First time posting a thread, so go easy on me✌️

[MayPeaceBeUpOnYou]

I am a Muslim and I like to hear your thought about evolution. Here are some questions

When Darwin made his theory about evolution, what exactly did he claim and which claim is made by others based on his.

Is it logical to accept the idea of natural selection and deny the idea that a kind changed to another kind?

A long time I have neglected investigating this topic since it’s not really my thing.
Recommending of a documentary or a lecture about this topic is welcome. I don’t like to read books about this topics since the difficulty words being used.

 

[Viker]

Welcome and blessings.

I've just recently watched this video. I found it informative.

 

[McBell]

Here is the first episode of a series:

 

[Viker]

Here is the first episode of a series:

Oh yeah. Aaron Ra. Love that guy.

 

[F1fan]

I am a Muslim and I like to hear your thought about evolution. Here are some questions

When Darwin made his theory about evolution, what exactly did he claim and which claim is made by others based on his.

His work began by making observations about how species change over generations due to changes in their environment. His basic ideas were correct but he did get some things wrong. In the 150 years since a massive amount of work has been done and evolution is a certainty.

Is it logical to accept the idea of natural selection and deny the idea that a kind changed to another kind?

Not given the observations, facts, and data.

A long time I have neglected investigating this topic since it’s not really my thing.
Recommending of a documentary or a lecture about this topic is welcome. I don’t like to read books about this topics since the difficulty words being used.

It's a massively complex phenomenon, but there are many good videos that explain how it works.

 

[MayPeaceBeUpOnYou]

Welcome and blessings.

I've just recently watched this video. I found it informative.

Thanks for the recommendation. Felt like I was back in school, lol.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I am a Muslim and I like to hear your thought about evolution. Here are some questions

When Darwin made his theory about evolution, what exactly did he claim and which claim is made by others based on his.

Is it logical to accept the idea of natural selection and deny the idea that a kind changed to another kind?

A long time I have neglected investigating this topic since it’s not really my thing.
Recommending of a documentary or a lecture about this topic is welcome. I don’t like to read books about this topics since the difficulty words being used.

It's a misconception. Kinds don't change into other kinds. That croc-a-duck nonsense in other words funny and hilarious as it is.

It will always be in its clade that dosent change , which is why evolution is often depicted as a tree with branches.

Our own genome in our bodies proves it as well , like webbing between our fingers and the presence of a tail bone (sometimes with a tail itself in cases) particularly with our dormant genes and organs and physicality that reflect our earlier past.

P B S eons had a cool episode on the matter of our genome and DNA referred to as junk DNA that reflects our evolution.

 

[Nimos]

Welcome

Is it logical to accept the idea of natural selection and deny the idea that a kind changed to another kind?

No is the simple answer.

The reason is that people often make a distinction between micro and macroevolution as if these are completely different things. But pretty much the only difference between them is in regards to the timescale in which we talk about them. One is over a short period of time and the other a long time. But the underlying principles are the same.

"Kind" is not something that is used in evolution.

It might be easier to look at it like this, how does your father look compared to you? How about his father? and his father? and you keep doing that over and over, each time there will be tiny changes until you eventually reach the common ancestor.

The problem is that we as humans are exceptionally bad at imagining that.

 

[MayPeaceBeUpOnYou]

His work began by making observations about how species change over generations due to changes in their environment.

So he came up with the natural selection part?

Not given the observations, facts, and data.

I am curious an maybe you can help me pointing in the right direction. So the theory that claims that a different kind changed in to an other kind this was through millions of years correct? If so what proof of this is most convincing.
As a Muslim I believe god made a different kind of creatures. Animals and humans.
Am I assuming correct that the the theory tells us that the ancestors of the humans were animals correct?

It's a massively complex phenomenon, but there are many good videos that explain how it works

Yes the first video being posted in here gave me a basic understanding

 

[The Hammer]

There is a documentary about 3 hours total, called "Your Inner Fish/lizard/monkey"

Your Inner Fish | PBS

Our body is the legacy of our ancient animal ancestors. Meet them in this series.

www.pbs.org

That does a really.good job about explaining evolution and how it did and did not impact us and other organisms.

 

[The Hammer]

So he came up with the natural selection part?

No, he wasn't even the first to propose natural selection.

