So evolution, this debate has been done over and over again. I guess it doesn’t hurt to go over it again. I previously had a lengthy debate with James on this, at one point in the debate James had lost it and I had to call the debate off as he could not intellectually defend himself. So anyway lets get the ball rolling, however before do that let me mention that I do not proofread my posts and my grammar sucks so there will be typographical errors in this post, and I do not want someone pointing that out to be – I also happen to be a dyslexic.

Now, firstly any propagator of the theory of evolution always states that life started in the water, which is a pretty strong hypothesis however like all theories it has its pitfalls. The majority of the earth is covered in water here is an image of the earth taken view space: http://www.solstation.com/stars/earth.jpg
now anyone can see this is factual claim. I would like to ask the propagators and the proliferators of the theory of evolution why would land animals (Side note: for the sake of argument we will also let humans fall into this category) which were originally in the sea as the theory of evolution states put themselves at a serious and catastrophic disadvantage if true that animals originally evolved out of fish like creatures. Why would animals evolve out of the sea and start colonizing the land? This does not seem to make any sense – now I have herd the argument over and over again that the land was better for the animals as there was abundant of food and less threat, this argument is weak at best for the reason that. Adaptation to the new environment would have had to been rapid, what happens if you take a fish out of the see and put it on the land? (Done thinking?) It dies we all know evolution takes a very long time and this adaptation would had to be abrupt which would contradict evolution at a none microscopic level throughout the world we would see fossil evidence we would see abrupt changes in the fossil record, yet we don’t. Even so, why would animals move out of the sea where there were abundant recourses? Why move onto the land where there was danger natural disasters the climate ect, ect.
Also, why would the evidence appear to be in one zone? I.e. Africa?

Furthermore, we would also see fossils that are going through a transition and are caught in the middle, just because something is “evolving” into another species doesn’t mean it can’t die why do we not find this in the fossil record?

Evolution is just an idea created by man to explain the unexplainable. In actuality, there is just a long list of creatures that Chuck Norris allows to live.

Evolution is just a term created by man to explain the unexplainable. In actuality, there is just a long list of creatures that Chuck Norris allows to live.

god bless chuck norris
wait god is chuck norris :p

I'm kidding. I'm Christian.

I'm kidding. I'm Christian.

well im atheist so ill make old chuck my god

Evolution is just an idea created by man to explain the unexplainable. In actuality, there is just a long list of creatures that Chuck Norris allows to live.


Interesting. But I wander what the human fish would say about that... lol

I also happen to be a dyslexic.
You also happen to be uneducated in even the basics of biology and evolution, a religiously brainwashed and indoctrinated child, and a bothersome loathsome annoying troll who is incapable of, and unwilling to, conducting a logical argument.

For all these reasons, I strongly urge people to not waste their time “debating” with this established troll.

Adaptation to the new environment would have had to been rapid, what happens if you take a fish out of the see and put it on the land? (Done thinking?) It dies...

A wonderful analogy of yourself and this thread.

You also happen to be uneducated in even the basics of biology and evolution, a religiously brainwashed and indoctrinated child, and a bothersome loathsome annoying troll who is incapable of, and unwilling to, conducting a logical argument.

For all these reasons, I strongly urge people to not waste their time “debating” with this established troll.


Whether I am a troll or not I still have an argument. Me being a troll doesn't nullify my argument.

Oh and by the way...

You are a precociously babbling subhuman and a maladjusted, enema-addicted cacophonous catastrophe

http://img83.imageshack.us/img83/5035/lifeformi0zl.th.jpg (http://img83.imageshack.us/my.php?image=lifeformi0zl.jpg)

I COULD ELABORATE... but that should be clear enough...

-MT

Evolution is simply a myth the Flying Spaghetti Monster allows us to entertain for His own amusement.

The amusing part being, nobody who believes in evolution is alllowed into His heaven (complete with stripper factory and beer volcano)!

A wonderful analogy of yourself and this thread.

Thou villainous ill-breeding baggage! - (verse: 2/1 Book Of STFU)

Me being a troll doesn't nullify my argument.
You don’t have an argument in the first place, fool. :rolleyes: Nothing that you’ve said even remotely resembles the theory of evolution. It’s simply your own uneducated fantasy strawman version. There’s nothing to discuss.

allah-
mohammed-
dynamite-
there is muslims ideal evolution

muslim
if you have discussed this before then you would know that scientists treat evolution and abiogenesis as two different topics

The theory of evolution is the equivalent of the "earth is flat" theory; just modernized. You just have to train yourself to see and recognize bullshit for what it is. The true fact is that humans will never know, quantitatively speaking, their state of affairs because that type of knowledge is impossible. It is impossible because there is no such thing as time travel and no one was alive to record these events taking place (maybe Chuck Norris).

So, any theory is just speculation, even evolution.

So, any theory is just speculation, even evolution.

So is Christianity, by your reasoning.

The theory of evolution is the equivalent of the "earth is flat" theory; just modernized. You just have to train yourself to see and recognize bullshit for what it is. The true fact is that humans will never know, quantitatively speaking, their state of affairs because that type of knowledge is impossible. It is impossible because there is no such thing as time travel and no one was alive to record these events taking place (maybe Chuck Norris).

So, any theory is just speculation, even evolution.
All we ever have is speculation, confirmed to a greater or lesser degree. Evolution is speculation confirmed to a high degree.

Awww man, not this shit again.

Even so, why would animals move out of the sea where there were abundant resources? Why move onto the land where there was danger natural disasters the climate ect, ect.

I believe it is thought that those creatures first because amphibious (i.e. lived both in the sea and on land) so that they could lay their eggs where predators could not get at them. Natural disasters (rare) are not as serious a threat as other animals eating your eggs/newborns (probably numerous and actively seeking).

The next step would be the development of species that could make use of land based plant life.

The rest is l'histoire.

SoLiDUS:

Awww man, not this shit again.

Some feces have a tendency to float more than others. Depends on the composition.

I believe it is thought that those creatures first because amphibious (i.e. lived both in the sea and on land) so that they could lay their eggs where predators could not get at them. Natural disasters (rare) are not as serious a threat as other animals eating your eggs/newborns (probably numerous and actively seeking).

The next step would be the development of species that could make use of land based plant life.

The rest is l'histoire.
Yes Blue_UK. At the time of the move to dry land, the land was a much less hostile environment than the sea. There were a virtually unlimited number of niches to occupy.

Chrisitianity is not about proof, while evolution is.

It is a fact that human kind will continue to speculate until it ceases to exist; continuing in his attempts to explain events that happened way before his time.

You call Christians crazy for choosing to have "faith" and simply exist when scientists strive for what can not be acheived? Don't take this as anti-science, take this as anti-life explanation.

We are fish in a fish bowl. Just because the thinker fish can see outside of its fish bowl and make reasonable theories as to its existence, it can never be 100% accurate. They can never know all the variables of the outside world.

So you athiest and scientist continue on your endless expedition, while we belivers choose to sumbit to something larger than ourselves. At least, we creationist aren't striving for the impossible.

Chrisitianity is not about proof, while evolution is.

It is a fact that human kind will continue to speculate until it ceases to exist; continuing in his attempts to explain events that happened way before his time.

You call Christians crazy for choosing to have "faith" and simply exist when scientists strive for what can not be acheived? Don't take this as anti-science, take this as anti-life explanation.

We are fish in a fish bowl. Just because the thinker fish can see outside of its fish bowl and make reasonable theories as to his existence, it can never be 100% accurate. They can never know all the variables to the outside world.

So you athiest and scientist continue on your endless expedition, while we belivers choose to sumbit to something larger than ourselves. At least, we creationist aren't striving for the impossible.
You seem to be quite angry and close-minded on this subject. A firmer understandig of how science works and what you can expect from it might be helpful. There are many websites that can help.

First of all, I am not angry or close minded. Second, damn, you are disillusioned. You have so much faith in your science. Yes science is a reality, but it is not an end within itself. Why can you not understand this?

Our science is limited. You can't even tell me why a scorpion glows under ultra-violet light.

With the help of science, you've discovered a little about yourself. Now you think you're the shit?

It is difficult enough finding these creatures during the day, but at night it is a different story. When looking for scorpions scientists use an ultraviolet light. At night, under normal torch light (white light) scorpions are impossible to detect. Their cryptic colouration and ability to hide at the mere flicker of a light makes them difficult to locate. Under Ultra Violet (UV) light however, scorpions emit an eerie greenish glow. On dark nights small species can be seen from many meters away. It is not uncommon to see over 200 individuals in good scorpion habitats. We do not understand why they glow, but they do. "Unfortunately, warthog holes, barbed wire fences and large mammals do not glow under UV light making scorpion collecting an exciting pastime in big five country," jokes scorpion expert Jonathan Leeming.

The bold phrase above is science, as life explanation, in a nutshell.

First of all, I am not angry or close minded. Second, damn, you are disillusioned. You have so much faith in your science. Yes science is a reality, but it is not an end within itself. Why can you not understand this?
Of course it's not an end within itself. It's a constant journey to gain a deeper and deeper understandig of our place in the cosmos, wouldn't you agree?

Our science is limited. You can't even tell me why a scorpion glows under ultra-violet light.
Clearly it's limited as are all things. But I can certainly tell you that by bombarding a scorpion with UV you are exciting outer electrons in the atom of the carapace of the scorpion that, upon returning to their ground state, emit that charachteristic glow.

With the help of science, you've discovered a little about yourself.
Why yes. Yes I have.

Now you think you're the shit?
No. I am quite humble before the vastness of the cosmos. Aren't you?

