolution consisted of various scenarios, assumptions and conjectures that Darwin dreamed up in his own imagination.." (Copyright ©2008 Harun Yahya Publications, Inc.)
While not objectionable in and of itself, what the Harun Yahya team fails to mention is every single last one of absolutely every theory on the entire planet is made this way. Moving on.

Exhibit C) the Third Sentence.
"According to his evolution scenario, inanimate substances came together by chance to give rise to the first living cell." (Copyright ©2008 Harun Yahya Publications, Inc.)
The theory of evolution states no such thing. Further, the sentence is an erroneous claim in re natural selection in the first place. The field of science that deals with the origin of animate matter is called abiogenesis. It has nothing to do with evolution. That seems vaguely important, so I will therefore repeat it. Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. I thought about repeating it a third time, but that would've been repetitious. Bad pun intended.

As you probably can see, my friend, reading the whole thing would only have caused yet more sleepless nights of me wondering "o'where o'where did we go so very wrong" and subsequently calling in "hopeless" in the morning. Not a good thing to do, I trust you agree.

Et cetera.

Mind you, these were some points after reading a grand total of three (3) sentences.

Bonus Exhibit) the Penultimate Sentence.
"The support lent to the theory of evolution and the acceptance it has enjoyed up to now are the result of tricks played on mankind by Satan, who urges vast numbers of people towards Darwinism.." (Copyright ©2008 Harun Yahya Publications, Inc.)

The offence rests.

Regards,


PS: I did read more than three sentences.


"Who is General Failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?"

[Ratatosk]

Salam,

I couldn't be bothered to write anything more in my above post. It was getting very late, and I was not in the mood of looking for links and references and that. Simply put, I didn't care enough. Lack of sleep works wonders w/ my motivation, it seems. However, a tiny addition to the above might be relevant. So, w/out further ado.

___

Argument A) - The transitional forms

The creationist argument in the Atlas of Creation in it's entirety is the percieved "lack of transitional forms in the fossil record". This is a popular argument, and the Harun Yahya team seems to use it quite extensively. In fact, the Atlas of Creation rests and falls solely on the argument.

There's a delicious irony imbedded in all of this. If you ask Krethi und Plethi to name a fossil, ie. what single fossil has been given a name, you'd probably get "Lucy (http://archaeology.about.com/od/lterms/qt/lucy.htm)". I do not need to tell you Lucy is a transitional form.

There are thousands of transitional forms in the fossil record. Further, depending on definition, all fossils are transitional. The entire argument, therefore, is due to a misunderstanding -- willful or not -- of what transitional forms even are.

Argument B) - The Cambrian Explosion

What's referred to as the Cambrian Explosion is the apparent sudden appearance of a wealth of fossils during Cambria. Several things are not understood, or even mentioned, regarding the phenomenon.

The explosion was not a sudden, violent outburst. The period of the explosion was around 15 to 20 million years. A veeery slow explosion, I trust you agree. In fact, the usage of the word "explosion" might be the greatest cause of the popular understanding.

The other thing not mentioned about how fossilization occurs is how soft tissue is preserved in the strata. By far the majority of fossils encountered are remnants of so called hard tissue; skeletons, kitaneous discs, shields, claws, and so on and so forth. If the creature consists solely of soft tissue, the chances of the buried creature to become fossilized and subsequently preserved is slim to none.

Fossils dating pre Cambria are mainly creatures consisting of soft tissue. There are at present tens of thousands of pre-Cambrian fossils on display in natural museums around the planet, ranging from arachnomorphs, chemotropic stromatolites, arthropods, algae and molluscs to the fascinating Ediacara fauna, the so called metazoans. Worth a visit, to be sure.

Et cetera.

The offence rests.

Regards,

[Homer76]

Atlas of Evolutions is one book in a series of book by team HY.
Part of the message that HY wants to get across to the readers is the “evolution” of the evolutionary theory (no pun intended).
As such the first three sentences you read are factually correct.

Briefly:

The evolutionary theory went through (loosely) three phases:

1. The original theory as proposed by Charles Darwin called The theory of Evolution by Natural selection
2. The new theory as the previous one was disqualified due to advancement in science i.e. discovery of DNA – called Neo Evolution
3. The last but not least Punctuated Equilibrium; don’t even get me started on this.

So yes as stated in the Atlas of Creation the original theory of Charles Darwin as proposed by Charles Darwin himself is debunked by scientific findings.

Do you know what Charles Darwin had proposed in his book?

Secondly:

The gist of HY work is not as so much related to repeating creationist theory but to expose to the world the utter disregard for science when it concerns the theory of evolution; which is essentially an hypothesis.

Do you know the difference between hypothesis, theory and fact?

Omair

[Ratatosk]

Salam,

Thank you for your post.

the original theory of Charles Darwin as proposed by Charles Darwin himself is debunked by scientific findingsThe theory of evolution as we know it today is indeed a far cry from the original proposal by Charles Darwin. The nucleus of his theory has not to date been falsified, so I don't really know what you're on about. Care to elucidate? I'd be most interested in what you have to say.

Do you know what Charles Darwin had proposed in his book?I guess you're referring to the original work, many times truncated to "The Origin of the Species" (the original work's called "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life").

Be that as it may, his theory can be compressed into a few bullet points. In short; the amount of offspring is more than the carrying capacity of the environment, therefore offspring will compete for resources. Offspring w/ favourable mutations will survive and their offspring will in turn inherit the favourable traits. Many of these findings predated Darwin's publication by decades and even centuries.

The gist of HY work is [...] to expose to the world the utter disregard for science when it concerns the theory of evolution; which is essentially an hypothesis.If that's the case, the team is doing a terrible job. Moreover, the team members themselves are prime examples of the mentioned "utter disregard for science", exemplified in presenting non-science as science.

Oh, by the by; the theory of evolution is a theory alright. Creationism is not.

Do you know the difference between hypothesis, theory and fact?Indeed I do.

Regards,

[Ratatosk]

Salam,

Occured to me; does installing OpenOffice and PDFWriter make me "an author"? I'm just asking because it seems the word "book" doesn't mean anything anymore.

OTOH, y'don't need to reply to this. If you want, you can opt for seeing it as a grumpy afterthought to the above post. Directed at no-one in particular.

Time: way late.
Me: grumpy.
Bed: inviting.

