Does evolution have a purpose?

[gnostic]

No.
It is the other way round.
I have no beliefs about how G-d created life.
It doesn't affect me.

You, on the other hand, don't believe in G-d.
You therefore wish us all to believe that life "created itself"

The Qur’an does say god created Adam from clay and water.

Humans are not made of clay. There are no clay minerals in any human body.

Clay minerals, like kaolinite, which is the most common minerals in clay. Kaolinite is a type of one of many silicate minerals, more specifically phyllosilicate (Al2Si2O5(OH)4).

There are no silicate of any types (the most basic form of silicate is silica, SiO2) in the human body. There are no silicates of any type existing in any cell, because silicates are organic or biological molecules.

Clay of any types, cannot be transformed into human.

The Qur’an only provide false claim about humans being made out of clay. It is a myth that originated in Sumerian creation myths, around 2400 BCE.

 

[YoursTrue]

Not true as there much we can tell about its expansion plus using various forms of dating techniques to diagnose the residuals. It's basically forensic physics matched with some quantum mechanics.

does that type of reasoning apply to Jesus birth by immaculate conception in reference to evolutionary theory on a date not verified as accurate by any means (quantum or not...)? (Type of reasoning explanation -- anything goes as long as it sets well with whoever is the decision-maker about like or not like another opinion.) Metis, thanks for being so open about your opinion about truth vs. conjecture enclosed in like or non-like. Or possibly don't care what is reasonable and logical. Have a good one!

 

[YoursTrue]

Not true as there much we can tell about its expansion plus using various forms of dating techniques to diagnose the residuals. It's basically forensic physics matched with some quantum mechanics.

Would you apply that type of reasoning to the supposed date of Jesus birth, as well as the said perpetual virginity of Mary as reconciling it with science so as to believe it?

 

[muhammad_isa]

The Qur’an only provide false claim about humans being made out of clay. It is a myth that originated in Sumerian creation myths, around 2400 BCE.

No. The Qur'an isn't teaching us about chemical elements or the periodical table.
It is not teaching us chemistry.

It is not saying that G-d waved a magic wand and clay becomes a human being.
It's not that G-d couldn't do that if He wanted to.

We just don't KNOW how G-d created mankind.
What it DOES tell us, is that we are made of matter.
Angels are NOT made of matter.

 

[gnostic]

No. The Qur'an isn't teaching us about chemical elements or the periodical table.
It is not teaching us chemistry.

It is not saying that G-d waved a magic wand and clay becomes a human being.
It's not that G-d couldn't do that if He wanted to.

We just don't KNOW how G-d created mankind.
What it DOES tell us, is that we are made of matter.
Angels are NOT made of matter.

It doesn't matter if the Qur'an isn't a chemistry treatise, muhammad. The Qur'an is still saying human flesh and bones were from clay, which is utterly preposterous and wrong.

There are barely any silicon element in human body. Silicon only make up 20 x 10^-6 fraction of mass or to put in term of kilogram, that's 0.0010 kg. 0.0010 kg isn't sufficient enough to make clay minerals the size of a single eyelash.

All your organs, muscle tissues, skins, blood cells, and even your hair are made of proteins. The largest organic matters in one human body is protein which is about 20% of the total mass, while lipid (fat) make up 12%. Neither proteins, nor lipids have any clay compound in their composition.

65% of the mass (in a human body) is made of water, but water by itself isn't organic matter.

We do know a lot more about human and we know a lot about clay. There are no clay in human body, PERIOD!

The Qur'an is just plain wrong. It have no idea what clay are made of, and it is also stupid when it come to human body.

Which mean your prophet Muhammad was science illiterate. But if you think Allah is the true author of the Qur'an, then God is utterly ignorant about human biology.

All you are doing is making excuses for the author's lack of understanding of natural sciences.

 

[muhammad_isa]

It doesn't matter if the Qur'an isn't a chemistry treatise, muhammad. The Qur'an is still saying human flesh and bones were from clay, which is utterly preposterous and wrong.

You are just fooling yourself.
You read some argument on a website and think that it is some kind of smart argument that the Qur'an is wrong.

Two of the crucial components for the origin of life – genetic material and cell membranes – could have been introduced to one another by a lump of clay, new experiments have shown.

Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4307-clays-matchmaking-could-have-sparked-life/#ixzz7FxnoMdNo

In any case, are you an expert in classical Arabic?
The translation I use says "black mud altered" .. whatever .. it refers to physical soil/mud/clay.

 

[gnostic]

You are just fooling yourself.
You read some argument on a website and think that it is some kind of smart argument that the Qur'an is wrong.