We do not understand why they glow, but they do.
The bold phrase above is science, as life explanation, in a nutshell.

Oh my. I'm certain that some biologist will eventually examine the protiens present in the scorpions outer layers and it will become clear why they happen to glow under UV.

So, why should I believe what a scientist tells me now about how animals behaved millions of years ago when he can not explain to me now about the proteins present in the exoskeleton of a scorpion?

The real question about the scorpions glowing under UV would be rather more pertinent to the thread topic, don't you think?

The mechanics of it are quite basic and can easily be answered by crushing the exoskeleton, examining its bits, and determining which molecule (or molecules) in the exoskeleton glow under UV light.

But, the real question is not HOW but rather WHY.
What benefit does the scorpion gain from having this particular property? Does it gain any? Is it merely a random thing that is neither beneficial nor detrimental? Is it selected for? Is it an adaptive trait or is it exapted?

I have this hunch that perhaps scorpions can see farther into the ultraviolet than we can and thus this particular adaptation (if adaptation it is) makes fellow scorpions stand out.

Unfortunately, I'd also think that this makes the scorpions the targets of other creaturs that also share the ability to see farther into the UV spectrum.

Perhaps the benefits outweigh the detriments? They must for the trait to persist as it has.
Also, the scorpion is not exactly defenseless so perhaps is not too overly worried about being spotted by most animals?

The question then becomes what are the predators of scorpions and what frequencies of radiation do they perceive visually? Are they able to perceive the glowing of the scorpion shell?

I'd think the main predator would be birds.
And I doubt they do see far into the UV.

So.
Hmm.
Why?
So many possible avenues of exploration.

But, it is important to seperate the why and the how. How is easy. Why is more abstract.

So, why should I believe what a scientist tells me now about how animals behaved millions of years ago when he can not explain to me now about the proteins present in the exoskeleton of a scorpion?
The current lack of an explanation for a scorpion's UV glow falls in the category of the billions of other interesting tidbits of the natural world, namely that no one has bothered to look at it yet. As for belief, there's no need. All you do is accept it as a highly plausable scenario pending further discoveries. You can research the details if you like. There are clues to how animals behaved millions of years ago, but clearly we don't know the thousands of details of animal life in the Jurassic, and no one claims to.

The real question about the scorpions glowing under UV would be rather more pertinent to the thread topic, don't you think?

The mechanics of it are quite basic and can easily be answered by crushing the exoskeleton, examining its bits, and determining which molecule (or molecules) in the exoskeleton glow under UV light.

But, the real question is not HOW but rather WHY.
What benefit does the scorpion gain from having this particular property? Does it gain any? Is it merely a random thing that is neither beneficial nor detrimental? Is it selected for? Is it an adaptive trait or is it exapted?

I have this hunch that perhaps scorpions can see farther into the ultraviolet than we can and thus this particular adaptation (if adaptation it is) makes fellow scorpions stand out.

Unfortunately, I'd also think that this makes the scorpions the targets of other creaturs that also share the ability to see farther into the UV spectrum.

Perhaps the benefits outweigh the detriments? They must for the trait to persist as it has.
Also, the scorpion is not exactly defenseless so perhaps is not too overly worried about being spotted by most animals?

The question then becomes what are the predators of scorpions and what frequencies of radiation do they perceive visually? Are they able to perceive the glowing of the scorpion shell?

I'd think the main predator would be birds.
And I doubt they do see far into the UV.

So.
Hmm.
Why?
So many possible avenues of exploration.

But, it is important to seperate the why and the how. How is easy. Why is more abstract.
Indeed!

The real question about the scorpions glowing under UV would be rather more pertinent to the thread topic, don't you think?

The mechanics of it are quite basic and can easily be answered by crushing the exoskeleton, examining its bits, and determining which molecule (or molecules) in the exoskeleton glow under UV light.

But, the real question is not HOW but rather WHY.
What benefit does the scorpion gain from having this particular property? Does it gain any? Is it merely a random thing that is neither beneficial nor detrimental? Is it selected for? Is it an adaptive trait or is it exapted?

I have this hunch that perhaps scorpions can see farther into the ultraviolet than we can and thus this particular adaptation (if adaptation it is) makes fellow scorpions stand out.

Unfortunately, I'd also think that this makes the scorpions the targets of other creaturs that also share the ability to see farther into the UV spectrum.

Perhaps the benefits outweigh the detriments? They must for the trait to persist as it has.
Also, the scorpion is not exactly defenseless so perhaps is not too overly worried about being spotted by most animals?

The question then becomes what are the predators of scorpions and what frequencies of radiation do they perceive visually? Are they able to perceive the glowing of the scorpion shell?

I'd think the main predator would be birds.
And I doubt they do see far into the UV.

So.
Hmm.
Why?
So many possible avenues of exploration.

But, it is important to seperate the why and the how. How is easy. Why is more abstract.

I need to write a book entitled "The Transformation from Myth into Science".

I need to write a book entitled "The Transformation from Myth to Science".
If I may ask, what is your background in science?

You don't need a scientific background to write the book. All you need is to sample random jibber jabber from people like you.

You don't need a scientific background to write the book. All I need is random jibber jabber from people like you.
I can see that responding to you is pointless. Thanks for convincing me not to waste anymore time in that respect. Enjoy your time at sciforums! :)

No one who disputes evolution on this thread has offered an alternative explanation for the state of biology on Earth.

What is it that you're suggesting? The Divine Watchmaker theory has been around for almost as long as evolution. An advanced being created the universe at some point in our past, including all the evidence that makes it look like it developed naturally. The fossils with the right rate of C-14 decay, the DNA, the light already in transit with images of galaxies twelve billion years old, all of it. This theory can't be proven or refuted. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, and anybody who can create a star-filled universe that is several billion light-years across has got some pretty nifty technology.

What we--or at least I--have no respect for is the contention that in the middle of a more or less normal, scientifically explainable prehistory proceeding according to the natural laws that we have been able to uncover, some advanced being started meddling and doing things that violate those natural laws. I guess my favorite is the one about how tigers used to be herbivorous because there was no "evil" in the world (and carnivory is apparently "evil" according to this sect of steak-eating Christians) until Eve and the apple. We've got the remains of tigers going back tens of thousands of years and they all have the physiology of carnivores; they could not have survived long enough to mate and breed by eating plants.

As for gaps in the fossil record, paleontology has been kicked into high gear over the last two or three decades and we've been filling those gaps pretty quickly. They just found one of your precious "missing links" in class Aves (birds) a couple of weeks ago. A bunch of fossils so well preserved you could see the softer tissue. Real feathers, but not enough of them to do anything better than glide, and real claws at the wingtips. How many more of these things do you have to see to start getting it?

The remains of dead animals are treated very savagely by nature. If there's any miracle going on, it's the fact that we find any of them at all! A dead animal has to fall into just the right place where it will not dissolve, decay, become scavenger food, be mangled into fragments by growing tree roots, or suffer a million other fates. The fact that we have not yet found every single missing link is hardly persuasive evidence that those missing links never existed.

Besides, we've got DNA analysis now to fill in the gaps in the fossil record. DNA analysis has really straightened out our understanding of the evolution of a lot of lifeforms. Take whales for instance. Turns out they are not related to seals, something we all know now but it was an obvious first hypothesis. And they are not the descendants of bears, who love water and are good at fishing, which was also a good guess. They descended from hippopotamus-like creatures, who already spend most of their time in the river and could have tried swimming further out to sea and liked the food they found there. Some taxonomists have already demoted cetaceans from an order unto themselves and are classifying them as a sub-order of the artiodactyls. (Even-toed hooved mammals.)

Most of the objections to evolution are from religious fundamentalists who are uncomfortable with the prospect of humans not having some truly unique quality to elevate us above all other lifeforms. Having been planted here directly by the hand of a "god" so as not to be related to the other primates, much less the slugs and amoebae, really makes us special and explains why that "god" would be paying so much attention to us and not caring about the damage we do to the habitats of his other creatures.

I wouldn't worry too much about it. We've discovered that birds use tools, dolphins have names, dogs behave morally, monkeys make long-range plans, and--drum roll please--at least two other species of apes can learn to "speak" in American Sign Language.

The thesis that we are unique and the special little pets of some "god" is rapidly falling apart.

I can see that responding to you is pointless. Thanks for convincing me not to waste anymore time in that respect. Enjoy your time at sciforums! :)

Says the man who has no more defense. Good night.

I need to write a book entitled "The Transformation from Myth into Science".

You don't need a scientific background to write the book. All you need is to sample random jibber jabber from people like you.

You don't understand what science is, do you?

What I wrote could well be classified as Myth. Why? Because it was all creative outpouring with little to no basis in empirical study.

What I did was pour forth some possible avenues of exploration. Different facets which might be turned towards in a scientific investigation of why scorpions glow under UV radiation.

Science would come later. Science would be a winnowing of the creative outpourings.
A narrowing of the 'hunch'. A negating or a tentative affirming pending further study.

So. You could write a book called The Transformation of Myth to Science, but to do so with the information presented to you in this thread alone, you'd simply be writing a mythos. You'd have only half the tale. Perhaps less than half.

But, you are a christian so you are comfortable with such an enterprise, yes?

The shaman is alive and well in you and your brethren.
In a way.
A sad way.
The shaman exists as a static portrait handed down and made holy with the weight of tradition.
A tradition which you fear to examine too closely.
A tradition which is and will always be.
The shaman created.
You simply parrot.

So. Please. Write the book. The shaman is much better than the parrot.
If you truly awaken the shaman within yourself, maybe you'll someday come to the realization that such creative outflowings need a leash to be productive.