Regards,

[Homer76]

Salam,

I just realized after reading my previous posts, that I might have come across as condescending when asking if you have read the book. please note that was not my intention. I was merely trying to understand on what level to address the post.



The theory of evolution as we know it today is indeed a far cry from the original proposal by Charles Darwin. The nucleus of his theory has not to date been falsified, so I don't really know what you're on about. Care to elucidate? I'd be most interested in what you have to say.


Then you will agree with HY that the theory as proposed by Darwin is different then what we call evolution today.


I guess you're referring to the original work, many times truncated to "The Origin of the Species" (the original work's called "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life").

Correct.

I have taken your points and would like to examine each of them.


the amount of offspring is more than the carrying capacity of the environment, therefore offspring will compete for resources.

That is correct and it is called natural selection.


Offspring w/ favourable mutations will survive and their offspring will in turn inherit the favourable traits.

Now just your use of the word mutation (so comic / x-men like) is the whole crux of the issue!

Brother favourable traits are part of the genetic makeup of any species. They are not mutations.

Mutations are addition to the genetic makeup of a species.


Many of these findings predated Darwin's publication by decades and even centuries.

I would not say centuries but yes I agree.


If that's the case, the team is doing a terrible job. Moreover, the team members themselves are prime examples of the mentioned "utter disregard for science", exemplified in presenting non-science as science.

You are entitled to your opinion. I on the other hand find the refreshing and insightful in many ways.


Oh, by the by; the theory of evolution is a theory alright. Creationism is not.

Why not? What is the difference?


Regards
Omair

[Ratatosk]

Salam,

Oh, don't fret about coming across as condescending or such. I didn't take it as such. OTOH, I may come across as an "intellectual snob". ;)

Why not? What is the difference?
A scientific theory, as you're surely aware, is both testable and falsifiable. If it can not be a victim of any of those, it is not a scientific theory.

A telltale sign of pseudoscience (meaning a hypothesis that's presented as science when it really is not), is that it can be neither falsified nor tested. There's no way of neither testing nor falsifying creationism. Creationism makes absolutely no testable predictions. It is important to keep this apart from things such as the Big Bang Theory, which really is a cosmological model, not a theory per se.

Creationism and it's cousin Intelligent Design can be neither falsified nor tested. Therefore they are not scientific theories. Subsequently, they have nothing to do with the world of science.

If I maintain gravity is the action of invisible, undetectable, miniscule, flying gnomes pushing us down towards the planet surface, it's not a scientific theory either. It's nuts alright, but it can not be falsified.

Regards,


PS: Oh ya, lest I forget; evolution is not proven. The phrase "scientifically proven" is nonsense. Science is not about proving stuff.

[Homer76]

Salaam,


A scientific theory, as you're surely aware, is both testable and falsifiable.

Exactly. So how do you test evolution?

Even as a theory the Big Bang is measurable.

Creationist theory, although to be honest I have never actually looked into what they are saying, esentially say that there is intelligent design and not chance as evolutions proposes.

Omair

[Ratatosk]

Salam,
Creationist theory [...] esentially say that there is intelligent design and not chance as evolutions proposes.No.

Creationism states God has literally created every single species, organism, class, bacteria, subspecies, order and phylum out of clay. Creationists of a certain variety state all that happened 6.000 years ago.

Oh, evolution is not about chance or random or happenstance and such. You might find this (http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/pressAndInformationOffice/newsAndEvents/archives/2007/EvolutionaryTheoriesMenopause.htm) and this (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v297/n5863/abs/297197a0.html) interesting.

Further, predicted speciation has been observed; several instances have occured in line with the results predicted by evolutionary theory.

Regards,

[Homer76]

Salaam Ratatosk, (by the way how do you pronounce it?)

Regarding what you think of creationist, that’s not creationism that is the bible and Christians you are quoting. Creationism as far as I have heard deals with an alternative intelligent design theory to counter the chance theory of evolution.


Oh, evolution is not about chance or random or happenstance and such. You might find this and this interesting.

This is exactly the type of goggledy gook tactics that evolutionist employ in order to confuse the laymen. Evolutionist keep moving the target so you cannot lock down on what exactly evolution is and what exactly a person is discussing.

This is now what I was discussing nor am I interested in discussing the evolution of menopause of women nor am I interested in discussing the evolution of anything other than the following:

The theory of evolution claim that we have all “evolved” from an existing species who were evolved from another existing species so on and so forth and make a line all the way back to life when it first began in the water (theory of evolution does not cover origin of life which is a separate topic). You can take a look at this website for more on http://listverse.com/science/top-15-misconceptions-about-evolution/ (Evolution).

The place where things get murky with evolution is HOW this happened. Mutations up till now seem to be the only options.

Wa Salaam
Omair

[Ratatosk]

Salam,
that’s not creationism that is the bible and Christians you are quoting.Yup, due to it being primarily a christian creation.

Creationism as far as I have heard deals with an alternative intelligent design theory to counter the chance theory of evolution.Nope.

Creationism is what I stated.

Oh, by the by, natural selection is not governed by chance.

This is exactly the type of goggledy gook tactics that evolutionist employ in order to confuse the laymen.I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to w/ the usage of "gobbledygook". Further, there's a reason why lay persons are called "lay". They're not specialists, they're not scientist. They're amateurs.

Evolutionist keep moving the target so you cannot lock down on what exactly evolution is and what exactly a person is discussing.Evolution theory deals w/ "changes in allele frequency over time". Still does. Doesn't change. ;)

The place where things get murky with evolution is HOW this happened. Mutations up till now seem to be the only options.You're pretty much on point.

Offspring are not genetically identical to their parents. We can see this every day around us (eye and hair color, body length, appearance, et cetera, et cetera). From this all else follows.

Outta time. Gotta go.

This has become a thread about evolution/creationism.

Regards,

[hasan]

13:4 And in the earth are tracts (diverse though) neighbouring, and gardens of vines and fields sown with corn, and palm trees - growing out of single roots or otherwise: watered with the same water, yet some of them We make more excellent than others to eat. Behold, verily in these things there are signs for those who understand!

90:4 Verily, We have created man into [a life of] pain, toil and trial.

49:13 O mankind! Lo! We have created you male and female, and have made you nations and tribes that ye may know one another. Lo! the noblest of you, in the sight of Allah, is the best in conduct. Lo! Allah is Knower, Aware.