Two of the crucial components for the origin of life – genetic material and cell membranes – could have been introduced to one another by a lump of clay, new experiments have shown.

Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4307-clays-matchmaking-could-have-sparked-life/#ixzz7FxnoMdNo

In any case, are you an expert in classical Arabic?
The translation I use says "black mud altered" .. whatever .. it refers to physical soil/mud/clay.

Muhammad.

You have really no idea what you are talking about.

I have studied enough about soil, and I know there are no organic materials unless some living organisms leave their wastes behind or the organisms have died.

In civil engineering, I have not only studied geology but also soil science, because the engineering have to have knowledge about the ground that would be foundation for construction....

Construction...like buildings, bridges, paved roads and highways, water pipes or mains, drainage pipes like storm water or sewers, etc.

Rocks and soils can have impacts on the above construction, so we have to know what types of rocks and types of soils that laborers may encounter during excavations on the worksite.

In the case with soils, we have to know what types of soils, the physical properties and textures, the levels of acids or alkaline that may have either short-term or long-term effects on the building materials being used in construction; the water contents in different soil types, mineral contamination or metal contamination that not only may have effects on not just buildings but also to health of people (eg health of residents, staff, construction workers, etc), for instances, metal toxicity, lead poisoning, etc.

You have mentioned “mud”. Mud are over-saturation of water contents on soils.

There are only 3 types of soils that may exist:

1. sandy soil,
2. silt,
3. clay

All 3 types have their origins from weathering of rocks.

Weathering on rocks occurred when water as running stream (eg rivers, creek, etc) or rain, as well as wind, and any types of debris (including debris from stone, rocks, sand (eg sandstorm), etc, causing rocks to break down to smaller pieces even breaking down to flakes or grains, or even breaking down further to rock minerals or down to powdery form. And before I forget, weathering can also be caused by flowing ice and water from glaciers.

There are several main types of rock minerals that can determine types of soils.

For instance, sandy soils are made of any different types of quartz, but the most basic type of quartz have molecular composition silicon-oxygen tetrahedral:

SiO4​

Feldspar is the most common mineral on the Earth’s crust, with composition tectosilicate minerals of which there are 3 types of feldspars, depending on if there are calcium, sodium or potassium presence in the silicate (eg silica SiO2) of feldspars:

NaAlSi3O8

KAlSi3O8

CaAl2Si2O8​

The original feldspars occurred when igneous rocks are weathered. Igneous rocks formed from cooling of magma or lava.

And lastly, there are rock minerals called mica. Now, there are many more different types of mica minerals, but they all have basic molecular composition of silicate, the phyllosilicate:

SiO5​

Different types of phyllosilicate are dependent on what other atomic elements are bonded with this type of silicate. Phyllosilicate exist in parallel sheet of silicate, unlike the grainy quartz mineral that exist in sandy soil.

The reasons why I am telling you all this about rock minerals, is because the general types of soils (sandy, silt or clay) come from these 3 rock minerals.

In silt soil, it is less grainy than sandy soil, and less powdery than clay soil. Silt can be made from quartz or feldspar minerals.

I have already talked about clay and their clay minerals in my older reply/post to you, as well as mentioning kaolinite being the most common type of clay found on earth. What I forgot to mentioned that clay minerals can form either feldspars (tectosilicates) or micas (phyllosilicates).

So soil, no matter what types they are, they are from silicon-based, of which, depending on the rocks being weathered, and the mineral types.

Silicons (eg silicate) are inorganic, and silicon are not the same carbon (eg organic matters). You cannot turn silicon atom into carbon atom, not without some form of process with the atom’s nucleus, thus Nucleosynthesis.

There are 3 essential biological or organic compounds or molecules that exist in all cells in living organisms. They are -

1. proteins (which itself are made of certain types of amino acids),
2. nucleic acids (you would know NA as DNA or RNA, which are responsible for passing physical and genetic traits from parents to offspring),
3. carbohydrates (eg glucoses, sugars, etc, which not only exist as energy fuel for life, but also exist in nucleic acids, eg ribose sugar in RNA, and deoxyribose sugar in DNA).

All 3 biological molecules (proteins, nucleic acids & carbohydrates) are all carbon-based molecules, not silicon.

I know that I have given you so many things to process, but you really don’t understand that clay cannot just turn into proteins, which are main organic matters in human body.

Yes, organic matters can be found in soil, but they actually waste byproducts of living organisms, like decomposing of remains, urinate (in ordinary slang, pee) or feces (poo), hair loss, shedding of skins, feathers, scales or hair, decomposing of leaves, branches or roots, etc.

