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

[MayPeaceBeUpOnYou]

Darwin is pretty much irrelevant to what we know today. He's only famous because he was the one of the first to realize that living organisms change as they reproduce one generation to the next. He wrote a famous book about his observations and predictions. Since this was 1860 he did not have much other knowledge to build on like we do today. There weren't planes or cars when he wrote that book, and look at how much we have learned about designing and building airplanes.

There was another guy named Wallace who also figured out that evolution is a real phenomenon. But he didn't get the fame.

True there is more information available, I just wanted to know more about him. if I am correct Wallace even asked Darwin to check his work but since Darwin had his own work someone else did it and not of their work came out at the same time

 

[MayPeaceBeUpOnYou]

I am linking a very informative article that reasonably answers your question on Darwin's contribution. Please read and let me know if you have any questions.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1876431/#:~:text=Darwin's%20greatest%20contribution%20to%20science,into%20the%20realm%20of%20science.

Excerpts

Darwin considered natural selection, rather than his demonstration of evolution, his most important discovery and designated it as “my theory,” a designation he never used when referring to the evolution of organisms. The discovery of natural selection, Darwin's awareness that it was a greatly significant discovery because it was science's answer to Paley's argument from design,

Thanks for the recommendation

 

[MayPeaceBeUpOnYou]

Quite often when debating with creationists I try to ask them "What test could possibly prove you to be wrong?" There are very often confused by that because they do not want to be proven wrong. They just want to believe. As I said, scientists do not want to be wrong either, but for them knowing what is right is even more important than that. (Ideally)

I get what you are trying to say. There should be no fear to gain knowledge about the truth.

 

[MayPeaceBeUpOnYou]

So Maybe someone call give me some clarification on what kind conclusion the science brings us on evolution. The evidences point out that beings have common ancestors due to natural selection,
Is there enough evidence to say it’s a fact that all living things are originated from a single cell?
I always thought that because it’s so far back we don’t have a way of proving this, you can correct me if I am wrong?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

So Maybe someone call give me some clarification on what kind conclusion the science brings us on evolution. The evidences point out that beings have common ancestors due to natural selection, Is there enough evidence to say it’s a fact that all living things are originated from a single cell? I always thought that because it’s so far back we don’t have a way of proving this, you can correct me if I am wrong?

The genetic code is the same for all life. This is a technical discussion. Do you know what transfer RNA is? The answer lies there in the assignment of anticodons and amino acids. Here, CGU is mechanically connected to the amino acid alanine. We find this throughout the tree of life, from bacteria to hippopotami. Why? A common ancestor is the most plausible answer.

 

[F1fan]

So Maybe someone call give me some clarification on what kind conclusion the science brings us on evolution. The evidences point out that beings have common ancestors due to natural selection,
Is there enough evidence to say it’s a fact that all living things are originated from a single cell?

Well the lineage of fossils show minor changes over time. The type of dirt that fossils are found in can be dated and that gives scientists a timeline to the type of fossil found. By putting all the data togather they can see patterns emerge. There isn't a complete fossil record, there are gaps. But new discoveries get found and gaps are filled. There are so many pieces of the puzzle that experts can infer the picture. Here's an example, look at this series of numbers, and even since there are some missing you can understand and recognize a pattern emerging and infer what the missing numbers are:

3 5 6 7 9 11 12 14 15 16 17 19 20 23 24 25 28 29 30 32 33 34 36 37 39 40

Older fossils tend to fall into certain categories. Dinosaur fossils are found in certain strata that date back hundreds of millions of years all the way up to about 65 million years, and then there aren't any more large dinosaurs. Something happened. After that there was only smaller fossils of certain types. Scientists believe there was a meteor that hit near Mexico, and the result was most large animals dying off within a year.

About 700 million years ago the whole planet froze, and almost all life died off. When things started warming up whatever was still alive led to evolution kicking into overdrive called the Cambrian Explosion. Fossils show this massive evolutionary process.

I always thought that because it’s so far back we don’t have a way of proving this, you can correct me if I am wrong?

Geologists can date rock, dirt, fossils, and this gives a basic time frame for the fossils discovered. If I remember right ologists can use radioactive isotopes and their decay rates to find out how old the strata is. @Subduction Zone can answer this since that's his area of expertise. In fact, all sciences work together. Evolution is called a unifying theory because it works with all other theories in other sciences, not just biology. Because all these other theories work together it verifies the theory of evolution is true.

 

[MayPeaceBeUpOnYou]

No i

The genetic code is the same for all life. This is a technical discussion. Do you know what transfer RNA is? The answer lies there in the assignment of anticodons and amino acids. Here, CGU is mechanically connected to the amino acid alanine. We find this throughout the tree of life, from bacteria to hippopotami. Why? A common ancestor is the most plausible answer.