I dont think harun yahya was negative to changes in allele frequency over time..

[hasan]

Evolution is not concerned with Abiogenesis or how life became - i believe Harun Yahya was directing his arguments against an incorrect conceptualisation of Darwinism and Materialism ... namely atheism

after all i have yet to find within books written by Darwin saying man evolved from a common ancestor with apes...i believe it was as a result of intellectual study that arguments for common ancestry with primates existed amongst cohorts for a science versus church established views..

[Ron]

Neither Creationism nor Intelligent Design are rooted in Islam. Those claiming to refute science are doing the greatest disservice to Muslims and driving this generation deeper into the dark ages we can't seem to get ourselves out of.

[alan]

I dont think they neccessarily refute science.

[Homer76]

Salaam Rataa,


Offspring are not genetically identical to their parents. We can see this every day around us (eye and hair color, body length, appearance, et cetera, et cetera). From this all else follows.

This is exactly it, I agree offspring are not the same as parents but they change within a framework of their DNA. The DNA of the offspring are still the same, even though the hair, efyes, skull structure etc. may change.

What evolutionist suggest is that these small changes results in a different species. Monkeys to Human even though the DNA of monkeys and the DNA of humans is completely different!

Regards
Omair

[Homer76]

Ron,


Neither Creationism nor Intelligent Design are rooted in Islam. Those claiming to refute science are doing the greatest disservice to Muslims and driving this generation deeper into the dark ages we can't seem to get ourselves out of.

Agreed this has nothing to do with religion, we are only discussing science and the flaws within evolution theory.

Unfortunately in my readings of evolutionist books, journals and discussion with evolutionist, it is apparent that evolution is looked onto as a religion rather than a science.

It’s findings are also used against religion.

Regards
Omair

[Ratatosk]

Salam,
The DNA of the offspring are still the same, even though the hair, efyes, skull structure etc. may change.Actually, no. Genetically identical offspring are called clones.

What evolutionist suggest is that these small changes results in a different species.Eventually speciation will occur. Speciation is not a simple process, however. Speciation can occur in a variety of ways. Speciation has been observed mainly in plants (Primrose, Fern) and, of course, in Drosophilia. ;)

Monkeys to Human even though the DNA of monkeys and the DNA of humans is completely different!Indeed. Although humans are not monkeys. We're apes.

[It] is apparent that evolution is looked onto as a religion rather than a science.If that is so, it is due to a very strange view of evolution. And, as an extension, a very erroneous view of science in general.

[The] findings [of evolution science] are also used against religion.Unfortunately so. This sad chapter is probably mostly due to a very skewered understanding of both science and religion.

Regards,

[Ron]

Salam Omair,

Agreed this has nothing to do with religion, we are only discussing science and the flaws within evolution theory.
Would you discuss the possible flaws in the Big Bang theory?

Unfortunately in my readings of evolutionist books, journals and discussion with evolutionist, it is apparent that evolution is looked onto as a religion rather than a science.
I think what has happened is that the people who accept evolution to be true are fighting with the same vigor their religious counter-parts usually do. So I can see how that impression is made.

It’s findings are also used against religion.
That's unfortunate. However, a person with religion doesn't have to be on the defensive. Not being so would nullify evolution being used against religion. Science is not in the business of disproving God, it's an explanation of how something works. So using science is, imho, futile.

Regards

[Homer76]

Salaam Ron,


That's unfortunate. However, a person with religion doesn't have to be on the defensive. Not being so would nullify evolution being used against religion. Science is not in the business of disproving God, it's an explanation of how something works. So using science is, imho, futile.

I agree. Evolution has nothing to do with the proving or not proving the existence of God, the answer to that lies within ourselves.

However what I do want to focus on is that evolution is looked on less as a scientific theory and more as a religious movement. And like some false religion, a lot of cheating and lying is done in order to maintain it.

You spoke about the Big bang, do you know the reason why people focus on its flaws? Do you know the other alternative theories (perpetual existence) have no scientific basis are just proposed in order that the question of beginning do not come into question i.e. the idea that the universe might have been created!

Salaam Rataa,


Eventually speciation will occur. Speciation is not a simple process, however. Speciation can occur in a variety of ways. Speciation has been observed mainly in plants (Primrose, Fern) and, of course, in Drosophilia.

How will speciation occur? The example you give of plants the option has been hardwired into their DNA. Their makeup allows them to change.

Coming back to HY, the arguments against speciation are as follows:

1. Fossil record should reveal a lot of transitional forms Animals that are in-between species. No transitional forms have been found

2. The fossil record would be in a straight line i.e. showing transition of one animal to another. Again what has been found is that the same exact animals have been found millions of years ago

And really read the book it isin’t so bad. The point is these obvious flaws are looked over and not taught in school. What you then have are people who make ridiculous comments like “evolution is fact”.

Reagrds
Omair

[Ratatosk]

Salam,

Thank you for your post, Homer76.

Sorry to barge in on your discussion with Ron, but I thought there were some points in your post that I could address.

Evolution has nothing to do with the proving or not proving the existence of God, the answer to that lies within ourselves.Exactomundo.

[A] lot of cheating and lying is done in order to maintain [evolution].In such a case, the persons that'd do such a thing have left the realm of science.


[Do] you know the reason why people focus on its flaws?If a flaw or error is found in a theory that's like manna from heaven to scientists. That means the theory can be falsified and replaced with a theory that corrects the error. That's what scientists do.

How will speciation occur?For instance, when an isolated group of specimens obtain a set of characteristics -- by natural selection or otherwise -- that will make mating and reproduction with specimens from the original branch undesirable or even impossible, the group is regarded as a new species.

The example you give of plants the option has been hardwired into their DNA.I do not follow.

Their makeup allows them to change.I don't understand what you mean.

No transitional forms have been foundAu contraire, there are quite a lot of transitional forms. This seems to be an old favourite of both creationists and proponents of ID. Panderichthys, the forlorn-looking Tiktaalik (my present favourite), Archaeopteryx, Ambulocetus, Eurhinodelphis, Australopithecus, Hyracotherium, Basilosaurus, Aetiocetus, Kutchicetus, Thrinaxodon, et cetera, are all transitional.