That leash is science, young grasshopper.

You don't understand what science is, do you?

What I wrote could well be classified as Myth. Why? Because it was all creative outpouring with little to no basis in empirical study.

What I did was pour forth some possible avenues of exploration. Different facets which might be turned towards in a scientific investigation of why scorpions glow under UV radiation.

Science would come later. Science would be a winnowing of the creative outpourings.
A narrowing of the 'hunch'. A negating or a tentative affirming pending further study.

So. You could write a book called The Transformation of Myth to Science, but to do so with the information presented to you in this thread alone, you'd simply be writing a mythos. You'd have only half the tale. Perhaps less than half.

But, you are a christian so you are comfortable with such an enterprise, yes?

The shaman is alive and well in you and your brethren.
In a way.
A sad way.
The shaman exists as a static portrait handed down and made holy with the weight of tradition.
A tradition which you fear to examine too closely.
A tradition which is and will always be.
The shaman created.
You simply parrot.

So. Please. Write the book. The shaman is much better than the parrot.
If you truly awaken the shaman within yourself, maybe you'll someday come to the realization that such creative outflowings need a leash to be productive.

That leash is science, young grasshopper.

You have a good point, but don't get me wrong. I come in here to be argumentative and to have fun; so by nature I structure my arguments in a fashion in which benefits me.

The same could be said for Mythos-Science, the Transformation of. The scientist begins, not wanting solely to understand a phenomena, but to prove his initial guess to be true. In proving his initial guess to be actual reality, he therefore proves that he was smart enough to have known without empirical evidence.

So, I guess humankind has given the label "creationist" to the wrong group.

The scientist begins, not wanting solely to understand a phenomena, but to prove his initial guess to be true. In proving his initial guess to be actual reality, he therefore proves that he was smart enough to have known without empirical evidence.

Absolutely.
This is a large danger to science.
As a determined individual could simply structure his experiments and research in such a way as to further any particular agenda he has to begin with.

This is where peer-review enters the process.

Peer-review is not infallible and is subject to the ever-present paradigm which solidifies present knowledge and seeks to supplant those who go against the mainstream.

Science is rife with traditionalists.
I hesitate to say just as many traditionalists as you'd find in religion though...

But, given time and perseverance, science has achieved wonders.

Look at where science has brought us in such a short time.

Your religion based upon the quaint personal totem of Abraham has had thousands of years to better the planet. It's failed. It offers nothing but pablum and purposeful blindness.

Science has raised us from dirt-eaters to being on the verge of understanding the grail of grails. Consciousness itself.


I note that you earlier used the old "You think you're the shit" line earlier.

Science is far more 'the shit' than religion.
Empirically so.

Don't get me wrong.
Religion served a purpose once.
And perhaps even now could be harnessed towards beneficial ends.
But, it is stale and dogmatized. It was created for a far different social structure than the one to which it is now applied.

Religion seeks to drag humanity back to the times which it was created for.

Chrisitianity is not about proof, while evolution is.

No, evolution is about generation of diversity and natural selection, both which have been observed. You too can observe evolution.

It is a fact that human kind will continue to speculate until it ceases to exist; continuing in his attempts to explain events that happened way before his time.

But, maybe you're wrong, maybe we won't cease to exist and will instead continue to evolve, to learn and gain knowledge, and perhaps eventually explain those events in great detail.

You call Christians crazy for choosing to have "faith" and simply exist when scientists strive for what can not be acheived? Don't take this as anti-science, take this as anti-life explanation.

That is quite the defeatist attitude - are you anti-life? And again, you could be very wrong about what science will achieve.

We are fish in a fish bowl. Just because the thinker fish can see outside of its fish bowl and make reasonable theories as to its existence, it can never be 100% accurate. They can never know all the variables of the outside world.

Perhaps one day we will. Us thinker fishes are quite persistent, you know.

So you athiest and scientist continue on your endless expedition, while we belivers choose to sumbit to something larger than ourselves. At least, we creationist aren't striving for the impossible.

No, only the imaginable.

And don't worry about the endless expeditions, we know you Christians will sit back in blissful submission, riding the shirt-tails of scientists successes, as you've always done in the past and will continue to do, in spite of yourselves.

Having lived in the water for most of my life, I can tell you exactly what the evolutionary advantages are of leaving the water for the land:
1) Different menu
2) Prettier girls
3) You can smoke and drink (something other than ocean toilet water)
4) You only have to worry about being attacked from the front, back, sides, and sometimes above. If you live in the water, take my word for it, death can come out of nowhere and from any direction. It's a jungle down there.

This thread really lacks any direction due to the fact that Muslim asks so many different and diverse open-ended questions. I really don't know what he is after.

The Earth was formed by "condensation and accretion" over 4.6 bya. The moon 4.5 bya. First there was water then there was life then life came out of the water onto land. We have recent fossil evidence of all this and it is posted on threads under "Biology and Genetics." The earliest evidence of life is now thought to be the plankton that gave off oxygen and formed the Banded Iron Formtions in Geenland, but this is debateable. Either way, life evolved from "chemical evolution" about 4 bya.

"4 Billion years ago. The Archaea branch of life may have begun this far back in time. (SFC, 8/23/96, p.A21) The first life forms on Earth were coacervates that formed from lipid aggregations and hydrophobic interactions. It was a reducing atmosphere back then but there were energy sources that put things like coacervates together: solar radiation, volcanic eruptions, radioactive decay released heat, lightning storms, etc. The coacervate was the first step to cellular organization!!! Prokaryotes were then able to form after coacervates and from then on came cyanobacteria. Cyanobacteria increased the levels of Oxygen in the atmosphere from 1% to 21% which formed ozone. Ozone then filtered uv light which allowed all life forms to then come on land instead of living in the ocean. Eukaryotes like us were then able to evolve." http://timelines.ws/0000BB_416MIL.HTML
See also "Banded Iron Formations" http://earthweb.ess.washington.edu/~jelte/essays/BIFs.doc

Then of course we have abundant evidence of cyanobacteria 3.85 bya from Southwestern Australia.

The oldest fossil fish date to 530 mya and are coming out of the Chengjiang fauna in Yunan Province, China.

The best transition species to land that we now have is Tiktaalik roseae, 375 million years ago. Found through a highly concerted effort by teams of geologists and bioligists at Ellesmere Island, north of the Arctic Circle in Canada. I'm citing an MSNBC article so that you can see an "artist's conception" but you can easily access the original article in the journal Nature.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/060405/060405_nsf-fish_hmed_11a.h2.jpg

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/060405/060405_fishfossil_hlg9a.standard.jpghttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12168265/from/RS.3/

I don't know what else Muslim is after unless he articulates his questions one at a time - being more concise and specific.

Yes Blue_UK. At the time of the move to dry land, the land was a much less hostile environment than the sea. There were a virtually unlimited number of niches to occupy.

So they went from, only being able to breath in the water to breathing on the land? that doesn't make any sense why do we no find any evidence of this? why isn't there any abrupt changes in the fossil record? This is a very weak argument you guys present, one minute you say evolution takes billions/millions of years and the next minuted you say these creatures came out the water and started to breath on the land over night.

This thread really lacks any direction due to the fact that Muslim asks so many different and diverse open-ended questions. I really don't know what he is after.

The Earth was formed by "condensation and accretion" over 4.6 bya. The moon 4.5 bya. First there was water then there was life then life came out of the water onto land. We have recent fossil evidence of all this and it is posted on threads under "Biology and Genetics." The earliest evidence of life is now thought to be the plankton that gave off oxygen and formed the Banded Iron Formtions in Geenland, but this is debateable. Either way, life evolved from "chemical evolution" about 4 bya.

"4 Billion years ago. The Archaea branch of life may have begun this far back in time. (SFC, 8/23/96, p.A21) The first life forms on Earth were coacervates that formed from lipid aggregations and hydrophobic interactions. It was a reducing atmosphere back then but there were energy sources that put things like coacervates together: solar radiation, volcanic eruptions, radioactive decay released heat, lightning storms, etc. The coacervate was the first step to cellular organization!!! Prokaryotes were then able to form after coacervates and from then on came cyanobacteria. Cyanobacteria increased the levels of Oxygen in the atmosphere from 1% to 21% which formed ozone. Ozone then filtered uv light which allowed all life forms to then come on land instead of living in the ocean. Eukaryotes like us were then able to evolve." http://timelines.ws/0000BB_416MIL.HTML
See also "Banded Iron Formations" http://earthweb.ess.washington.edu/~jelte/essays/BIFs.doc

Then of course we have abundant evidence of cyanobacteria 3.85 bya from Southwestern Australia.

The oldest fossil fish date to 530 mya and are coming out of the Chengjiang fauna in Yunan Province, China.

The best transition species to land that we now have is Tiktaalik roseae, 375 million years ago. Found through a highly concerted effort by teams of geologists and bioligists at Ellesmere Island, north of the Arctic Circle in Canada. I'm citing an MSNBC article so that you can see an "artist's conception" but you can easily access the original article in the journal Nature.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/060405/060405_nsf-fish_hmed_11a.h2.jpg

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/060405/060405_fishfossil_hlg9a.standard.jpghttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12168265/from/RS.3/

I don't know what else Muslim is after unless he articulates his questions one at a time - being more concise and specific.


Lol, that can be anything. The first one is computer generated image, why even have that in your post is beyond me. So the best you could do was bring a computer generated image?

According to the theory of evolution, every living species has emerged from a predecessor. One species which existed previously turned into something else over time and all species have come into being in this way. According to the theory, this transformation proceeds gradually over millions of years.