"Several philosophers of the classical era, including Empedocles[1] and his intellectual successor, the Roman poet Lucretius,[2] expressed the idea that nature produces a huge variety of creatures, randomly, and that only those creatures that manage to provide for themselves and reproduce successfully persist. Empedocles' idea that organisms arose entirely by the incidental workings of causes such as heat and cold was criticised by Aristotle in Book II of Physics.[3] He posited natural teleology in its place, and believed that form was achieved for a purpose, citing the regularity of heredity in species as proof.[4][5] Nevertheless, he accepted in his biology that new types of animals, monstrosities (τερας), can occur in very rare instances (Generation of Animals, Book IV).[6] As quoted in Darwin's 1872 edition of The Origin of Species, Aristotle considered whether different forms (e.g., of teeth) might have appeared accidentally, but only the useful forms survived: 'So what hinders the different parts [of the body] from having this merely accidental relation in nature? as the teeth, for example, grow by necessity, the front ones sharp, adapted for dividing, and the grinders flat, and serviceable for masticating the food; since they were not made for the sake of this, but it was the result of accident. And in like manner as to the other parts in which there appears to exist an adaptation to an end. Wheresoever, therefore, all things together (that is all the parts of one whole) happened like as if they were made for the sake of something, these were preserved, having been appropriately constituted by an internal spontaneity, and whatsoever things were not thus constituted, perished, and still perish.

— Aristotle, Physics, Book II, Chapter 8[7]''

 

[MayPeaceBeUpOnYou]

No is the simple answer.

The reason is that people often make a distinction between micro and macroevolution

I assume Natural selection is the one that takes more time to happen?
Can you give me a example of what is considered to change in a short time?

It might be easier to look at it like this, how does your father look compared to you? How about his father? and his father? and you keep doing that over and over, each time there will be tiny changes until you eventually reach the common ancestor.

I get what you are trying to say. We humans have differences among ourselves. But for me I can’t imagine those differences can go so far as tracing it back to a monkey or whatever is considered to be our ancestor

Kind" is not something that is used in evolution.

What word is appropriate?

 

[MayPeaceBeUpOnYou]

No, he wasn't even the first to propose natural selection.

"Several philosophers of the classical era, including Empedocles[1] and his intellectual successor, the Roman poet Lucretius,[2] expressed the idea that nature produces a huge variety of creatures, randomly, and that only those creatures that manage to provide for themselves and reproduce successfully persist. Empedocles' idea that organisms arose entirely by the incidental workings of causes such as heat and cold was criticised by Aristotle in Book II of Physics.[3] He posited natural teleology in its place, and believed that form was achieved for a purpose, citing the regularity of heredity in species as proof.[4][5] Nevertheless, he accepted in his biology that new types of animals, monstrosities (τερας), can occur in very rare instances (Generation of Animals, Book IV).[6] As quoted in Darwin's 1872 edition of The Origin of Species, Aristotle considered whether different forms (e.g., of teeth) might have appeared accidentally, but only the useful forms survived: 'So what hinders the different parts [of the body] from having this merely accidental relation in nature? as the teeth, for example, grow by necessity, the front ones sharp, adapted for dividing, and the grinders flat, and serviceable for masticating the food; since they were not made for the sake of this, but it was the result of accident. And in like manner as to the other parts in which there appears to exist an adaptation to an end. Wheresoever, therefore, all things together (that is all the parts of one whole) happened like as if they were made for the sake of something, these were preserved, having been appropriately constituted by an internal spontaneity, and whatsoever things were not thus constituted, perished, and still perish.

— Aristotle, Physics, Book II, Chapter 8[7]''

Good to know. So Darwin refined the things that’s other people came with. Makes sense since you is human life is to short to solving the question how we came to be

 

[F1fan]

So he came up with the natural selection part?

Natural selection is an observed phenomenon. He made note of it.

I am curious an maybe you can help me pointing in the right direction. So the theory that claims that a different kind changed in to an other kind this was through millions of years correct?

False, there are no "kinds" in science. You mean species. And species only evolve if there is pressure in the environment. For example we homo sapiens emerged as homo erectus died off about 200,000 years ago. On the other hand sharks have remained the same for many millions of years since they have little stress in their environments.

If so what proof of this is most convincing.

It all has to be understood as a whole. It's a massively complex process. There are many diverse parts of the planet, and many diverse species.

As a Muslim I believe god made a different kind of creatures. Animals and humans.

That's the liability of religion in the 21st century. Religions had no knowledge of science when hey formed.

Am I assuming correct that the the theory tells us that the ancestors of the humans were animals correct?