The fossil record would be in a straight line i.e. showing transition of one animal to another.Speciation happens fairly quickly in the instances that have been observed.


Again what has been found is that the same exact animals have been found millions of years agoNot so. Not only that, where are the dinosaurs today?

And really read the book it isin’t so bad.I've read quite a lot of similar texts. They really are so bad. Moreover, they're not science books, regardless of how loudly they proclaim to be such.

The point is these obvious flaws are looked over and not taught in school.That the "flaws" would be glossed over when teaching about evolution is something that I'm not aware of. If that happens, it is sad indeed. Evolution scientists are, from what I've read, actually pointing out and focusing on the weaker links in the theory proper. That's what scientific research is all about.

A lot happens before a theory is presented as a theory;
scientists do observations
a hypothesis is presented as to what might have occured
the hypothesis in regard to the observation is tested
a theory is formulated
the theory is peer reviewed

A theory must adhere to a number of things. It must be falsifiable, it must make predictions, it must be testable, it must have limiting abilities, et cetera, et cetera, and so on and so forth. Even after such a meticulous process, it's still "just a theory" if you want to put it that way. There are numerous theories that have been proven to be untenable, such as Newtonian gravity, the Miasma Theory, Telegony, the Phlogiston Theory, and so on. These have all been superceded by other theories.

If you want to scrutinize a scientific theory and prove it "wrong", you must have another scientific theory ready to replace it with. This new theory must then be rigorously tested by the scientific community. If the new theory is deemed more solid than the previous one, it will become the de facto standard model, thus replacing the former model. When you understand this, you quickly realize ID can not, and will not ever replace the theory of evolution. ID is not science. As long as another scientific theory does not come along, the theory of evolution is the best thing we have. So far.

What you then have are people who make ridiculous comments like “evolution is fact”.In the same sense as the theory of relativity is "fact", yes.

Regards,

[Homer76]

Salam,



I do not follow.

It is part of their DNA to make the change. Similar to how some frogs can change their sex. It is not evolution but DNA. It is DNA similar to how lizards can grow their tail back. You can't call the evolution.



Au contraire, there are quite a lot of transitional forms. This seems to be an old favourite of both creationists and proponents of ID. Panderichthys, the forlorn-looking Tiktaalik (my present favourite), Archaeopteryx, Ambulocetus, Eurhinodelphis, Australopithecus, Hyracotherium, Basilosaurus, Aetiocetus, Kutchicetus, Thrinaxodon, et cetera, are all transitional.

Why don't you re-visit the evidence you have presented and confirm if the way it is presented to you is similar to the way it has been found?

What has happened is that fossils have been found all over the place and the "scientist" have gotten together and put them in order of size. They then present this as evolution.

This is exactly what you see in books as well. The picture of apes becoming a man.

There is no evidence linking them to each other. They could very well be different species or different animals that do not even live in the same place.

Placing the skeletons of a Chu-wawa next to slightly bigger dogs does not mean that a Chu-wawa evolved into a St. Bernard.



Speciation happens fairly quickly in the instances that have been observed.

Which instances? The one about flowers I have already addressed. Once again the genetic makeup of the flowers allows them to change.

When we humans grow in the womb our organs are formed. They form because our DNA has the information and blueprint of our body. We are meant to have the organs.

So the only way that our body can change is if NEW information is added to our DNA. The only way that can happen is mutation.

NO mutation has been observed that adds information to the DNA.


That the "flaws" would be glossed over when teaching about evolution is something that I'm not aware of. If that happens, it is sad indeed. Evolution scientists are, from what I've read, actually pointing out and focusing on the weaker links in the theory proper. That's what scientific research is all about.

Flaws are not glossed over sometimes completely inaccurate information is taught. That you are not aware is surprising. All you have to do is go to a high school pick up a book on biology and read about evolution.



A lot happens before a theory is presented as a theory;
scientists do observations
a hypothesis is presented as to what might have occured
the hypothesis in regard to the observation is tested
a theory is formulated
the theory is peer reviewed
A theory must adhere to a number of things. It must be falsifiable, it must make predictions, it must be testable, it must have limiting abilities, et cetera, et cetera, and so on and so forth. Even after such a meticulous process, it's still "just a theory" if you want to put it that way. There are numerous theories that have been proven to be untenable, such as Newtonian gravity, the Miasma Theory, Telegony, the Phlogiston Theory, and so on. These have all been superceded by other theories.


Exacatamondo. Falsifiable, predictable, and testable. If we just take these three and test evolution on it.



If you want to scrutinize a scientific theory and prove it "wrong", you must have another scientific theory ready to replace it with. This new theory must then be rigorously tested by the scientific community. If the new theory is deemed more solid than the previous one, it will become the de facto standard model, thus replacing the former model. When you understand this, you quickly realize ID can not, and will not ever replace the theory of evolution. ID is not science. As long as another scientific theory does not come along, the theory of evolution is the best thing we have. So far.

I am not trying to propose a new theory just pointing out the religious zeal of promoting only one contrary to all the evidence against it because scientist are uncomfortable with the alternative.



In the same sense as the theory of relativity is "fact", yes.

No sir relativity is still theory for the same reason that the Big Bang is still a theory even though both of them meet the criteria for Falsifiable, predictable, and testable.

Regards

[Ratatosk]

Salam,

It is part of [the plant's] DNA to make the change.I still do not understand what you mean. Sorry.

Similar to how some frogs can change their sex. It is not evolution but DNA.No-one is calling it evolution.

It is DNA similar to how lizards can grow their tail back. You can't call the evolution.For your answers it seems you do not understand what evolution is.

What has happened is that fossils have been found all over the place and the "scientist" have gotten together and put them in order of size. They then present this as evolution.Judging from your posts, I don't think you understand what evolution means. What I quoted is absolutely not what has happened.

The picture of apes becoming a man. There is no evidence linking them to each other.Perhaps this is nit-picking, but humans are apes. Plus there's an overwhelming amount of evidence linking us with the other apes. I have not a clue where you're going with this.

Placing the skeletons of a Chu-wawa next to slightly bigger dogs does not mean that a Chu-wawa evolved into a St. Bernard.I don't think you understand what speciation means. A Chihuahua is still a dog, just as the St. Bernard is.