Organic matters can permeate soil, but they are more of contamination, they are not the building of soil. Soils are made from minerals of silicon-based molecules, like micas, feldspars or quartz.

You are utterly ignorant if you cannot grasp that you cannot turn silicon into carbon.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Muhammad.

You have really no idea what you are talking about.
...
You are utterly ignorant if you cannot grasp that you cannot turn silicon into carbon.

That's great. You are an expert on soils.
..but not on the Qur'an though.

What you seem to misunderstand, is that it is not about the chemical analysis of soils.

One person told me that the Qur'an teaches that the sun orbits the earth, and it speaks about the sun setting in a muddy spring, which is impossible.
There are various idioms in languages, which when translated literally, might give a false impression to those who aren't familiar.
..but if you wish to think that the Qur'an is "wrong", then you are entitled to your opinion.

I find nothing wrong in the 45 years that I have been a Muslim.
I questioned a few things at first, but I soon began to understand.
That is not to say that there is no more to learn.
There is always something more to learn.
Life is like a journey. The grasp of spiritual concepts depends on our state of mind and our faith. It is not just about academic education, although that is also important.

 

[gnostic]

That's great. You are an expert on soils.
..but not on the Qur'an though.

What you seem to misunderstand, is that it is not about the chemical analysis of soils.

One person told me that the Qur'an teaches that the sun orbits the earth, and it speaks about the sun setting in a muddy spring, which is impossible.
There are various idioms in languages, which when translated literally, might give a false impression to those who aren't familiar.
..but if you wish to think that the Qur'an is "wrong", then you are entitled to your opinion.

I find nothing wrong in the 45 years that I have been a Muslim.
I questioned a few things at first, but I soon began to understand.
That is not to say that there is no more to learn.
There is always something more to learn.
Life is like a journey. The grasp of spiritual concepts depends on our state of mind and our faith. It is not just about academic education, although that is also important.

The problem is the Qur'an is based on misconception of natural reality that predated Muhammad.

Older civilisations, like those in Sumer and Egypt also include creation myths of humans being made from clay and water...which are not scientifically possible.

All you are doing is downplaying science and downplaying the Qur'an with excuses.

You say that it doesn't matter, but it matters a lot that clay are not compatible for human biology...in fact in all biology.

We have greater understanding of cells, genetics, anatomy and physiology, as well as the health and survival of life, since the 20th century.

But you say "I don't care" about this or that, simply based on your personal belief and your personal preference, and you think Evolution isn't true, because you don't understand the science behind it, not because of your understanding biology, but because of your religion.

You say that you can learn things for yourself, but it has become apparent that you don't want to learn at all, and yet you think that have the knowledge and experiences to say what is true or not true about science.

That's willful ignorant (red) and that's arrogance (green).

If you don't know enough about biology, then why make claims that Evolution is not true?

I am not motor mechanics, I don't go around and arrogantly tell him or her how to repair the engine. I am not a fisherman, I don't go around saying to them, you can't use this bait or that hook.

I am not even a biologist, so I don't go around saying, what is biology and what isn't.

But you think you do? You based that on what experience or education you have? Are you a biologist?

Do you remember? Do you remember in your multiple posts that "sciences" are "conspiracy"?

So, yes, I have issues with your posts. That you think anyone who disagree with you or people who don't have your level of education in science, is a conspiracy. It is rather silly.

 

[gnostic]

There are various idioms in languages, which when translated literally, might give a false impression to those who aren't familiar.
..but if you wish to think that the Qur'an is "wrong", then you are entitled to your opinion.

Muhammad, I used to believe in god, Jesus and the bible. And I have believe for 19 years...since I was 15, when my sister gave me 1st bible.

I don't consider myself to be a scholar of the bible, but I have learned to distinguish what can be interpret "literal" or "symbolic" (or metaphoric).

But I have done a lot of researches in other works that are mythological, folkloric and even religious in themes from other cultures, more specifically in Greek, Roman, Norse and Celtic myths, that I have created website called Timeless Myths.

I have read enough to know many religious and mythological texts to know that many of them required symbolic interpretations.

But I have also researched on ancient religious texts and mythological texts from cultures too, like from Egypt and Mesopotamia.

My points that in my researches, I picked skills that I didn't have when I was younger and believe in the bible. And that's to determine if the texts should be treated as literal or not literal.

So, yes, muhmmad, I know what you are talking about.

But even if I don't treat the Qur'an about Adam's creation, if the symbolic meaning are wrong.

So the story of Adam being made of clay, it's wrong if I were to treat literal, but it is also wrong, if I don't treat it as literal.