If this were the case, then innumerable intermediate species should have lived during the immense period of time when these transformations were supposedly occurring. For instance, there should have lived in the past some half-fish/half-reptile creatures which had acquired some reptilian traits in addition to the fish traits they already had. Or there should have existed some reptile/bird creatures, which had acquired some avian traits in addition to the reptilian traits they already possessed. Evolutionists refer to these imaginary creatures, which they believe to have lived in the past, as "transitional forms".

If such animals had really existed, there would have been millions, even billions, of them. More importantly, the remains of these creatures should be present in the fossil record. The number of these transitional forms should have been even greater than that of present animal species, and their remains should be found all over the world. In The Origin of Species, Darwin accepted this fact and explained:

If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all of the species of the same group together must assuredly have existed... Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains.

Even Darwin himself was aware of the absence of such transitional forms. He hoped that they would be found in the future. Despite his optimism, he realised that these missing intermediate forms were the biggest stumbling-block for his theory. That is why he wrote the following in the chapter of the The Origin of Species entitled "Difficulties of the Theory":

?Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?? But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?? But in the intermediate region, having intermediate conditions of life, why do we not now find closely-linking intermediate varieties? This difficulty for a long time quite confounded me.

The only explanation Darwin could come up with to counter this objection was the argument that the fossil record uncovered so far was inadequate. He asserted that when the fossil record had been studied in detail, the missing links would be found.

Believing in Darwin's prophecy, evolutionist paleontologists have been digging up fossils and searching for missing links all over the world since the middle of the 19th century. Despite their best efforts, no transitional forms have yet been uncovered. All the fossils unearthed in excavations have shown that, contrary to the beliefs of evolutionists, life appeared on earth all of a sudden and fully-formed. Trying to prove their theory, evolutionists have instead unwittingly caused it to collapse.

A famous British paleontologist, Derek V. Ager, admits this fact even though he is an evolutionist:

The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find-over and over again-not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another.

I don't think it's any coincidence that almost all of those who don't accept evolution as being true, are religious. It's not a result of laziness and not reading up about the facts because you only need some common sense. But theists dispute biology more than any other science because it doesn't fit their fantasy of a living creator.

It is a theory because we don't understand everything about evolution, like how it happens, how it started etc, but it is fact that it does happen. The fossil record clearly defines 'evolution'. Take a good look at how a tree grows... how it branches out slowly very similar to the "tree of life" on Earth. For example, how the hominids slowly started to resemble modern man as hundreds of thousands of years went by.

one minute you say evolution takes billions/millions of years and the next minuted you say these creatures came out the water and started to breath on the land over night.

Except they didn't come out of the water overnight, that's not how evolution works, that more resembles intelligent creation like Adam and Eve. Hominids didn't start walking upright over night.

I mean that fish thing is a good example of a process that takes thousands of generations - If it spends most of it's time in shallow waters, don't you think over the generations it will develope better use of it's 'flippers' which change to suit it's environment? Don't you think it would venture further out of the shallow waters the more these 'flippers' become adaptable to moving on land? And don't you think that once they were so suited to land that they would never return to water?

I don't think it's any coincidence that almost all of those who don't accept evolution as being true, are religious. It's not a result of laziness and not reading up about the facts because you only need some common sense. But theists dispute biology more than any other science because it doesn't fit their fantasy of a living creator.

It is a theory because we don't understand everything about evolution, like how it happens, how it started etc, but it is fact that it does happen. The fossil record clearly defines 'evolution'. Take a good look at how a tree grows... how it branches out slowly very similar to the "tree of life" on Earth. For example, how the hominids slowly started to resemble modern man as hundreds of thousands of years went by.



Except they didn't come out of the water overnight, that's not how evolution works, that more resembles intelligent creation like Adam and Eve. Hominids didn't start walking upright over night.

I mean that fish thing is a good example of a process that takes thousands of generations - If it spends most of it's time in shallow waters, don't you think over the generations it will develope better use of it's 'flippers' which change to suit it's environment? Don't you think it would venture further out of the shallow waters the more these 'flippers' become adaptable to moving on land? And don't you think that once they were so suited to land that they would never return to water?


Ah I understand, so things constantly evolve over millions of years YES? everything evolves over millions of years? is this right?

I want a quick YES/NO answer to this right now...

Ah I understand, so things constantly evolve over millions of years YES? everything evolves over millions of years? is this right? I want a quick YES/NO answer to this right now...

I'm sure we're being set up here, but the answer is a qualified Yes. Just remember that the evolution of a species is not a straight line: there are all kinds of branches, blind alleys, and plateaus.

If you really want a better insight into the workings of natural selection, read this: http://www.sjgarchive.org/library/text/b16/p0089.htm
For some reason, the site does not link to subsequent pages, so the complete text has to be paged manually:
http://www.sjgarchive.org/library/text/b16/p0090.htm
http://www.sjgarchive.org/library/text/b16/p0091.htm
http://www.sjgarchive.org/library/text/b16/p0092.htm
http://www.sjgarchive.org/library/text/b16/p0093.htm

Or skip the above, and believe what you like. That's certainly the easier path.

So they went from, only being able to breath in the water to breathing on the land? that doesn't make any sense why do we no find any evidence of this? why isn't there any abrupt changes in the fossil record? This is a very weak argument you guys present, one minute you say evolution takes billions/millions of years and the next minuted you say these creatures came out the water and started to breath on the land over night.

Who said overnight? No, creatures that started emerging from the sea to lay eggs would have been unable to breathe the air. They would not have been able to leave the sea for very long. However, this now places a selective pressure on how long creatures can stay on land for.

Do you like UK garage? "re 'e 'e, 'e 'e tard. When the crowd say 'bo' - selecta!"

A famous British paleontologist, Derek V. Ager, admits this fact even though he is an evolutionist:

The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find-over and over again-not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another.

Muslim, the term you're looking for is called punctuated equilibrium (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html). And, yes, it is postulated by some that evolution does occur in gasps and starts at times. While other times it moves along steadily and slowly.

How exactly does this prove your point?


If such animals had really existed, there would have been millions, even billions, of them. More importantly, the remains of these creatures should be present in the fossil record. The number of these transitional forms should have been even greater than that of present animal species, and their remains should be found all over the world.

Every animal alive doesn't make it into the fossil record. In fact, the series of events which leads to fossilization is quite rare. Especially in certain areas.

Which leads me to a point you tried to make earlier about Africa. The fossil record is actually quite sparse in Africa. At least for the crucial time period when early hominids began to form. This is one of the problematic areas in learning more about the origins of humans.

So. I don't know where you got your information about Africa being the motherland of fossils, but you're wrong.

So they went from, only being able to breath in the water to breathing on the land? that doesn't make any sense why do we no find any evidence of this? why isn't there any abrupt changes in the fossil record? This is a very weak argument you guys present, one minute you say evolution takes billions/millions of years and the next minuted you say these creatures came out the water and started to breath on the land over night.You really seem to have a very limited knowledge of evolution and the diversity of species in the world. Present day lung fish, as the name implies, can breathe in or out of the water. Also, coelacanths are an ancient species of fish that paleontologists widely study as a possible common ancestor. Coelacanths give birth to live young. There are also other species of modern day fish that are able to swim in the water or crawl on land. There is no problem in understanding this transition; nor can it be debated.

I suggest that you begin by researching these and other species and read a bit more on paleontology and evolution to gain more depth and insight before you just jump in and say that these are weak arguments without having any background in the field. There's a lot of info out there that you can learn from without just bickering back-and-forth about a subject that you apparently know very little about. I am not trying to belittle you as I openly admit that I know very little too. But I am always eager to learn, and continuously try to learn more. These new discoveries are fascinating and are the best explanations we have to understand the factual basis and the accumulated evidence that we have gathered over the last few centuries of the science of evolution - nothing makes better sense to explain all the evidence.

Every animal alive doesn't make it into the fossil record. In fact, the series of events which leads to fossilization is quite rare. Especially in certain areas.

Which leads me to a point you tried to make earlier about Africa. The fossil record is actually quite sparse in Africa. At least for the crucial time period when early hominids began to form. This is one of the problematic areas in learning more about the origins of humans.This is an excellent point if Muslim is confused by the lack of an adequate fossil record. It has been estimated that if every person in the United States were to become extinct that there would only be two or three fossil records to somehow be found. And what would be the chances of finding them? Close to nill.

One major problem with fossilization of ancient early organisms and species is that the soft tissue doesn't fossilize. Nothing is left of it except for possible chemical traces so a lot of this info has to be inferred. Early organisms had no bones and ancient fish were not bony fish.

You don't need a scientific background to write the book. All you need is to sample random jibber jabber from people like you.My, my, my. This is the first occasion I have noted this particular incarnation of blind ignorance and defective gene structure.

If you truly believe that the cogent, relevant remarks made by superluminal and invert nexus are 'random jibber jabber' may I recommend you promptly do the world a favour and provide a meal for one of the endagered carnivore species. Humanity has little need of the irretrievably dimwitted.

You then have the errant audacity to suggest that ignoring you after such a remark is evidence of 'a man without an argument'. How stupid can you be and still tie your shoelaces? Amazing. :rolleyes:

Or skip the above, and believe what you like. That's certainly the easier path.
Absolutely the best put-down of the willfully ignorant I have seen for several weeks.
A round of applause, and a virtual glass of vintage champagne. :)

ever heard of amphibians?