Once again the genetic makeup of the flowers allows them to change.I don't think you understand what evolution means. Just because a specimen looks different doesn't mean it's a new species. If I get a tan and a haircut I'm still a human being.

So the only way that our body can change is if NEW information is added to our DNA. The only way that can happen is mutation.Not exactly, but close enough for the purpose of the conversation.

NO mutation has been observed that adds information to the DNA.I don't understand what you mean. I suspect you do not have a firm grasp of what consitutes information in the DNA helix, or perhaps you may not know what information theory is. There's a mind blowing amount of studies regarding DNA and how it mutates. A ton of studies were conducted by russian and international geneticists after the Chernobyl accident. Most forms of generational changes -- duplication and insertion are but some -- bring new information to the DNA helix. This is old hat to biologists and genetic scientists. I have no clue what you're on about.

Flaws are not glossed over sometimes completely inaccurate information is taught. That you are not aware is surprising. All you have to do is go to a high school pick up a book on biology and read about evolution.I challenge you, nay, I double challenge you, nay, I octuple challenge you to present evidence of this.

Falsifiable, predictable, and testable. If we just take these three and test evolution on it.Natural selection predicts isolated groups of individuals will develop characteristics and traits that will ultimately diverge the group from the initial branch and thus create a new species. This has been observed. Thus, the theory has been used to predict results which have then been observed. The theory has therefore been scientifically tested and it has passed the test. It is still falsifiable, whereas Intelligent Design is not. The theory of evolution has met all the three criteria you put forth. Intelligent Design meets not one criterion. Not one, nada, zilch, diddly, nought, zip, zippo, nil, zero.

I am not trying to propose a new theory just pointing out the religious zeal of promoting only one contrary to all the evidence against it because scientist are uncomfortable with the alternative.Scientists are not "uncomfortable" with Intelligent Design™. They just couldn't care less about the "evidence" presented.

Okay, I take that back. Perhaps some scientists are uncomfortable with Intelligent Design™. The reasons are not what you think, though. It's not regarding any "uncomfortable truth" or other such nonsense. Some members of the scientific community are worried public ignorance will result in lesser budgets and subsequently degraded quality of research.

[R]elativity is still theory for the same reason that the Big Bang is still a theory even though both of them meet the criteria for Falsifiable, predictable, and testable.Not exactly. The model publicly known as the Big Bang Theory is just that, a model. Strictly speaking the Big Bang Theory can not really be a theory, because is can neither predict anything, nor can it be tested. It is a cosmological model, and it is currently the one that best fits the observations. Other cosmological models -- such as the Steady State Model -- have been discarded due to them not fitting the observations.

Please keep in mind I have nothing against people believing what they choose to believe. What I have an issue w/ is ignorance. I especially loathe voluntary ignorance; the worst of it's kind. That's just how it is.

Regards,

[The_Other_Admin]

Strictly speaking the Big Bang Theory can not really be a theory, because is can neither predict anything, nor can it be tested.
Whoa! Explain that? Big bang theory predicted cosmic microwave background radiation. And testing includes Hubble's law and the expansion of space.

[Ratatosk]

Salam,

It might seem like a case of mere semantics to many, but Big Bang is actually a model, instead of a theory. The background radiation Wilson and Penzias accidentally stumbled upon was not predicted per se. There were numerous estimates as to what type and frequency of cosmic radiation there exists, some calculations were based on the now-discarded solid state cosmos. As so happens, the observation fits the Big Bang model and supports it.

The Big Bang model can, in the strictest sense, never make the quantum leap from hypothesis to theory. There are some characteristics of a theory that the Big Bang model can probably never have. For instance, we can probably never recreate another Big Bang and measure it in order to ascertain whether our maths is correct. Simulations will unfortunately fall short. Therefore, it cannot be tested. And so on. There's also the issue of falsification. The Big Bang model verges on being un-falsifiable, and would thus not meet the criteria for a theory.

On the other hand, if repeatable observations can be made that do not support the Big Bang model, it will be discarded and thrown on the ever growing junk pile of Yesteryear Science, and replaced by a new model that fits the observations. Thus, it could be seen as falsifiable. I rather doubt it will happen, tho.

Just because it should be seen as a model instead of a theory, doesn't make the Big Bang model any less valid, though. However, it's no biggie; if someone wants to call the Big Bang a theory, they can surely do so.

Oh, and Hubble's Law is a statement, an axiom based on observation. It's not Hubble's Theory. The clue is in the name. The axiom again fits the model and rather supports it.

When re-reading all of the above; it does seem just a little too nerdy, don't you think? After all, isn't 'intellectual' somewhat of a derogatory curse word nowadays?

Regards,

[The_Other_Admin]

As far as I know cosmic microwave background radiation is considered prediction of BB theory. So this physics lecture is wrong?


Big bang theory makes strong prediction: cosmic microwave background should have highly accurate blackbody spectrum. Tested by many observations after 1965 discovery.

25.7 EVALUATION OF THE BIG BANG THEORY
The big bang theory follows from plausible, empirically supported assumptions. Direct empirical support for the big bang theory comes from:

Hubble's law -> expansion, of type predicted.

Changes in the populations of galaxies and quasars with redshift (distance, time) -> universe was different in the past.

Agreement between cosmic expansion age and inferred ages of oldest stars -> universe had a beginning.

Abundance of helium, deuterium -> early universe was hot and dense; tests theory back to a few seconds after the big bang (at moderate precision).

Cosmic microwave background -> early universe was hot, dense, and opaque; tests theory back to about 500 years after the big bang (at very high precision).

http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~dhw/Intro/lec25.html


Here is another:


Radio Telescope Proves a Big Bang Prediction

After 271 20-hour nights of staring at the Antarctic sky, a radio telescope at the South Pole has confirmed a critical prediction of the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe, astronomers from the University of Chicago and the University of California announced here today.

The result reassured cosmologists that their theories of the universe were on track and pioneered a new technique that greatly increases cosmologists' ability to know what was going on in the early universe.

http://courses.washington.edu/phys55x/Radio%20Telescope%20Proves%20a%20Big%20Bang%20Pred iction.htm

[Ratatosk]

Salam,

Ya, it's a model alright.

Theory (n.): A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory".

Hypothesis (n.): A tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices".