I do understand what you are saying, but clay and human don't mix, either way - literal or not literal.

 

[Astrophile]

does that type of reasoning apply to Jesus birth by immaculate conception in reference to evolutionary theory on a date not verified as accurate by any means (quantum or not...)?

You have misunderstood the Immaculate Conception. According to Immaculate Conception - Wikipedia , it 'is a doctrine of the Roman Catholic church that states that the Virgin Mary was free of original sin from the moment of her conception.' This doctrine is not the same as the virgin birth of Jesus, and it has no relation to evolutionary theory.

 

[muhammad_isa]

You say that you can learn things for yourself, but it has become apparent that you don't want to learn at all, and yet you think that have the knowledge and experiences to say what is true or not true about science.

Well, you are satisfied that you categorically know what happened millions of years ago.
I don't see that as a matter of science, whatever may be the evidence.

Are you a biologist?

Do you remember? Do you remember in your multiple posts that "sciences" are "conspiracy"?

I only mentioned the word "conspiracy" in passing. It is not my main argument.
When people are forcing something down my throat, I'm highly suspicious. That's why I said that.

You might be satisfied with the conclusions of "Darwinism", but I'm not.
i.e. evolution alone is responsible for human minds etc.

 

[shunyadragon]

Well, you are satisfied that you categorically know what happened millions of years ago.
I don't see that as a matter of science, whatever may be the evidence.

'Whatever be the evidence?' What are your qualifications to determine what evidence exists and what it means?

I only mentioned the word "conspiracy" in passing. It is not my main argument.
When people are forcing something down my throat, I'm highly suspicious. That's why I said that.

'Mention in passing?' Needs explanation.

You might be satisfied with the conclusions of "Darwinism", but I'm not.
i.e. evolution alone is responsible for human minds etc.

It is not Darwinism it is the science of evolution.

Again, what are your qualifications for reaching these conclusions?

 

[muhammad_isa]

..what are your qualifications for reaching these conclusions?

I'm not speaking from that platform..
I don't know what happened millions of years ago.

I don't have to take somebody's word for it, if they claim that they do.
Why should I? For what reason? Is science somehow Holy?

 

[gnostic]

I'm not speaking from that platform..
I don't know what happened millions of years ago.

I don't have to take somebody's word for it, if they claim that they do.
Why should I? For what reason? Is science somehow Holy?

No, muhammad_isa.

Sciences, especially scientific theories, aren’t “making claims”; that’s what you are doing right now.

Scientific theories are scientifically modeling the physical phenomena or natural phenomena, that are -

• TESTABLE, hence the models FALSIFIABLE, and
• the models have been sufficiently TESTED, through “observational evidence” that VERIFIED the models being “probable”.

What I mean by “model” or “modeling” is the EXPLANATORY MODEL and PREDICTIVE MODEL that are part of every scientific theories, as well as they should be in every new and working hypotheses.

The explanatory model is the part where scientist (or scientists) providing explanations as to WHAT the physical and natural phenomena are, HOW the phenomena work, and if there are any application in knowing the what & how about the phenomena.

The explanations should be based on preliminary observations of the real-world physical phenomena or natural phenomena.

The predictive model is the part where scientist(s) are required to provide predictions based on earlier observations of the phenomena - prior to formulating hypothesis there needs to be initial or preliminary evidence being observed.

The predictions should include providing where ones might find the evidence or providing the instructions as to how ones may perform experiments, trying to replicate or to reproduce the initial observations of the phenomena in the laboratory.

The explanations and predictions in a hypothesis or theory in science, aren’t simply made up.

As I said earlier, all hypotheses and theories are based on preliminary observations of the phenomena - observations of the evidence - made.

Preliminary observations should be made prior to even starting writing up new hypothesis, because these observations of the phenomena, should provide ideas that will allow a scientist on what to write about.

To give you an example, let’s look how Charles Darwin started Evolution, more specifically Natural Selection.

Darwin didn’t start with just writing any imaginary ideas that popped into his brains, like writing fiction. When Darwin had his his On Origin Of Species in 1859, he didn’t make them up Natural Selection from pure imagination.

No, he based his work on over 2 decades of observations of natural phenomena, starting with his 5-year voyage onboard HMS Beagle, from 1831, visiting places in South America, the Pacific, Australia and South Africa, where he encountered people and wild life, making observations of animals, plants and geological evidence, as well as collecting samples.

After returning home in 1836, he began researching his notes and samples collected as well as continuing his works and making new observations that have been collected at the university (Cambridge in particular), museums and the Geological Society Of London.