So they went from, only being able to breath in the water to breathing on the land? that doesn't make any sense why do we no find any evidence of this? why isn't there any abrupt changes in the fossil record? This is a very weak argument you guys present, one minute you say evolution takes billions/millions of years and the next minuted you say these creatures came out the water and started to breath on the land over night.Oh come on guy! Do you even read newspapers, or just holy books? We don't need a fossil record to understand that transition.

There is a fish from Asia called the "Northern Snakehead" that has been turned loose in the northeastern USA. Its range is spreading prodigiously for the precise reason that it is able to "breathe" when out of the water. Gills work that way. If you keep them wet enough, respiration can continue after a fashion even if the only thing that stands between the fish and a gaseous atmosphere is a thin layer of water in his gills. You'd have to be living in a biosphere with no outside contact to not have heard of the Northern Snakehead. It's got the entire nation petrified because it could destroy all of our riparian ecosystems. It's a ferocious predator and wipes out the native species of fish everywhere it goes. And it goes everywhere because it can wriggle its way over land. That's no stretch, it's pretty much the way snakes locomote.

Catfish have also been observed doing the same thing. They crawl from one pond to another, "breathing" through their gills.

If a species does that for a few million years, natural selection will kick in and the ones with the most advanced ability will become dominant. This is not one of evolution's more difficult conundra.

Don't worry, Muslim. Evolution is not true.

Everything was created a millisecond ago by a giant invisible fire ant, and all of our memories are fabricated.

So, any theory is just speculation, even evolution.
i disagree with this. evolution is a reality.
you want proof? cosmic rays.
cosmic rays are known to alter genes. the genes that are better at surviving the alteration will continue.

So evolution, this debate has been done over and over again. I guess it doesn’t hurt to go over it again.
gets very boring though especialy when you dont have a clue wtf you are talking about
it would help if you actualy got some scientific education before debating
you could start here www.talkorigins.org

Now, firstly any propagator of the theory of evolution always states that life started in the water, which is a pretty strong hypothesis however like all theories it has its pitfalls.
for origins of life search ABIOGENESIS
evolution is about biological changes in lifeforms over time!
two completely different things ;)

Awww man, not this shit again

Truth is we'll be witnesing this shit over & over again and again.. :o

Until the cows come home, the gorialla talks buisness, and creationist make themselves look like total idiots. :D

Godless

I'm sure we're being set up here, but the answer is a qualified Yes. Just remember that the evolution of a species is not a straight line: there are all kinds of branches, blind alleys, and plateaus.

If you really want a better insight into the workings of natural selection, read this: http://www.sjgarchive.org/library/text/b16/p0089.htm
For some reason, the site does not link to subsequent pages, so the complete text has to be paged manually:
http://www.sjgarchive.org/library/text/b16/p0090.htm
http://www.sjgarchive.org/library/text/b16/p0091.htm
http://www.sjgarchive.org/library/text/b16/p0092.htm
http://www.sjgarchive.org/library/text/b16/p0093.htm

Or skip the above, and believe what you like. That's certainly the easier path.

Hmmmmmm so how the flipin heck do you explain this:

http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/8766/untitled2yv.jpg

Has evolution gone to sleep? or maybe theres no goddamn thing as evolution nothing but a materialistic atheist philosophy.

Muslim, the term you're looking for is called punctuated equilibrium (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html). And, yes, it is postulated by some that evolution does occur in gasps and starts at times. While other times it moves along steadily and slowly.

How exactly does this prove your point?




Every animal alive doesn't make it into the fossil record. In fact, the series of events which leads to fossilization is quite rare. Especially in certain areas.

Which leads me to a point you tried to make earlier about Africa. The fossil record is actually quite sparse in Africa. At least for the crucial time period when early hominids began to form. This is one of the problematic areas in learning more about the origins of humans.

So. I don't know where you got your information about Africa being the motherland of fossils, but you're wrong.


Hay look at me I found a "dinosaur skeleton", but I can't find a species in transitional form, my argument, hmmm its a "rare proses".

And I never said, Africa being the motherland, I was talking about Mitochondrial DNA.

You really seem to have a very limited knowledge of evolution and the diversity of species in the world. Present day lung fish, as the name implies, can breathe in or out of the water. Also, coelacanths are an ancient species of fish that paleontologists widely study as a possible common ancestor. Coelacanths give birth to live young. There are also other species of modern day fish that are able to swim in the water or crawl on land. There is no problem in understanding this transition; nor can it be debated.

I suggest that you begin by researching these and other species and read a bit more on paleontology and evolution to gain more depth and insight before you just jump in and say that these are weak arguments without having any background in the field. There's a lot of info out there that you can learn from without just bickering back-and-forth about a subject that you apparently know very little about. I am not trying to belittle you as I openly admit that I know very little too. But I am always eager to learn, and continuously try to learn more. These new discoveries are fascinating and are the best explanations we have to understand the factual basis and the accumulated evidence that we have gathered over the last few centuries of the science of evolution - nothing makes better sense to explain all the evidence.


Unlike you I'm not into reading materialistic propaganda. Everyone knows scientists have lied, and still lie, remember "skull measurements"? white man is superior to rest of the world. Funnily enough all this came about the same time Darwin was propagating his crap about "survival of the fittest" and "natural selection"

Oh come on guy! Do you even read newspapers, or just holy books? We don't need a fossil record to understand that transition.

There is a fish from Asia called the "Northern Snakehead" that has been turned loose in the northeastern USA. Its range is spreading prodigiously for the precise reason that it is able to "breathe" when out of the water. Gills work that way. If you keep them wet enough, respiration can continue after a fashion even if the only thing that stands between the fish and a gaseous atmosphere is a thin layer of water in his gills. You'd have to be living in a biosphere with no outside contact to not have heard of the Northern Snakehead. It's got the entire nation petrified because it could destroy all of our riparian ecosystems. It's a ferocious predator and wipes out the native species of fish everywhere it goes. And it goes everywhere because it can wriggle its way over land. That's no stretch, it's pretty much the way snakes locomote.

Catfish have also been observed doing the same thing. They crawl from one pond to another, "breathing" through their gills.

If a species does that for a few million years, natural selection will kick in and the ones with the most advanced ability will become dominant. This is not one of evolution's more difficult conundra.


Getting random bones and joining them up as you want doesn't constitute as evolution in my book. We all know, these little guys get random pieces of bones and and start to clue them up, and say hay look I found a "dinosaur skeleton" or "fossil which proves evolution" those are not proper fossils dude.


GUYS KEEP YOURS POSTS SHORT, CONCISE AND TO THE POINT!

Don't worry, Muslim. Evolution is not true.

Everything was created a millisecond ago by a giant invisible fire ant, and all of our memories are fabricated.

Go troll in some other thread.

gets very boring though especialy when you dont have a clue wtf you are talking about
it would help if you actualy got some scientific education before debating
you could start here www.talkorigins.org

for origins of life search ABIOGENESIS
evolution is about biological changes in lifeforms over time!
two completely different things ;)

Why does every person give me the link to talk origins? why give me a link to a pro evolutionist website? :bugeye: they will try their best to prove evolution. I get my information from natural sources.

Honestly you guys are brainwashed.

Getting random bones and joining them up as you want doesn't constitute as evolution in my book. We all know, these little guys get random pieces of bones and and start to clue them up, and say hay look I found a "dinosaur skeleton" or "fossil which proves evolution" those are not proper fossils dude.
Really? You know all about what archeologists do out in the field? You've been to an excavation site? You know all about which bones really belong to which? You're an expert?

Why does every person give me the link to talk origins? why give me a link to a pro evolutionist website? :bugeye: they will try their best to prove evolution. I get my information from natural sources.
Stop complaining and read about science sometime.

Honestly you guys are brainwashed.
Is that the best you can do?

Honestly you guys are brainwashed.

*coughs*
allah, koran

Muslim,
what is the motivation for concocting this, as you see it, fairy tale of evolution? Why have generations of scientists conspired to promote it? Why have none of them 'blown the whistle' on the lies? Why have they tens of thousands of them devoted their entire professional lives to expanding the lie? Doesn't this strike you as a teeny weeny bit odd?

Muslim,
what is the motivation for concocting this, as you see it, fairy tale of evolution? Why have generations of scientists conspired to promote it? Why have none of them 'blown the whistle' on the lies? Why have they tens of thousands of them devoted their entire professional lives to expanding the lie? Doesn't this strike you as a teeny weeny bit odd?
its foolish to even try and reason with him

its foolish to even try and reason with him


Um, by definition, religion is beyond reason.

Has evolution gone to sleep? or maybe theres no goddamn thing as evolution nothing but a materialistic atheist philosophy.
You call us materialist? Harsh words ... I am stung to the quick ... I must commit sepuku to regain my honour...

“Originally Posted by Fraggle Rocker: Oh come on guy! Do you even read newspapers, or just holy books? We don't need a fossil record to understand that transition. There is a fish from Asia called the "Northern Snakehead" that has been turned loose in the northeastern USA. Its range is spreading prodigiously for the precise reason that it is able to "breathe" when out of the water. Gills work that way. If you keep them wet enough, respiration can continue after a fashion even if the only thing that stands between the fish and a gaseous atmosphere is a thin layer of water in his gills. You'd have to be living in a biosphere with no outside contact to not have heard of the Northern Snakehead. It's got the entire nation petrified because it could destroy all of our riparian ecosystems. It's a ferocious predator and wipes out the native species of fish everywhere it goes. And it goes everywhere because it can wriggle its way over land. That's no stretch, it's pretty much the way snakes locomote. Catfish have also been observed doing the same thing. They crawl from one pond to another, "breathing" through their gills. If a species does that for a few million years, natural selection will kick in and the ones with the most advanced ability will become dominant. This is not one of evolution's more difficult conundra.”