Model (n.): A hypothetical description of a complex entity or process; "the computer program was based on a model of the circulatory and respiratory systems".Roughly speaking, a model assumes the validity of a wealth of theories, resting on no one in particular. In the popular press the two (model/theory) are seemingly used interchangably. But as said, it's no biggie. The word 'theory' is used and applied to most anything these days. If one wants to call it a theory, there's nothing inherently wrong with that. Strictly scientifically, the scientific community tends to mention it as a model, rather than a theory. You can, of course, use any word you want. No-one will blame you or anything.

To really cook your noodle, here's an excerpt from none other than NASA: "The Big Bang Model is a broadly accepted theory for the origin and evolution of our universe". (source) (http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bb1.html)

Regards,

[Homer76]

Salaam Rata,

This is not going anywhere. Your answers are all the same you think I do not know about evolution.

So let’s define it.

Evolution is a theory to explain how different species on Earth came to exist.

Evolution states that these species formed from existing animals using the following processes:

1. Natural Selection

When you stated Natural selection I pointed out that yes we do change from our parents BUT we do not become another species. Hence the extensive use of the word DNA is my posts to you.

We change but we change within a framework. A horse is still going to be a horse after many generations, the horse may be taller, stronger and bigger but at the end it will still be a horse.

So the above option is not under discussion, I understand it, you understand it, and you will naturally agree that although we can become the best we can within a species we will not grow longer neck to reach food by the above process.

2. Mutation

This is the main crux of the issue with the evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory states that we become different animals. You brought up Ape to Humans, but the DNA of ape and DNA of humans is worlds apart.
The only way that a species can then change is through MUTATION.

To which you replied:


There's a mind blowing amount of studies regarding DNA and how it mutates. A ton of studies were conducted by russian and international geneticists after the Chernobyl accident. Most forms of generational changes -- duplication and insertion are but some -- bring new information to the DNA helix. This is old hat to biologists and genetic scientists. I have no clue what you're on about.

Absolutely wrong! Observation of mutation in Chernobyl and in other cases only resulted in the destruction of the host. Mutations have only destroyed the DNA.

For something like evolution of Ape to Man the DNA of the ape must change to the DNA of Man. All mutation have done is cause Cancer.

Work on that.

Wa Salaam
Omair

[Ratatosk]

Salam Homer76,

Thank you for your post.

I hope you're in the best of health and emaan, insha'allah.

you think I do not know about evolution.I can only go by what you post. You might possess a wealth of knowledge in re evolution, but I can only judge that by what you write. You've written responses that are so far off the mark I've had no other option than to logically conclude you may not know the advanced concepts of evolution theory and genetic biology. If you do, and I have thus unknowingly offended you, please accept my apology.

So let’s define it.Evolution is defined as "changes in allelic frequency over time". I don't care what we define it as. If I'd be so inclined, I could define evolution as "the dance of invisible garden gnomes" ;), but then I'd only be able to discuss evolution with myself, since nobody else would agree with my definition.

When you stated Natural selection I pointed out that yes we do change from our parents BUT we do not become another species.Speciation, when it occurs, seems to be a rather quick process. Adverse environmental changes, destruction of habitat, and so on, will all redefine what will be considered a positive or detrimental change. From this all else follows.

A horse is still going to be a horse after many generations, the horse may be taller, stronger and bigger but at the end it will still be a horse.Indeed.

Evolutionary theory states that we become different animals.When speciation occurs, that's one way of wording it, yes.

You brought up Ape to Humans, but the DNA of ape and DNA of humans is worlds apart.It's not. The DNA sequences of humans and the other apes are profoundly alike. There's very little difference between us and bonobos, for instance. The variance in DNA sequencing between different humans blurs the border even more.

One thing of note, though: One quite common sight is the "humans and chimps are 99% similar". This is true of coding DNA sequences, of the DNA sequence itself, some 95% is the same. Remember that all the great apes -- orangutans, gorillas, humans and chimpanzees -- have a similar genetic structure. Please also keep in mind we have some 50% of our DNA sequence in common with an ordinary banana. The numbers, in fact, tell us nothing. The evidence is from, for instance, the possibility of crosshybrids between species and subspecies. As you mentioned horses; horses can in rare instances crossbreed with zebras, producing the cutest ever zorses, a horse/zebra hybrid. The zorses, as well as other zebroids, are infertile. Thus, even if crossbreeding can occur, no new species can usually emerge from these crosshybrids. If the species are too far apart genetically, no such thing can even occur.

The only way that a species can then change is through MUTATION.Pretty much.

Absolutely wrong!What are you "absolutely wronging" about? [1] (http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/chernobyl.html)[2] (http://www.nea.fr/html/rp/chernobyl/c05.html)[3] (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE7D61439F934A35756C0A9609582 60)[4] (http://www.creeca.wisc.edu/chernobyl2006/resources.html)[5] (http://www.chernobyl.info/index.php?userhash=&navID=30&lID=2) There's even a United Nations committee (http://www.unscear.org/) dedicated to the task.

Observation of mutation in Chernobyl and in other cases only resulted in the destruction of the host.The majority of mosquito offspring (the most commonly studied specimen) were not fit to live, if they even hatched at all. To nitpick, it wasn't as much the host but the offspring that was studied. But yes, roughly that's indeed what happened.

Mutations have only destroyed the DNA.Most mutations have no effect at all or are not in any way noticable. Of the one's that have any effect, the majority are non-beneficial or harmful. The DNA helix is seldom destroyed, however.

For something like evolution of Ape to Man the DNA of the ape must change to the DNA of Man.DNA consists of four major components; adenine, cytocine, thymine and guanine. There's also a ribose and phosphate "ladder" that holds millions of these compounds in the familiar helix formation. The way these are sequenced will determine what traits the specimen will inherit. In short, there's not really any "ape DNA" or "human DNA", only certain sequences that will produce an individual of a certain species. The replication of the DNA helix is never perfect, therefore the offspring will be a genetically unique individual. When and if the changes are inherited, the branch might/will ultimately have it's own recognizable traits. We will then call this branch with an equally unique identifier, such as "ape" or "man". Thus, it can all be seen as mere semantics.

Oh, by the by, human beings are apes.

All mutation have done is cause Cancer.Unfortunately not so. The CCR5 mutation found mainly in causasian/european people give the people w/ the mutated genome strengthened resistance to HIV/AIDS. And so on.