So his ideas for Natural Selection started long before 1859 publication of On Origin. The observations and the samples collected in 1830s, and his researches continued in 1840s and 50s, consulting with other experts during these time, led to Natural Selection.

So Darwin had decades of “preliminary observations” before On Origin. His research notes from his travel journal, was published after he came home.

Alfred Russel Wallace, Darwin’s friend and contemporary naturalist have also came up with the same concept (Natural Selection) after his own voyages, where he spent times in the Amazon (1848-52) and the Malay Archipelago (1854-62), before his work - The Malay Archipelago - was published in 1869.

Both Darwin and Wallace have the observations first, made similar discoveries about biodiversity of life, before the publication of their works about Natural Selection.

All scientific works should start with preliminary findings and results, before starting writing hypotheses.

And since then, other biologists expanded their works (not just in Natural Selection, but also other evolutionary mechanisms, such as Genetic Drift & Mutation), as well as correcting past errors.

As to the millions of years, you have problems with dating techniques. That a natural reaction by most science illiterates. The problem is you lacking basic knowledge of how these techniques are done.

Just because you don’t understand and don’t agree with the findings, you don’t have the knowledge, nor the experiences, to judge what are true and what are not true.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Just because you don’t understand and don’t agree with the findings, you don’t have the knowledge, nor the experiences, to judge what are true and what are not true.

I said I don't know.
Furthermore, I don't care what happened millions of years ago.
I don't care how G-d created human beings.
I just know that He did

I'm not denying that creatures have evolved.
It makes no difference to me exactly how, or the details.
Why should it?

 

[gnostic]

I said I don't know.
Furthermore, I don't care what happened millions of years ago.
I don't care how G-d created human beings.
I just know that He did

I'm not denying that creatures have evolved.
It makes no difference to me exactly how, or the details.
Why should it?

So, you already have said, you don’t care about anything other than your god.

If that’s true, then why are you here, in the “Science and Religion” debate forum?

If you don’t want to debate religion over science, or you don’t want to learn some things about science, then I don’t see why you would to continue to post here, in this thread or other threads in this section of RF.

It is your choice to post here or to learn some science.

 

[muhammad_isa]

It is your choice to post here or to learn some science.

I don't consider exactly what happened millions of years ago to be science.
I see it as history.
Why would somebody wish to state categorically that they know exactly what happened millions of years ago, if they don't have some kind of agenda?
It's simply not necessary. One can show that the basic principles of evolution are true without doing that.

 

[gnostic]

I don't consider exactly what happened millions of years ago to be science.
I see it as history.

Let’s be clear on something.

I have never studied history in the education capacity, meaning I am not a qualified historian, and my college routes was in civil engineering in the mid-80s & computer science in the late 90s.

But I do have interests in history, archaeology and in mythology, and I have researched them in my own time, especially ancient or classical history.

History is a broad term, and can have multiple meanings.

In the strictest sense, HISTORY referred to WRITTEN historical accounts, which is to distinguish from a much longer period before the invention of writing systems, thus the prehistoric period, therefore PREHISTORY.

So in that context, “history” mainly covered the literate civilizations/societies/cultures, like Early Bronze Age Egypt & Sumer. I don’t if contemporary civilization in the Indian subcontinent have writings at this time (from 3100 - 2000 BCE).

With PREHISTORY, only archaeological sites and artifacts can be studied and examined, since there are no writings before 5500 years ago (or 3500 BCE).

Then history can be used in the broader sense, for example, “human history”.

In this case, it means everything, regardless if there are writings or not. This would not include the Homo sapiens, but also other Homo species, like the Neanderthals and the Homo erectus (this Homo erectus were the ones who know how to make fire).

So if you are talking about history as with the development of writing systems, then you are talking about less than 5500 years ago.

But if you referring to “human history”, then the earliest Homo sapiens presence is about 200,000 years, while the earliest Homo erectus about 2 million. The older Homo habilis about 3.3 million years ago.

So which “history”, are you referring to?

 

[muhammad_isa]

But if you referring to “human history”, then the earliest Homo sapiens presence is about 200,000 years, while the earliest Homo erectus about 2 million. The older Homo habilis about 3.3 million years ago.

So which “history”, are you referring to?

You refer to the history from studying fossils.
It is not an exact science.

Again, whilst it is interesting, I don't consider it to be definitive.
eg. it can show us how mankind came to be

People are free to make their own conclusions from any evidence
that we find.
I don't believe that there is evidence that shows us how non-human life slowly evolved into human life.
However, even if such evidence truly exists, it still doesn't affect my faith in G-d.
It is more than a passing thought in my mind.
It is my whole life.

It is not dependent on any physical reality whatsoever.