View attachment 92235

Alright. Man there is so much information. It’s like going back to school,

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Alright. Man there is so much information. It’s like going back to school,

To understand the sciences, one needs to learn fundamentals first and build on that. What I showed you assumes that you understand what nucleic acids and proteins and their monomers are, and how proteins are coded and assembled (biochemistry). That assumes some knowledge of organic chemistry. The proper way you learn is in school or with the help of a well-designed, thorough tutorial. You're getting spot knowledge. These are like the individual bricks of an edifice. They need to be coordinated with one another using a comprehensive instructional plan.

 

[F1fan]

No i

Alright. Man there is so much information. It’s like going back to school,

Back when I was in college many years ago I had a job in the medical school library. I saw a copy of Cell Magazine and was curious. I started thumbing through the articles and images, and holy sh*t, I couldn't understand any of it. I was stunned how much knowledge there was just about cells. And was just one little magazine of about 60 pages. This magazine was only for serious biology students who had graduate level knowledge, way beyond my basic knowledge base. It made me realize how ignorant I am about a whole lot.

What we are explaining in this thread doesn't even scratch the surface of what scientists know. I'll bet no one knows anything about cells that the one edition of Cell Magazine reported. Ignorance is easy. It takes no effort to know nothing. Knowledge is hard, we have to take time to seek out knowledge. And it isn't just arbitrary learning, I could not make sense of what Cell Magazine said because I lacked tons of knowledge that makes comprehension of how cells work possible. Everything I'm sharing is off the top of my head that I learned many decades ago, and it's still not very much knowledge. You need to learn basic science, and then you can learn more complex things as you progress.

 

[MayPeaceBeUpOnYou]

To understand the sciences, one needs to learn fundamentals first and build on that. What I showed you assumes that you understand what nucleic acids and proteins and their monomers are, and how proteins are coded and assembled (biochemistry). That assumes some knowledge of organic chemistry. The proper way you learn is in school or with the help of a well-designed, thorough tutorial. You're getting spot knowledge. These are like the individual bricks of an edifice. They need to be coordinated with one another using a comprehensive instructional plan.

Back when I was in college many years ago I had a job in the medical school library. I saw a copy of Cell Magazine and was curious. I started thumbing through the articles and images, and holy sh*t, I couldn't understand any of it. I was stunned how much knowledge there was just about cells. And was just one little magazine of about 60 pages. This magazine was only for serious biology students who had graduate level knowledge, way beyond my basic knowledge base. It made me realize how ignorant I am about a whole lot.

What we are explaining in this thread doesn't even scratch the surface of what scientists know. I'll bet no one knows anything about cells that the one edition of Cell Magazine reported. Ignorance is easy. It takes no effort to know nothing. Knowledge is hard, we have to take time to seek out knowledge. And it isn't just arbitrary learning, I could not make sense of what Cell Magazine said because I lacked tons of knowledge that makes comprehension of how cells work possible. Everything I'm sharing is off the top of my head that I learned many decades ago, and it's still not very much knowledge. You need to learn basic science, and then you can learn more complex things as you progress.

Yeah you are both quite right. Without the knowledge of the fundamentals it’s quite hard.
Also the way scientific methods that are being used and how conclusion are being made. It’s just a mess for someone without the fundamentals.
And to be frank I do now know more then couple days back, so I did benefit from it.
I will take a step back and contemplate on what to next, meaning the approach I will take regarding evolution and my belief in god. I appreciate everyone giving sources and explanations.
I think it’s best to open a new thread when having a specific question or idea, so theists who might have the same question, it’s easier to find the thread so they can learn form it,

Cheers

 

[The Hammer]

I will take a step back and contemplate on what to next, meaning the approach I will take regarding evolution and my belief in god.

Good luck. And feel free to open new threads with questions, some of us theists will answer. Keep in mind God(s) and evolution are not mutually exclusive for some

 

[MJ Bailey]

Where did you come up with these ideas? Did someone tell you this?

Lots of studying, research and reading.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I get what you are trying to say. There should be no fear to gain knowledge about the truth.

Yes, but that is also the scientific method. For an observation to even be counted as evidence one first has to have a testable hypothesis. That is an explanation that explains the observations of one small area of the sciences. And the test is based upon the predictions that the hypothesis makes and it must be something new. You can't cheat by listing a test that everyone knows your idea already passes. It cannot be anything new and meaningful if it is just rehashing old knowledge. If you remember about 24 years ago Dr. Mary Schweitzer discovered a fossil with "soft tissue" inside it. She had to soak it in acid over a weekend and dissolve out everything else, but it was there. Her boss and mentor John Horner was amazed to and his first instruction to her when she discovered it was, and this is a paraphrase: You found something new, now try to prove that you did not find it". He did not want her to hide her work. He wanted her to test it. And to also prepare her for what was to come. He knew that almost everyone was going to deny it. Her find was accepted and others using the same technique have found soft tissues elsewhere. She was also the scientist that figured out the preservation method for those tissues.

One thing that happens every time a scientist publishes something new there will be two reactions. Some will try to replicate her work and see if it is true that way. Others will straight out try to refute it. That is also why science works and is so reliable. An idea has to be close to being right to survive for any length of time.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

In a nutshell: that organisms reproduce with inheritance and modifications and that the process of natural selection then favors certain modifications over others. And that this process repeats every new generation, which means that the "favored" modifications accumulate over time which in the long run means speciation events.

and which claim is made by others based on his.