[b]Getting random bones and joining them up as you want doesn't constitute as evolution in my book. We all know, these little guys get random pieces of bones and and start to clue them up, and say hay look I found a "dinosaur skeleton" or "fossil which proves evolution" those are not proper fossils dude.

GUYS KEEP YOURS POSTS SHORT, CONCISE AND TO THE POINT!To the point? Do you follow your own rules? What earthly connection is there between the above response and my original post to which you claim to be "responding"? You completely sidestepped the argument. Here's compelling, live evidence for the evolution from water-breathing to air-breathing. Come to Maryland and I can drive you over to a river that is teeming with Northern Snakeheads that were originally dumped into a rainwater pond behind some guy's house just three years ago. He had ordered them live from China for some local Asian herbalist who didn't want them after all, and he didn't have the heart to kill them. As a result they're going to change the whole North American ecosystem, just like the House Sparrows did after that idiot from England imported a few dozen of them 120 years ago and turned them loose in New York City. Just like the rabbits did to Australia after that other idiot from England imported them. At least this time the idiot was from China, we can't blame the English. Those fish crawled over land from one body of water from another, a trip which took hours. They survived by breathing air through their gills. This is not some report buried in an arcane university journal that you can hide behind your bible and say you choose not to believe because "scientists lie." This is a major news story with thousands of witnesses who are still alive and live all around me. I answered your question and you pretend that the discussion never happened because it doesn't fit your hypothesis.

This is not science you are practicing, it is religion. This is not a debate as you titled it, it is evangelism for your point of view when you don't even respond to the other guy's posting. This thread should be moved to the Religion forum.

This is not science you are practicing, it is religion. This is not a debate as you titled it, it is evangelism for your point of view when you don't even respond to the other guy's posting. This thread should be moved to the Religion forum.

for as many debates on "evolution" that we've had around here, this one fits the cesspool.
:rolleyes: :D

Honestly you guys are brainwashed.
i don't think so muslim.
if you want to ask questions why not ask them about how life arose on this planet. that's the stumper, that's the brain burner.

a little common sense will tell you that evolution is a reality.

i have search the web for some unbiased sites on how life arose and i can not find any, none. they are all pro abiogenesis or pro creationism.

i cannot find any sites that claim science has created life from the elements.
the problem is one of technecality or definition i don't know which.

what i would like to see is some ubiased sites, not pro this or that, but an honest ojective analysis that a layman can understand

What’s with this abiogenesis chip on your shoulder which you’ve been whining about for some time now? :eek:

i have search the web for some unbiased sites on how life arose and i can not find any, none. they are all pro abiogenesis or pro creationism.
Science seeks to use quantifiable evidence and data to formulate naturalistic mechanisms to explain the world we live in. Natural mechanisms! So by definition, a scientific analysis of how life arose from inanimate matter will be pro-abiogenesis. There is no such thing as a ‘scientific anti-abiogenesis’ or ‘scientific creationist’ analysis. Those phrases are oxymorons (oxymora?). If you want to scientifically investigate the origin of life, then you must proceed on the basis that life arose naturally from inanimate matter. Otherwise it’s not science, it’s something else.

Get it? Are we learning yet?

i cannot find any sites that claim science has created life from the elements...
I am not aware of any instance where science (ie. humans) have created life. Nature certainly has.

I am not aware of any instance where science (ie. humans) have created life. Nature certainly has.
really? then explain this:
It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

really?
Yes, really.

It is probably quite correct to state that: “All living organisms alive today on Earth have arisen directly from other living organisms”. But that’s not saying very much. Given that there are no individual organisms that are 4 billion years old, that statement has nothing to do with abiogenesis (but rather evolution) and is further demonstration that you are very confused about this whole area. The hypothesis that life on Earth arose <I>de novo</I> from inanimate matter is not mutually exclusive of that statement.

so in essence you are saying that there is no fundamental difference between you and the chair you are sitting on. is that what you are saying?

Are you saying there's no fundamental difference between a chair and a car because they're both non-living? Have you tried using a chair in heavy traffic recently? :p

so in essence you are saying that there is no fundamental difference between you and the chair you are sitting on. is that what you are saying?
No, that's not even remotely the essence of what I am saying. :bugeye: :rolleyes:

what is the fundamental difference between you and an inanimate object such as a chair?

what is the fundamental difference between you and an inanimate object such as a chair?
I'm alive, the chair isn't. What's your point?

I'm alive, the chair isn't. What's your point?
my point is that you believe that there is a fundamental difference between you and inanimate objects. you say you are alive. what is it that makes you alive and not the elements that make you up?

what is it that makes you alive and not the elements that make you up?
The generally accepted biological definitions of life, in no particular order, are metabolism, growth, adaptation, response to stimuli and reproduction. Recent advances in genetics have complicated matters a little when it comes to whether or not we classify viruses as alive. However, all these various requirements for life can easily delineate between a human and a chair, don’t you think? Again, what’s your point?

fire exhibits every one of your definitions. is fire alive?

the point i am trying to make is:
are we nothing more than an arrangement of atoms? what happened in that instant when something "becomes alive"?

fire exhibits every one of your definitions. is fire alive?
No, fire most certainly does not exhibit every one of those definitions. Hence, it is not alive.

One of the conditions that I neglected to mention is that living things are composed of one or more cells. This certainly excludes fire.

Metabolism involves both catabolism and anabolism. That is, breaking things down into simpler units and building complex things up from simpler units. This cannot be said of fire.

Growth occurs when anabolic activity is higher than catabolic activity. This growth is not simply the accumulation of matter but is a controlled application of anabolism where the organism needs it. The “growth” of fire is simply a linear relationship with available combustible material. It’s not the same.

Similarly, fire doesn’t reproduce like an organism. Living reproduction, whether it be simple cell division or the production of a whole new organism, is a controlled expenditure of energy at an appropriate time and environmental circumstance. Fire “reproduction” is simply an automatic relationship with the environment. It’s not the same.

Adaptation is the adjustment of a living organism to a changing environment. Fire simply follows the environment.

Maybe it can be said the fire responds to physical stimuli, but it’s passive rather than the active response of living organisms.


hat happened in that instant when something "becomes alive"?
The "something" started to exhibit the traits I mentioned above.

This is, of course, all purely dependant on definitions. But that’s science. Science exists on the basis of defining things, categorizing things, labeling things.

Edit: I think this is what you’re getting at, isn’t it? Life is a continuum so our attempts to label it with constraints are sometimes very artificial. Life is analog and we’re trying to make it digital. The idea of taxonomic species is one such example. Organisms that can be classified as one species by morphology can often be classified as another by DNA analysis. And as you seem to have a bee in your bonnet about, the gradual process that turned inanimate matter into a living cell is another continuum that science tends to impose a (perhaps arbitrary) pre-life and post-life boundary. But the scientific method has developed to suit the human mind. Humans have an innate tendency to look for patterns whether they are real or imagined. Life as a whole is far too complex for us to tackle as a whole, so the best way to learn about it is utilizing our pattern-finding ability and divide biology into labeled chunks, modifying and reclassifying as we learn more.

you guys...why don't we go ahead and throw alien interference in with all the rest? seriously. if you want to know how we all (and i mean that collectively, as in every living thing...except teetotaler and thedevilsreject :) ) evolved, you might as well question the seemingly sudden jump in early man's intellilect and the continuation of it today (the industrial and technological ages). a bigger cranium - for those of you that saw that special on the history channel about the infamous missing link everyone's been searching for - does not an intelligent being make.

oh, hell...i've walked into a conversation totally misinformed about what's going on...
i hate that

you guys...why don't we go ahead and throw alien interference in with all the rest? seriously. if you want to know how we all (and i mean that collectively, as in every living thing...except teetotaler and thedevilsreject :) ) evolved, you might as well question the seemingly sudden jump in early man's intellilect and the continuation of it today (the industrial and technological ages).
It wasn't exactly a jump. The pre-modern humanoid species weren't as dumb as a rock, or anything close. To assume they were is a manifestation of the arrogance of humans. We're discovering quite a bit about Neanderthals, such as that they had linguistic capabilities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthals#Language) &ndash; quite a contrast to the old idea that they were simple, dumb cavemen. ;)

Don't get me wrong, it's not that alien interference is impossible. It's just that we don't have much evidence suggesting that alien interference may have happened. As Occam's razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor) states: Don't assume too much when hypothesizing.

oh, hell...i've walked into a conversation totally misinformed about what's going on...
i hate that
Oh well. At least you're using your brain, unlike some others in this thread.

...are we nothing more than an arrangement of atoms?
Nope. That's pretty much it. What else would we be?

what happened in that instant when something "becomes alive"?
What HR said.

Was the first simple replicator "alive"? All a replicator has to do is make copies of itself. There may be many was of being a replicator. The kind we're made of (RNA/DNA and its early precursors) were replicators that were subject to copying errors and damage from radiation. This was probably disasterous for 99.9997854% of the replicators at the time. But some of the "mistakes" were beneficial for replication and survival, as you would expect just based on simple odds. This is how simple replicators began to "evolve" more efficient strategies for replication and survival. Natural selection is just the natural fallout of random copying errors, of which a few are not disasterous for the replicator, but neutral, or even beneficial.

Random mutations (chance) are the smorgasboard of opportunities layed out for natural selection (highly deterministic) to work on.

For all of you "anti-evolutonists" out there, are you aware that evolution by natural selection is regularly observed in the lab? Are you just arguing against human evolution, or just evolution in general?

