EVOLUTION, what a lie.

[Jayhawker Soule]

looks like someone can't stand the heat.

Stop embarrassing yourself ... :slap:

 

[Gharib]

Eselam, that's a cheap response, especially for you. Seriously, give it a think and at least try to respond to my ideas with more than a snarky comment. You should seriously consider that I think more of you than you may know. I think you can actually give me a decent response - and you snub me for no reason other than you don't want to consider it.

ok i appologise, i will try to respond to your post.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

Sometimes i wonder if people actually consider the responses they get.
Oviously some don't even read them or else they wouldn't make the same mistakes again and again.

BUT ... what i really find so astounding is the fact that while one idea is rejected no other is presented. And one of the reasons that comes to my mind when thinking about it is that there simply is no alternative that is presentable.

Thus we always have this negative campaign running here.

"This is bad, this is full of gaps, there are so many holes...... bad bad bad"
"Ok what is your idea?"
"This is bad, this is full of gaps, there are so many holes...... bad bad bad"
"oh i c"

 

[Gharib]

Well, I guess you can thank Allah for misleading all those people who believe in evolution, then.

why would you say that Buttons*?
would you like a 'free will' lecture?

Well... if only facts are real, that takes out a LOT of information we take for granted as real. Thoughts, beliefs, spirituality... all disintegrates unless we have facts to back them up. Our facts for those, thus far, are pretty empty.

so wasn't science all about "evidence" and "facts". science made those claims, not me. are you asserting that science is based on beliefs and spirituality?

There are many theories in math, science, and physics that we believe to be true. We put them into practice and so far they are apparently true. However, something may come along to fine tune or irradicate the way we think of things now. Like the theory of planet rotation, for instance. The way we use physics to study Stars that are millions of miles away. These are theories, our best guess. I don't know how a best guess could be a lie.

thats right, they are theories not facts, just like evolution is. i don't know how a theory can be called a fact?

Lying is knowing better, but promoting a false cover up. I don't see scientists as doing this.

i can't post heaps of such occurences if you want to have a read at them.

Maybe, if this is a trick on God's behalf, God is actually lying. Feeding us false information just to see us squirm? That's not really that loving or thoughtful

this has nothing to do with that, why bring it up? you guys are claiming that evolution is true, so where is the proof to support those claims?

and as i can recall, i asked for transitional links to be presented here. but you all failed.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

and as i can recall, i asked for transitional links to be presented here. but you all failed.

What is in your opinion a "transitional link" ?
If it were what is scientifically considered to be one the question wouldn't make much sense because it doesn't even take two minutes to find something.

So the direct question: what do you expect ?

 

[painted wolf]

They expect a crocoduck.... which is silly because such a chimera would disprove evolution.

But they will ignore these...

(a-b) Dorudon (c-d) Maiacetus

wa:do

 

[Eddy Daze]

PW..if you applied cladistics to living animals today, lineages would form between animals that may not even be related wouldnt there?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

They expect a crocoduck....

... or, perhaps, a quackodile. It's always seemed to me that these intellectual dinosaurs are themselves evidence against intelligent design. After all, how could a plan go so wrong?

 

[Autodidact]

Response: There's nothing the rest of the world can do scientifically that the muslim world can't do. So where's the irony?

Sure, they could, but of course that would require actually learning science, that stuff that's based on evidence, and which therefore you think would be mentally unstable to believe.

 

[Autodidact]

Response: In what way?

By rejecting science (and other learning) in favor of fundamentalist ignorance.

Response: How so and who's holding science back?

You and people who think like you.

In fact, how exactly does someone hold science back?

by not providing a comprehensive science education to young people, including all of the scientific discoveries of the last two centures, such as evolution.

 

[Autodidact]

challenge to evolutionists:

if evolution is true then that means transitional forms have been found right,

Yup. Millions of them. Would you like some examples? Or will you just do like Fatihah and assert that the paleontologists who discovered them are lying?

for if there haven't then just as darwin himself stated "the theory of evolution would be invalid". so i am challenging you guys to provide evidence of these transitional forms, be it reptiles turning to birds, sea creatures to land creatures, or apes to human, ane transitional form for any scenario would do.

Tiktaalik Very important and exciting creature in the important transition from sea to land.

Would you like some more?

 

[painted wolf]

PW..if you applied cladistics to living animals today, lineages would form between animals that may not even be related wouldnt there?