How about this:

Mutation (n.): changes to the nucleotide sequence of the genetic material of an organism. In biology, a mutation referes to any alteration in a gene from its natural state. This change may be disease causing or a benign, normal variant. Specific mutations and evolution cannot be predicted.


Work on that.I am.

Regards,

[Homer76]

Salaam Rata,

Alhumdullilah I am very well thank you.

There are two points you are making:

One:

That we change which each generation.

Your statements such as “Chernobyl victims being more resistant to Aids/HIV” show us that under certain conditions our biological functions improve. We can have darker skin in areas where there is more sunlight, our bodies will store more fat in areas where it is extremely cold etc.

That with each subsequent generation these traits will become more stronger.

You won’t find any one arguing against the above.

Let move on from this point and discuss the main point.

Two:

What evolutionist say: given time these small changes may result in say a four legged animal walking on two legs! Or an ape one day giving birth to a human! Or that a fish may one day develop LUNGS!

The above cannot happened by natural section it can only happen with a change in the DNA sequence. DNA changes only through mutations.

That is a leap of faith which unfortunately I cannot call scientific.

Please read the below article:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg17723863.200-yawning-gap-divides-monkeys-and-us.html

So if you agree that mutation are not beneficial but in fact are harmful how do you explain evolution occurred?

Wa Salaam

[Ratatosk]

Salam,

Thank you for your post.

There are two points you are making: One: That we change which each generation.We do. I doubt we're thinking of it in the same manner, though, but we do change with every generation. Ever so slightly, ever so slowly. The direction of change can just as well reverse, so there's no telling where these changes lead. Plus it takes perhaps hundreds of generations for a change to become even noticable.

Your statements such as “Chernobyl victims being more resistant to Aids/HIV” show us that under certain conditions our biological functions improve.From what I can recall I never stated any such thing. Nevertheless, even if that statement is pretty much entirely of your own making, your conclusion would be right if you'd only supply us with a quantifier in re what constitutes "improvement" in the case in question.

In a cold climate, a stockier build is "better", in a warm climate it's worse. The conditions are key.

We can have darker skin in areas where there is more sunlight, our bodies will store more fat in areas where it is extremely cold etc.Okay.

So, let's say a pasty white Norwegian guy moves to Kenya as a kid, lives there for 30 years and stays in the sun pretty much the whole time, getting in this time a very dark complexion. Say he meets a woman in Kenya, a woman strangely also from Norway, that has strangely also lived in Kenya for 30 years, picking up the same type of skin color, many shades darker than her pasty white Norwegian friendettes have. Say sparks fly twixt the twain and the two decide to marry, move back to the utterly dark and sunless northern Norway, and they have a baby. Do you think the child will be born dark or fair?

Further, say they met and befriended a married, local Kenyan couple whilst living in Kenya. The couple move to Norway with them, and they also have a baby, right there amidst the unforgiving, icy winds of the sunless north. Do you think the child will be born dark or fair?

In both cases, the child will have the same initial complexion from birth as the parents had from birth. If the parents have gotten a tan or a bit of excess weight doesn't make any difference at all.

That with each subsequent generation these traits will become more stronger.If the trait is genetic, inheritable and beneficial in the environment, then yes. If it's not genetic, not beneficial, and a product of the environment, then no.

You won’t find any one arguing against the above.I just did. :comma:

What evolutionist say: an ape one day giving birth to a human!Not to put too fine a point on it; in a biological sense it happens every day. Humans are apes. ;) We are. I'm one.

Or that a fish may one day develop LUNGS!Do you mean lungfish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lungfish)?


The above cannot happened by natural section it can only happen with a change in the DNA sequence. DNA changes only through mutations.Well, that's what scientists are saying every day. Evolution is "change in allelic frequency over time". In human language that means "our DNA, like, changes and stuff".

Evolution can only occur if the DNA can change. Lo and behold!, it does. That is what natural selection is all about, really.

The DNA sequence changes due to mutations. Tadaa! :eek: :awesome: :icon_smile_big:

That is a leap of faith which unfortunately I cannot call scientific.So let me get this straight; you agree with the scientific view, and you agree evolution happens through mutations, and you agree we change over time, and you agree speciation occurs, but still you cannot agree.., well, just because, it seems.

I don't understand you, I'm afraid. :huh:

So if you agree that mutation are not beneficial but in fact are harmful how do you explain evolution occurred?That's not what I wrote, and it's not the consensus of the scientific community. Most mutations are insignificant and have no effects on the individual whatsoever. The majority of the mutations that have an effect are not beneficial. The minority of mutations that have an effect on the individual are beneficial.

This thread has very little to do with the OP. Evolution in the making, it seems. :comma:

Regards,

[Homer76]

Salaam Rataa,

Thanks for your post looks like progress to me...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Homer76
You won’t find any one arguing against the above.

I just did.

Maybe you like arguing for the sake of arguing. Maybe you have already made up your mind and are not really interested in understanding another point of view.



Not to put too fine a point on it; in a biological sense it happens every day. Humans are apes. We are. I'm one.

Well I cannot speak for you, but I can assure you humans are not apes. Humans cannot breed with apes, we are quite different. I would advice you to read the article i posted earlier on the differences.




Evolution can only occur if the DNA can change. Lo and behold!, it does. That is what natural selection is all about, really.

So let me get this straight; you agree with the scientific view, and you agree evolution happens through mutations, and you agree we change over time, and you agree speciation occurs, but still you cannot agree.., well, just because, it seems.

I don't understand you, I'm afraid.


They can only change through Mutation! You are saying they do I am saying they don't! We agree on the mechanism. That IF change was to occur it could ONLY occur through mutation.

Your earlier comment:


We do. I doubt we're thinking of it in the same manner, though, but we do change with every generation. Ever so slightly, ever so slowly. The direction of change can just as well reverse, so there's no telling where these changes lead. Plus it takes perhaps hundreds of generations for a change to become even noticable.

But how can a complex organism that is full of complex organs come about from small changes?

In order for man to go from four legs to two legs several changes had to occur at the same time. Mutation in the ear, changes in muscle and skeletal structure. Independently these changes are useless. A mutation that cause change in skeletal structure and allows an ape to stand up is pretty useless unless another mutation occurs in the ear which gives the ape balance and it can stand. If the mutation in the ear does not occur, then we have an ape that is built to walk on two legs but cannot because it does not have balance. And because of the change which allow it to walk on two legs it cannot function well on four legs!