Muslim,
what is the motivation for concocting this, as you see it, fairy tale of evolution? Why have generations of scientists conspired to promote it? Why have none of them 'blown the whistle' on the lies? Why have they tens of thousands of them devoted their entire professional lives to expanding the lie? Doesn't this strike you as a teeny weeny bit odd?

Because most of these people do not understand, for a start there is no such thing as the "stone age" humans have been civilized from the start. Even what you class as the "stone age" humans had tool, I can show you tools which are 12,000 year old. which "primitive" man made. Hay I can show you flutes that date back to about 95,000 years ago. Tell me is this "primitive"?

These pseudo scientists come and talk a whole load of shit and claim they have made a "discoveries" and then add there own shit and make it into a philosophy. Its all the fault of scientists they remind me of the Greeks like they used to talk a hell load of bullshit too. Uncivilized swine eaters.

For all of you "anti-evolutonists" out there, are you aware that evolution by natural selection is regularly observed in the lab? Are you just arguing against human evolution, or just evolution in general?


I don't disagree with micro-evolution, thats a fact. But talking about humans evolved out of genetic garbage is a load of b.s.

Creationism should be taught in schools not crap about "dinosaurs" and "primitive man" and the "stone age" all this is a load of crap. The supreme reality is the Abrahamic faiths are the absolute holders of all truth written in riddles only the wise will understand. There should be a law anyone opposing this should be hanged.

Scientists have killed more people then anyone on the planet. While knowing what they are doing, science is going to be the downfall of humanity.

These pseudo scientists come and talk a whole load of shit .... Its all the fault of scientists they remind me of the Greeks .... http://deephousepage.com/smilies/jerkit5.gif Uncivilized swine eaters ... Creationism should be taught in schools not crap about "dinosaurs" .... The supreme reality is the Abrahamic faiths are the absolute holders of all truth .... There should be a law anyone opposing this should be hanged .... Scientists have killed more people then anyone on the planet .... science is going to be the downfall of humanity. http://deephousepage.com/smilies/jerkit.gif

There, there http://deephousepage.com/smilies/grouphug.gif. Time for you to toodle off and have some more Biccardi Breezers, and try not to contract any more STDs.

There, there . Time for you to toodle off and have some more Biccardi Breezers, and try not to contract any more STDs.

How can he get STD's from his hand? :o :confused:

What really ticks me off, is idiots like muslim, cuting down science, using devises that were invented by science.....sheeeeessssss!! blathering hipocrite!! :rolleyes:



Godless

Gee, sometimes I think that maybe Muslim is no Muslim, and he's just giving us all a whirl.

There is no point in trying to convince a religious person that we evolved from single celled organisms. I could spend hours trying to explain all of the things that scientists have learned about DNA to someone like Muslim, but he would not listen to me. People see what they want to see in life. Everything is subjective. Existence is information and perception. Two scientist could be examining the same data and come to two different conclusions because of their religious or ideological beliefs. Religious people usually don’t have a problem with science until it contradicts something that was written in the bible or the Koran. The evidence of evolution is all around us, but people will always see what they want to see.

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, let there be light: and there was light. ~ The Holy Bible, Genesis, Chapter 1

I don’t spend a lot of time thinking about creation and infinity because it is beyond our comprehension. (How can something be created from nothing? How could god exist before the beginning of existence? Ect.) I would be more inclined to believe in an intelligent design theory if the bible and other religious books were written a little differently. For example, In the beginning god created an infinite number of strings with eleven different dimensions. Then god decided to make the strings vibrate. Over a period of time the vibrating strings evolved into something that humans will one day call subatomic particles. Genesis could then go on to explain the process of the subatomic particles evolving into atoms, molecules, amino acids, RNA, DNA, Ect. I would definitely be religious if the authors of the bible had some knowledge of the scientific theories and facts that we would learn in the future, but there is no scientific information in the bible.

As for Hercules Rockefeller and leopold99’s debate about life and inanimate objects, I believe that our perception of sentience and self-awareness is an illusion. I don’t believe there is any real difference between an inanimate object and a human being. If you took a human being apart atom by atom we would be no different than the inanimate objects around us. It is the sum of our parts working together at once that gives us our perception of reality. What we perceive as life is nothing more than chemical reactions.

I don't disagree with micro-evolution, thats a fact. But talking about humans evolved out of genetic garbage is a load of b.s.

How can you disagree with something you don't understand? Wouldn't Allah be upset with you in that regard?

Creationism should be taught in schools not crap about "dinosaurs" and "primitive man" and the "stone age" all this is a load of crap.

Then, what are we to tell students in regards to the mountains of evidence for dinosaurs, primitive man and the stone age? Should we just ignore it?

The supreme reality is the Abrahamic faiths are the absolute holders of all truth written in riddles only the wise will understand.

Yet, even the wise cannot understand those riddles correctly as they all disagree as to what exactly the truth should be.

There should be a law anyone opposing this should be hanged.

Is that the Islamic way of handling people?

Scientists have killed more people then anyone on the planet.

Can you name one?

While knowing what they are doing, science is going to be the downfall of humanity.

So, will you be discarding your computer, internet connection, home, car, and most everything else you own and use on a daily basis in favor of an empty cave?

If not, why not? Wouldn't not doing so make you a hypocrite?

The supreme reality is the Abrahamic faiths are the absolute holders of all truth written in riddles only the wise will understand. There should be a law anyone opposing this should be hanged. Scientists have killed more people then anyone on the planet.No, my good fellow. Abrahamists have killed more people than anyone on the planet. For starters, the disciples of Abraham obliterated three of the world's six civilizations: Cushitic Egypt (Muslims did that), Aztec and Inca (Christians did that). Estimates of the number of aboriginal Americans killed by the Christian occupation of the New World go as high as a hundred million, but are certainly no less than twenty million. The various waves of Muslim conquerors that have swept across the Mideast and occasionally into Europe and Africa, including Moghuls, Arabs, and Ottomans, easily match that figure. The Crusades and the Holocaust rack up on the Christian side of the ledger, and the Muslims in modern Africa are keeping it a close race.

Even if you blame "scientists" for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as many people do, that wasn't even a large fraction of a million victims.

Only the Communists have surpassed the Nazi death toll and come close to matching that of either the Christians or the Muslims, but their sun is setting and they will never eclipse the performance of the sons of Abraham.

If there is one single development in the history of human civilization that has caused more suffering and destruction--including the irreplaceable loss of entire civilizations with everything they might have accomplished, which by any code of law must be the most unrepentable of all sins--it is the metastasis of the endless series of monotheistic, patriarchal, evangelical religions out of the Middle East that teach their followers to arrogantly assume they are superior to the rest of us and therefore can kill us without a qualm.

If there were a law to punish those whose belief systems appeal to the dark side of human nature and which bring civilization to the brink of destruction several times in every millennium, it would be the Christians, Muslims, and Jews who would be "hanged" by unmerciful, self-important tyrants. Thankfully there is no such law because for the most part the world is still run by rational, compassionate people who tolerate diversity no matter how much sorrow it causes.

I don't disagree with micro-evolution, thats a fact. But talking about humans evolved out of genetic garbage is a load of b.s.

Creationism should be taught in schools not crap about "dinosaurs" and "primitive man" and the "stone age" all this is a load of crap. The supreme reality is the Abrahamic faiths are the absolute holders of all truth written in riddles only the wise will understand. There should be a law anyone opposing this should be hanged.

Wow. That's beautiful. Tell me: how does that fit with the Quran that you wanted me to read and sent me links for? Is the hanging of people who believe in evolution part of Allah's beautiful plan for us? When you tried to get me to recite the shahada 300 times in your PM, was there anything about hanging people who disagree with the truth of the Abrahamic faiths, that truth so absolute that you don't seem to think it can tolerate reason and evolutionary theory?

Scientists have killed people; what a toss of crap. Right; they made you push buttons, they made you buy weapons, they made you kill. Right.

Did you have any kind of reasoned argument here, or is your response summed up by "accept Allah or die"?

Seems kind of ridiculous. What's the difference between Allah and dinosaurs? Well: both concepts spring out of our ancient past, but only dinosaurs were ever real.

Could you imagine if the tables were turned and Muslim was asked to defend and explain everything written in the Quran? Ah, but there is a built-in defense: the Quran is a holy book, and, as such, it can't be read in any language other than Arabic and it is beyond interpretation. How convenient.

I would like to ask the propagators and the proliferators of the theory of evolution why would land animals (Side note: for the sake of argument we will also let humans fall into this category) which were originally in the sea as the theory of evolution states put themselves at a serious and catastrophic disadvantage if true that animals originally evolved out of fish like creatures. Why would animals evolve out of the sea and start colonizing the land?

To partially avoid predation. Because it was a niche that had been unexploited. We can see the same thing every time a roach invades a new space, or everytime you contract a new STD.

Why did the crabs move into your crotch? There were abundant resources elsewhere, so it doesn't make any sense for them to parasitize you. What happens if you take groin lice and put them in a toxic, malodorous environment? Well, apparently they thrive. They occupied a new niche, although a niche that I personally would rather die than be exposed to. They're already capable of living in crotches, you see, but were able to survive the transition even to yours.

This does not seem to make any sense – now I have herd the argument over and over again that the land was better for the animals as there was abundant of food and less threat, this argument is weak at best for the reason that. Adaptation to the new environment would have had to been rapid, what happens if you take a fish out of the see and put it on the land?

A fish that through chance picked up minor mutations that allowed it to explore the land for a few minutes or hours would have been able to avoid aquatic predators that could not. End of story. Never seen a lungfish?

It's amazing that this mental midget can't seem to figure out how evolution works. He's proposing arguments that haven't been seen for almost fifty years.