Humans are animals. This is 7th grade science class. Children learn this.

Yes the first video being posted in here gave me a basic understanding

You are starting from zero, so you need just the basics.

 

[Nimos]

I assume Natural selection is the one that takes more time to happen?
Can you give me a example of what is considered to change in a short time?

Natural selection is what is commonly known as survival of the fittest which you have probably heard before? And has nothing to do with who is strongest, it simply means the ones who made it. Natural selection is happening all the time, both now and back then, again it is simply referring to those that survived.

Change in short time is happening as we speak, but a good example is the flu, which happens each year, so we have to make new vaccines trying to keep up with these changes.

Also breeding of animals is "natural" selection, you breed the best animals or plants to make them better and better. For instance, the standard banana we buy is not how a banana actually looks like, it is one humans have created.

I get what you are trying to say. We humans have differences among ourselves. But for me I can’t imagine those differences can go so far as tracing it back to a monkey or whatever is considered to be our ancestor

That is the problem we have because we are talking about such a long time period.

And that is where you would have to go deeper into it, to understand how that works.

But also you can look at how different people in the world look, some are black, white, asian and everything in between. Even though we are all homo sapiens, we look very different, because of the places we live. This is also a result of evolution, it was more beneficial to have black skin in a place like Africa etc.

We are not monkeys, we have a common ancestor with them. And you can't look at this like "Common ancestor" one day and then the next day "Homo sapiens", if you look at the image I posted, we are taking a very long time.

What word is appropriate?

Species maybe, not a 100% sure, there are a lot of names

But you wouldn't have a human kind or monkey kind, you have great apes (we are part of these), which are part of the primates, which include monkeys as well etc.

 

[MayPeaceBeUpOnYou]

No is the simple answer.

False, there are no "kinds" in science. You mean species. And species only evolve if there is pressure in the environment. For example we homo sapiens emerged as homo erectus died off about 200,000 years ago. On the other hand sharks have remained the same for many millions of years since they have little stress in their environments.

Gotcha creatures .

Humans are animals. This is 7th grade science class. Children learn this.

Sure thing I am aware that we are some kind of animal. I just made a distinction between humans and animals, like in dogs or cats.
Forgive me for my English, it’s not my first language

That's the liability of religion in the 21st century. Religions had no knowledge of science when hey formed.

Science means knowledge right?

And what about the start of this everything. How far back evolution goes to? Meaning at what point dors scientists say we don’t know?

 

[The Hammer]

Good to know. So Darwin refined the things that’s other people came with. Makes sense since you is human life is to short to solving the question how we came to be

That's pretty much standard science. "Improve upon the knowledge of ones predecessors."

Human life is short, but our ability to analyze evidence is a thing but short.

 

[The Hammer]

And what about the start of this everything. How far back evolution goes to?

Evolution doesn't concern itself with a "start".

Meaning at what point dors scientists say we don’t know?

When they don't actually know..

 

[The Hammer]

 

[Spice]

I'm going to get off the scientific trail by sharing an interest I've had for quite some time. . .trying to blend Genesis with evolutionary science. PLEASE TAKE NOTE - THIS IS MY PERSONAL OBSERVATION AND HAS NO SCIENTIFIC NOR THEOLOGICAL SCHOLARSHIP SUPPORT. I did not find it on the internet, nor in any book other than the Bible, but I was inspired by an article in Smithsonian Magazine in tge early 2000s, on burial remains found in Israel.

But I hope you at least enjoy the thought of possibilities:

Genesis lists a broken line of Adam through Cain, that overlaps a bit with the complete line through Seth. I've only penciled in the descendants of Cain that do not repeat in the lineage of Seth, as these descendants would have been of the same era as Noah according to the repeated lineage. These names are Jabal and Jubal. There is also listed a half-brother named Tubal-cain and his sister, Na'amah that is not included in my speculation.

Adam's line through Seth with total lifespan is:
Adam. 930 yrs
Seth. 912 yrs
Enosh. 905 yrs
Kenan. 910 yrs
Mahalael. 895 yrs
Jared. 962 yrs
Enoch. 365 yrs
Methuselah. 969 yrs
Lamech. 777 yrs -- number of God
Noah. ~620 yrs -- 500 + Gen 6:3

From Seth through Noah, if the age of "years" were millions, it would reasonably parallel time of the evolution of man.

Could the wisdom of the ancients have been preserved this well? Or were the ancients truly inspired? Or just total fun with coincidence?