Not really... I mean you'd have to be pretty bad at it.
Linnaeus did a remarkable job of sketching out the first rough set of lineages.... back in the 1700's.
Today we have much better optics and computers to help us crank out cladistic analysis... And let me say that those computer programs help a lot because a good cladistic tree will have anywhere from 60 to several hundred features to chug through.
Homologies and analogies are pretty easy to sort through if you know anatomy and have good samples like we do today.

The only mistakes would be minor ones like between worms 1, 2 and 3... and that would be cleared up by genetic analysis.
This sort of clearing up is being done as we speak.. remember the ducks I mentioned.
That is the biggest level of error that has been made, if two ducks are the same or different species... but the relationship of ducks and geese and swans is solid. As is the link between birds and living archosaurs.

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

exactly my point, thus evolution is not real. does evolution not state that species change gradually over thousands and maybe millions of years, so by not having a half reptile-half bird creature, that means that a reptile lived for some millions of years then 'poof' it just suddenly changed to a bird and then that bird gradually changed over time to addapt to it's environment.

NO, it doesn't. You don't understand the theory. It mean that you have a pure, obvious reptile. Then a creature that's almost the same, but just slightly bird like. Then another one that's just slightly more birdlike, and so forth, until finally you get one that's clearly a bird. According to ToE, it's not a single reptile/birds, it's many creatures in between. And yes, fossils of many of them have been found.

Transition from diapsid reptiles to birds

In the mid-1800's, this was one of the most significant gaps in vertebrate fossil evolution. No transitional fossils at all were known, and the two groups seemed impossibly different. Then the exciting discovery of Archeopteryx in 1861 showed clearly that the two groups were in fact related. Since then, some other reptile-bird links have been found. On the whole, though, this is still a gappy transition, consisting of a very large-scale series of "cousin" fossils. I have not included Mononychus (as it appears to be a digger, not a flier, well off the line to modern birds). See Feduccia (1980) and Rayner (1989) for more discussion of the evolution of flight, and Chris Nedin's excellent Archeopteryx FAQ for more info on that critter.

• Coelophysis (late Triassic) -- One of the first theropod dinosaurs. Theropods in general show clear general skeletal affinities with birds (long limbs, hollow bones, foot with 3 toes in front and 1 reversed toe behind, long ilium). Jurassic theropods like Compsognathus are particularly similar to birds.
• Deinonychus, Oviraptor, and other advanced theropods (late Jurassic, Cretaceous) -- Predatory bipedal advanced theropods, larger, with more bird-like skeletal features: semilunate carpal, bony sternum, long arms, reversed pubis. Clearly runners, though, not fliers. These advanced theropods even had clavicles, sometimes fused as in birds. Says Clark (1992): "The detailed similarity between birds and theropod dinosaurs such as Deinonychus is so striking and so pervasive throughout the skeleton that a considerable amount of special pleading is needed to come to any conclusion other than that the sister-group of birds among fossils is one of several theropod dinosaurs." The particular fossils listed here are are not directly ancestral, though, as they occur after Archeopteryx.
• Lisboasaurus estesi & other "troodontid dinosaur-birds" (mid-Jurassic) -- A bird-like theropod reptile with very bird-like teeth (that is, teeth very like those of early toothed birds, since modern birds have no teeth). These really could be ancestral.

GAP: The exact reptilian ancestor of Archeopteryx, and the first development of feathers, are unknown. Early bird evolution seems to have involved little forest climbers and then little forest fliers, both of which are guaranteed to leave very bad fossil records (little animal + acidic forest soil = no remains). Archeopteryx itself is really about the best we could ask for: several specimens has superb feather impressions, it is clearly related to both reptiles and birds, and it clearly shows that the transition is feasible.