SO in order to stand on two legs, mutation in the ear happens, then mutation n in muscle and skeletal frame happen.

Then in order to perpetuate this mutation the ape must go looking for another ape that has gone to a similar process and mate with it. All the while praying that it is a member of the opposite sex!

Ignoring of course that they like each other, have similar moral values, and their parents agree to the marriage. I mean apes are similar to humans after all aren’t they so they must have the same issues....



The minority of mutations that have an effect on the individual are beneficial.

For example?

Regards
Homer

[Ratatosk]

Salam Homer76,

Should I move this to "general discussions", y'think? Or can it stay where it is? Seeing as this is no longer a discussion about the book/paper by the Harun Yahya group, but rather about creationism/evolution, perhaps it'd be better suited somewhere else. On the other hand, it's just as pertinent where it is.


Maybe you like arguing for the sake of arguing.Not really. ;)

The reason(s) I partake in conversations such as this are many. Perhaps mostly it's due to a person or organisation presenting an issue as something else. If it happens due to ignorance, it's understandable. If it's not, it's a lie. Personally, I do not find spreading lies to be an honorable profession. Therefore I choose to fight ignorance wherever I encounter it. I trust you do the same.

Again, I have no problem with people believing whatever it is they do. People can believe we came out of a flower which was watered by a giantesse's tears for all I care. Or shaped from trees as the norse believed. Regarding such beliefs, I have as much respect for the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Invisible Pink Unicorn as I have for the other systems of belief. What I have a problem with is when observable reality must be denied in order to fit an un-observable, arbitrary point-of-view and when this reality denial is being shoved down the throat of people. When pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo is presented as science, I take offence. When a group gets or takes privileges at the sometimes brutal expense of others solely for the reason they share the same exclusive belief, I take offence. When lies and violence are justified and when murder is condoned, I take offence.

I trust you do, too.

Well I cannot speak for you, but I can assure you humans are not apes.You can assure me all you want. ;) This is, however, what the encyclopedia definition is:

ape
(n.): 1. a large, tailless Old World primates of the family Pongidae, including the chimpanzee, gorilla, gibbon, and orangutan 2. a member of the biological family Hominidae including humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans 3. any of various primates with short tails or no tail at all 4. mimic or imitator. 5. a clumsy or boorish person
(tr.v.), aped, ap·ing, apes.
1. to mimic slavishly but often with an absurd result 2. imitate
(idiom) go ape
to become wildly excited or enthusiastic: 'went ape at the party; goes ape over Thai cuisine'.

Humans cannot breed with apes, we are quite different.I don't know what you mean. We are apes. "Ape" is just a name for the 'category' of animals we belong to. As most other animals in our vicinity we're also mammals and warm blooded and land dwellers, among other things.
We belong to the branch called "the great apes". We are, in fact, apes. If you want me to make it clearer, I could naturally litter the post with links and references and sources, but you can just as easily enter "ape" into the Google™ search engine yourself and check any of the links that will magically appear on your computer screen. Every single one of them will tell you the above. We are apes. Humans are apes. We belong to the kingdom Animalia, the phylum Chordata, the class Mammalia, the order Primates, the suborder Haplorrhini, the infraorder Simiiformes, the parvorder Catarrhini, the superfamily Hominoidea, and finally the family Hominidae.

In short, we are apes.

I would advice you to read the article i posted earlier on the differences.You posted a link to a tiny article about monkeys. It was interesting, although not very thorough.

But how can a complex organism that is full of complex organs come about from small changes?You've pondered the fact this has taken billions of generations, yes?

A mutation that cause change in skeletal structure and allows an ape to stand up is pretty useless unless another mutation occurs in the ear which gives the ape balance and it can stand.I don't know where you got that from, but many of our fellow earthlings that normally walk on four legs can balance very well on two legs. Most mammals have the required vestibular organ in the inner ear. It can be found in the simplest amphibians and fish, too.

SO in order to stand on two legs, mutation in the ear happens, then mutation n in muscle and skeletal frame happen.The consensus regarding the structural change in the pelvis is due to a bigger cranium of the infant. Humans, as you know, aren't even "ready" when they're born. All of us are, to put it bluntly, premature. The skull isn't even closed yet when we're born.

The human female's birth canal is the biggest in the animal world, compared to body size. The shape of the pelvis allows the abnormally big infant head to pass the canal relatively unharmed, and the shape is incompatible with a four legged gait. Only an upright gait is compatible with a pelvis of such width. Chimpanzee females, for instance, have a significantly narrower pelvis and could never give birth to an infant with such a big head (and subsequently big brain, of course).

Further, we humans aren't even fully developed when we're born. The brain is still very malleable, and continues a very rapid expansion after birth. The skull is very soft at birth, allowing the head to be 'squeezed' through the birth canal. Our other ape cousins do not have that luxury. Apes in the wild must be more or less instantly capable. In other words, they will emerge almost fully developed. Chimps and bonobos are, however, quite helpless the first years of their life. This is due to them having partly the same trait; the infant's brain isn't yet fully capable at birth. In "lower" mammals this is not the case.

Regards,

[Homer76]

Salaam Rat,

What a way to begin the new year a war on Gaza. Have been busy with that so therfore did not reply. I would like to take it easy on this thread and spend most of my online time supporting the people in Gaza. So you may not get a prompt reply.

Lets take a few miutes to pray each day for them as well.

I agree this should go to the general discussion.


I don't know where you got that from, but many of our fellow earthlings that normally walk on four legs can balance very well on two legs. Most mammals have the required vestibular organ in the inner ear. It can be found in the simplest amphibians and fish, too.

There is a difference between standying on two legs for a few minutes and actually walking on two legs. As I said earlier all things need to be in place in order to do so.

Not only that but then this mutated Ape must look around for another mutated pae in order to procreate and make more mutated apes that can stand on two legs.

You see how absurd this sounds? This is exactly what evolutionist say happens.

[Ratatosk]

Salam,

I'm gonna close this thread. If you want to continue debating the issue, open a new thread in the appropriate forum.

As a parting message, the point you raised has been answered in this thread already.

Thank you for your post, tho.

Thread closed.

Regards,