Furthermore, we would also see fossils that are going through a transition and are caught in the middle, just because something is “evolving” into another species doesn’t mean it can’t die why do we not find this in the fossil record?

WTF are you on about? That it should have died "right in the middle of a transformation"? Living things aren't bloody Transformers, you git. They don't sit down and change. Tell you what: look up the word "development" and "fertilization".

Sad.

Could you imagine if the tables were turned and Muslim was asked to defend and explain everything written in the Quran? Ah, but there is a built-in defense: the Quran is a holy book, and, as such, it can't be read in any language other than Arabic and it is beyond interpretation. How convenient.

i asked him about the part in the koran where it talks about mohammed marrying a six year old girl and raping her when she was 9, all he could come up with was a flame about me and my 'wife'

i asked him about the part in the koran where it talks about mohammed marrying a six year old girl and raping her when she was 9, all he could come up with was a flame about me and my 'wife'


Exactly.

i asked him about the part in the koran where it talks about mohammed marrying a six year old girl and raping her when she was 9, all he could come up with was a flame about me and my 'wife'

Actually, dude can you prove that?

I also explain that Mohamed didn't marry a six year old.

Tabari reports that Abu Bakr wished to spare Aisha the discomforts of a journey to Ethiopia soon after 615 CE, and tried to bring forward her marriage to Mut`am's son. Mut`am refused because Abu Bakr had converted to Islam, but if Aisha was already of marriageable age in 615 CE, she must have been older than nine in 622 CE.

So do not make lies up dude.

And its not like everyone was Mohammed's friend, it would have came them fuel to attack him even if he did marry a 6 year old. No one found anything wrong with Mohammed's marriage to Ashia not even his enemies. So your claims are a load of BS.

Anyway, what I was saying was it was scientists who invented tools for humans to kill each other easily.

No, my good fellow. Abrahamists have killed more people than anyone on the planet. For starters, the disciples of Abraham obliterated three of the world's six civilizations: Cushitic Egypt (Muslims did that), Aztec and Inca (Christians did that). Estimates of the number of aboriginal Americans killed by the Christian occupation of the New World go as high as a hundred million, but are certainly no less than twenty million. The various waves of Muslim conquerors that have swept across the Mideast and occasionally into Europe and Africa, including Moghuls, Arabs, and Ottomans, easily match that figure. The Crusades and the Holocaust rack up on the Christian side of the ledger, and the Muslims in modern Africa are keeping it a close race.

Even if you blame "scientists" for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as many people do, that wasn't even a large fraction of a million victims.

Only the Communists have surpassed the Nazi death toll and come close to matching that of either the Christians or the Muslims, but their sun is setting and they will never eclipse the performance of the sons of Abraham.

If there is one single development in the history of human civilization that has caused more suffering and destruction--including the irreplaceable loss of entire civilizations with everything they might have accomplished, which by any code of law must be the most unrepentable of all sins--it is the metastasis of the endless series of monotheistic, patriarchal, evangelical religions out of the Middle East that teach their followers to arrogantly assume they are superior to the rest of us and therefore can kill us without a qualm.

If there were a law to punish those whose belief systems appeal to the dark side of human nature and which bring civilization to the brink of destruction several times in every millennium, it would be the Christians, Muslims, and Jews who would be "hanged" by unmerciful, self-important tyrants. Thankfully there is no such law because for the most part the world is still run by rational, compassionate people who tolerate diversity no matter how much sorrow it causes.

What you talking about, they killed and destroyed evil empires. You should be thanking Abrahamic faiths for doing that.

80% of the world believes in a monotheistic god. Are you calling all these people idiots? Einstein arguably the greatest scientists to ever believed in a god - are you guys saying he was an Idiot?

Wow. That's beautiful. Tell me: how does that fit with the Quran that you wanted me to read and sent me links for? Is the hanging of people who believe in evolution part of Allah's beautiful plan for us? When you tried to get me to recite the shahada 300 times in your PM, was there anything about hanging people who disagree with the truth of the Abrahamic faiths, that truth so absolute that you don't seem to think it can tolerate reason and evolutionary theory?

Scientists have killed people; what a toss of crap. Right; they made you push buttons, they made you buy weapons, they made you kill. Right.

Did you have any kind of reasoned argument here, or is your response summed up by "accept Allah or die"?

Seems kind of ridiculous. What's the difference between Allah and dinosaurs? Well: both concepts spring out of our ancient past, but only dinosaurs were ever real.

Actually doesn't have anything to do with that. Muslims don't have a problem with evolution, Muslims believe that god put the souls of adam and eve into already living homo Sapiens. God even mentions evolution theory in the Qu'ran thats where Darwin got his idea from.

Anyway, what I was saying was it was scientists who invented tools for humans to kill each other easily.
what about bows and arrows? guns?

you must be refering to atomic weapons.
that research was done in secret. it was so secret that the people working on it lived in their own community, had their own post office, every bit of their communication with the outside was monitored and edited.
if the general public got wind of what was happening there you can rest assured there would have been someone to sabotage the project.
the people that was working on the bomb was only told enough to carry out their research, no more.

To partially avoid predation. Because it was a niche that had been unexploited. We can see the same thing every time a roach invades a new space, or everytime you contract a new STD.

Wtf? to avoid predation, how are they going to know? if there are going to be any predators or not. Makes no sense they would die off.

Why did the crabs move into your crotch? There were abundant resources elsewhere, so it doesn't make any sense for them to parasitize you. What happens if you take groin lice and put them in a toxic, malodorous environment? Well, apparently they thrive. They occupied a new niche, although a niche that I personally would rather die than be exposed to. They're already capable of living in crotches, you see, but were able to survive the transition even to yours.

That contradicts your argument, because I am the predator. So I have killed them all off now.



A fish that through chance picked up minor mutations that allowed it to explore the land for a few minutes or hours would have been able to avoid aquatic predators that could not. End of story. Never seen a lungfish?

:bugeye: Mutation is not evolution. Like I said I don't disagree with micro evolution, I am talking about saying humans evolved out of fish. Or there was a "stone age" and "primitive man" man was never "primitive" he was always civilized.

It's amazing that this mental midget can't seem to figure out how evolution works. He's proposing arguments that haven't been seen for almost fifty years.

But you're still have a hard time refuting them.



WTF are you on about? That it should have died "right in the middle of a transformation"? Living things aren't bloody Transformers, you git. They don't sit down and change. Tell you what: look up the word "development" and "fertilization".
Sad.

Oh so now you're saying they don't "evolve"? :confused:

what about bows and arrows? guns?

you must be refering to atomic weapons.
that research was done in secret. it was so secret that the people working on it lived in their own community, had their own post office, every bit of their communication with the outside was monitored and edited.
if the general public got wind of what was happening there you can rest assured there would have been someone to sabotage the project.
the people that was working on the bomb was only told enough to carry out their research, no more.

Even guns, a scientist came up with gunpowder.

God even mentions evolution theory in the Qu'ran thats where Darwin got his idea from.


OK, quote the passage for us, will you please?

OK, quote the passage for us, will you please?

Why should I?

If we take a look in Sura or chapter 59 verse 24, the verse talks about Allah the Creator, Allah the evolver and Allah the bestower of forms. Now two of our classic modern scholars have done very well-respected translations of the meaning of the Qur'an. Both regard these verses as relating to evolution. Mohammad Assad talks about this as meaning the development of the human embryo and he also regards it as alluding to the evolution of the human species.

Here is the actual verse:
"He is Allah, the Creator, the Evolver, the Bestower of Forms (or Colours). To Him belong the Most Beautiful Names: whatever is in the heavens and on earth, doth declare His Praises and Glory; and He is the Exalted in Might, the Wise." 59: - 24

Even guns, a scientist came up with gunpowder.
gunpowder was invented ages ago by the chinese
and it wasn't to kill people with but to celebrate their religious beliefs

If we take a look in Sura or chapter 59 verse 24, the verse talks about Allah the Creator, Allah the evolver and Allah the bestower of forms. Now two of our classic modern scholars have done very well-respected translations of the meaning of the Qur'an. Both regard these verses as relating to evolution. Mohammad Assad talks about this as meaning the development of the human embryo and he also regards it as alluding to the evolution of the human species.

Here is the actual verse:
"He is Allah, the Creator, the Evolver, the Bestower of Forms (or Colours). To Him belong the Most Beautiful Names: whatever is in the heavens and on earth, doth declare His Praises and Glory; and He is the Exalted in Might, the Wise." 59: - 24


And this broad quote is where, so you said, Darwin got his idea?

I hate to butt in but these are the verses which define evolution in the Quran:

“Do not the unbeliever see that the heaven and the earth were joined together, then we set them asunder and we got every living thing out of water. Will they then not believe?” (21:30)

“(God) created every animal from water.”(24:45)

I hate to butt in but these are the verses which define evolution in the Quran:

“Do not the unbeliever see that the heaven and the earth were joined together, then we set them asunder and we got every living thing out of water. Will they then not believe?” (21:30)

“(God) created every animal from water.”(24:45)

Sorry, but that does not define evolution.

I hate to butt in but these are the verses which define evolution in the Quran:

“Do not the unbeliever see that the heaven and the earth were joined together, then we set them asunder and we got every living thing out of water. Will they then not believe?” (21:30)

“(God) created every animal from water.”(24:45)

Anything just a bit more specific? Something that Darwin didn't know before he started? Come on, you can do it.

Sorry, but that does not define evolution.


Not for you, you do not have to believe it; its just that Muslim gave the wrong reference is all.

Anyth