• One possible ancestor of Archeopteryx is Protoavis (Triassic, ~225 Ma) -- A highly controversial fossil that may or may not be an extremely early bird. Unfortunately, not enough of the fossil was recovered to determine if it is definitely related to the birds.
• Archeopteryx lithographica (Late Jurassic, 150 Ma) -- The several known specimes of this deservedly famous fossil show a mosaic of reptilian and avian features, with the reptilian features predominating. The skull and skeleton are basically reptilian (skull, teeth, vertebrae, sternum, ribs, pelvis, tail, digits, claws, generally unfused bones). Bird traits are limited to an avian furcula (wishbone, for attachment of flight muscles; recall that at least some dinosaurs had this too), modified forelimbs, and -- the real kicker -- unmistakable lift-producing flight feathers. Archeopteryx could probably flap from tree to tree, but couldn't take off from the ground, since it lacked a keeled breastbone for large flight muscles, and had a weak shoulder compared to modern birds. May not have been the direct ancestor of modern birds. (Wellnhofer, 1993)
• Sinornis santensis ("Chinese bird", early Cretaceous, 138 Ma) -- A recently found little primitive bird. Bird traits: short trunk, claws on the toes, flight-specialized shoulders, stronger flight- feather bones, tightly folding wrist, short hand. (These traits make it a much better flier than Archeopteryx.) Reptilian traits: teeth, stomach ribs, unfused hand bones, reptilian-shaped unfused pelvis. (These remaining reptilian traits wouldn't have interfered with flight.) Intermediate traits: metatarsals partially fused, medium-sized sternal keel, medium-length tail (8 vertebrae) with fused pygostyle at the tip. (Sereno & Rao, 1992).
• "Las Hoyas bird" or "Spanish bird" [not yet named; early Cretaceous, 131 Ma) -- Another recently found "little forest flier". It still has reptilian pelvis & legs, with bird-like shoulder. Tail is medium-length with a fused tip. A fossil down feather was found with the Las Hoyas bird, indicating homeothermy. (Sanz et al., 1992)
• Ambiortus dementjevi (early Cretaceous, 125 Ma) -- The third known "little forest flier", found in 1985. Very fragmentary fossil.
• Hesperornis, Ichthyornis, and other Cretaceous diving birds -- This line of birds became specialized for diving, like modern cormorants. As they lived along saltwater coasts, there are many fossils known. Skeleton further modified for flight (fusion of pelvis bones, fusion of hand bones, short & fused tail). Still had true socketed teeth, a reptilian trait.

[Note: a classic study of chicken embryos showed that chicken bills can be induced to develop teeth, indicating that chickens (and perhaps other modern birds) still retain the genes for making teeth. Also note that molecular data shows that crocodiles are birds' closest living relatives.]

and that theory (the one i have just stated) totally contradicts evolution. meaning only one thing, evolution is a lie made up by phony scientists who do not believe in god.

dissprove my claims if you think i am mistaken. anyone can try, not just you.

O.K.

Any other transitions you're particularly interested in? Giraffes? Horses? Whales? What would you like?

[*predicts that you will find a way to deny this important evidence, which is exactly what you asked for.]

 

[Autodidact]

you got that right. :yes:

Why, are you so biased that you won't accept the evidence you claim to be asking for?

 

[Autodidact]

ok if you put it that way, i guess you could say that. but still it does not prove evolution to be a fact or real. since there are no transitional forms that are half of one creature and half of another.

if anyone can provide any evidence of such a creature, that actually fits the profile, then i guess evolution is true.

NO, it would actually disprove ToE, which is why we don't find that. Do you see why?

but they don't exist, therefore evolution not real.

No, therefore it is.

What we in fact find is that every fossil of every creature ever found is "transitional" between two other creatures. No fossil has ever been found that's not transitional, because evolution applies to every creature that ever lived. Every one evolved from an ancestor species, and daughter species evolved from it. Would you like some more transitional series? Here's a neat one, whales. Whales are mammals, and evolved from land creatures. Here's just one of the transitional creatures along the way:

Here's its fossil:

[*anticipates eselam rejecting scientific knowledge rather than accept that he has been given just what he asked for.]

 

[Autodidact]

I think my comment caused some confusion... it's yes to the thread title for me ! (or at least Evolution cannot be proven the way they are attempting to currently)

Peace be upon you.

NOT PROVEN, EVIDENCE. EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE.

I should have counted how many times I've had to say this to people of a certain religious background in this thread. What do you think is wrong with them. I know Muslims aren't dumber than non-Muslims. Does their religious training somehow impair their thinking process?

 

[YmirGF]

Does their religious training somehow impair their thinking process?

I would suggest that that is precisely what has been demonstrated in this thread by our holy rollers.

 

[Autodidact]

But my friend, if you look at the example you provided you will notice that breeding in this case is a forced event i.e. the breeder purposely takes the two variety of dogs (for example) and mates them. That did not happen by accident. In addition... can you see that variety is a sign of Allah's Might (and Genious)? Let me lay down a automotive example . If you see car manufacturer produce one type of car and nothing else... you'd think they are not very innovative/capable right (assuming that they do have the finance - however Allah has not end to His Power in this respect) and you saw another company produce a much wider variety of models and this manufacturer is exactly the same in size/region as the limited one what would you think? You'd think that the latter manufacturer is much more capable right? (huge example - I know ).

Exactly. Byusing evolution to produce literally millions of different organisms, Allah shows His might and brilliance.

Yup it was (and interesting too) lol. But as you say yourself, it is just natural selection making small changes (which really can be seen as Allah's doing).

Yes! Yes! When natural selection makes small changes, it's Allah's doing!!! That's what I've been trying to tell you for 180 pages.

Natural selection, if you consider Allah, is not autonomous. Therefore random mutations are not autonomous either.

No one is arguing that they are. In fact, I've been arguing for 180 pages that they are NOT autonomous. They are all Allah's doing, because they are real, and Allah is the creator of all.

Therefore we are still at square one if you consider that nothing happends without the Permission of Allah.

Yup. And evolution happens. Therefore, (for a Muslim) evolution happens with the permission of Allah.

*For the people that don't think that Allah's being a Creator is not related to ToE; it is . Since the dilemma with ToE for believers is that nothing can happen without Allah's Will for it.

This is not a dilemma for Muslims who accept ToE. It's a dilemma for atheists, but that's a different subject. For the 100th time, ToE is NOT atheism. ToE is NOT the theory that there is no God. If you believe in God, then ToE is a theory about HOW God creates. [honestly, go back through the thread. I have said this at least 50 times. It's not that complicated. Why can't you grasp it?]

 

[Autodidact]

If it is us that believe in evolution for the wrong reasons then we are only deceiving ourselves. Right?

You cannot dismiss the Qur'an as evidence (thereby accepting what Allah says about nothing being able to "evolve" without His permission as "fact").

But guesses can be wrong, no? Therefore propagating as what "really happened because of fossil evidence" would be "lying" in that case.

Umm... Again, you are presuming that what scientists have discovered is flawless so that you can say that you are being lied to. However, why are you assuming this? You yourself have said that theories can be totally dismissed in the case of a new but completely conflicting discovery comes up right? Therefore some people squirming is a result of their own doing.. because Allah say's that not thing happens without His will. That is if you believe that.

Peace be upon you. (again sorry for interfering)

No, it's not flawless. It's just the highest level of knowledge that we have right now. Ten years from now, it will be better. 100 years, better still. It's the same quality as all of scientific knowledge, the same knowledge that you rely on every day.

 

[Autodidact]

i didn't ask how to get a fossil i said "what is a fossil", and yet you failed to explain that to me. oh well that makes 2 of us then.

\\

Fossils are the remains of creatures which existed long ago. Fossils range from thousands of years to many millions of years in age. The earliest fossils of complex life date from around 600 million years ago, however recent reports reveal bacteria may have existed up to 3 billion years earlier. To put this in context, the dinosaurs became extinct just 65 million years ago!

Not all former life was preserved as fossils, in fact the vast majority simply vanished without trace. The most likely materials to survive fossilisation are the hard parts such as shells and objects which in life were constructed from resistant materials, such as Coral. In order for softer materials to survive, the conditions must be extremely favourable.

Fossils come in a variety of sizes, from minute traces to large skeletons. Trace fossils are clues to former life, they result from the activities or presence of creatures and plants. Examples of these traces include footprints, burrows and root tunnels. At the larger end of the scale, fossils also include bones, the largest of which belong to the dinosaurs, which existed between the Triassic and Cretaceous periods.


There are five different ways ways an organism can become fossilised:

Permineralization (Petrification) - This process involves the replacement of the original organic tissues with minerals from the surrounding rock, including silica, calcite or pyrite.

Unaltered preservation - This occurs when the organism is preserved in its original state and protected from the affects of permineralization. Examples of this include insects which become trapped in tree sap, which later turns to amber.

Carbonization (Coalification) - This results from removal of all but the carbon elements. Other elements such as hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen are removed.

Authigenic preservation - These fossils are the molds and casts of organisms which have dissolved or rotted away, leaving only a trace of their existence.

Recrystalization - This occurs where crystals form within the original structure, eventually replacing it and resulting in a crystallized copy. The following diagrams illustrate the process of fossilisation, starting with the moment of death. The example used is an ammonite, a shelled creature that lived in the seas around 150 million years ago.

from here

Are you familiar with Google?
An important thing to remember about fossils is that they are rare. Less than 1% of organisms become fossilized.