Given that simple idea, the science of biology has been ever expanding on how this actually all works on the genetic level, how the environment is involved, etc.

Is it logical to accept the idea of natural selection

Yes, it is logical to accept observable facts.

and deny the idea that a kind changed to another kind?

There is no such thing as "change in kind" in evolution.
In evolution, species can not outgrow their ancestry.
Humans will produce more humans and (eventually) sub-species of humans - which will still be humans.
Primates will produce more primates and sub-species of primates.
Mammals will produce more mammals and sub-species of mammals.
Tetrapods will produce more tetrapods and sub-species thereof.
Vertebrates will produce more vertebrates and sub-species thereof.
Eukaryotes will produce more eukaryotes and sub-species thereof.

Humans = "still" humans, primates, mammals, tetrapods, vertebrates, eukaryotes.
Chimps = "still" chimps, primates, mammals, tetrapods, vertebrates, eukaryotes.

Humans and chimps are like cousins. Their common ancestors were primates, mammals, tetrapods, vertebrates, eukaryotes.
Humans and chimps are sub-species of primates, mammals, tetrapods, vertebrates, eukaryotes.
No "change in kind" occurred.

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.

Don't know about any documentaries but I can recommend the book The Greatest Show on Earth by prof Richard Dawkins.
It is in fact written specifically to an audience of creationists who might not be educated in biology at all. So it stays relatively clear of "difficult" words and scientific jargon and instead is a nice layout and simple explanation of how it works and how we know that it works as it discusses lots of lines of evidence in rather simple terms.

As a muslim though, you should also know that prof Dawkins does like to take a stab at god beliefs. But I guess you can simple read over that and ignore it but I don't remember how much it is actually present in that book. If memory serves me right, it only targets rather specific fundamentalist creationist god beliefs and doesn't address religious beliefs in general at all as the topic of the book is evolution in contrast to creationism.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So he came up with the natural selection part?

Correct. Well.... close enough anyway.

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?

No. See my previous post.

If so what proof of this is most convincing.

That different species share ancestors (without changes in "kind", as explained in the previous post) is nothing short of a genetic fact.
Genetically, that humans and for example chimps share ancestors is as demonstrable as we can genetically show that you and your cousin share grand parents.

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

If this is the case, then he either:
- used the evolutionary process to do it (in ways that are indistinguishable from it having occurred naturally without any planning on his part)
or
- went out of his way to plant false evidence into tricking us to believe that evolution occurred.

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

First we need to get something clear here.
The word "animal" can be used in two ways. There is the biological term and there is the colloquial non-scientific meaning.
In the colloquial non-scientific meaning, an "animal" is any organism belonging to the biological kingdom of animalia EXCEPT humans.
In the biological scientific meaning, an "animal" is any organism belonging to the biological kingdom of animalia INCLUDING humans.

And since we are discussing in context of the scientific theory of biological evolution, we need to use scientific terminology for clarity.
In that case: not only are the ancestors of humans animals... humans ARE animals. Just like they are primates, mammals, tetrapods, vertebrates, eukaryotes.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I assume Natural selection is the one that takes more time to happen?

No. Natural selection is the process by which certain modifications to organisms are favored over others through the selection pressures imposed by the environment at large.

Meaning, if a certain modification increases the chances of the organism for survival and reproduction, then those modifications have statistically more chances of being inherited by the next generations and thus spread over the population over time.

If a modification is detrimental / harmful to chances of survival and reproduction, then those modifications have statistically less chances of being inherited by the next generations and thus less chance of spreading over the population over time.

If a modification makes no difference to the chances of survival and reproduction, then it might or might not spread over the population over time (it might piggy back with other modifications that ARE beneficial, or it might disappear in the trail of other modifications which harm survival / reproduction rates)

That is what natural selection does. It works in the "here and now" at all times.

The difference between micro-and macro evolution is about the amount of modifications that are accumulated over time, which WERE selected for by natural selection.

To put it simplistically: the accumulation of 5 modifications over X generations = micro evolution.
The accumulation of 1000 modifications over Z generations = macro evolution.
The difference here is mere volume. The process is the same.

A good analogy is the process of "walking".

After 5 seconds you can take 5 steps and you will have covered a "micro distance" of just a couple meters.
After days of walking, you can also take thousands and thousands of steps and you will have covered a "macro distance" of miles.
But there is no difference in the process. The process is and remains mere "walking". A step is a step. It matters not if you repeat it 10 times or a bazillion times.
It's just that the more you repeat it, the bigger distance you'll cover.

Same with evolution. Every new generation brings modifications and accumulates them with the modifications of the previous generation.
After 5 generations you have accumulated the modifications of 5 generations. Micro.
After a bazillion generations, you have accumulated the modifications of a bazillion generations. Macro.
The process of the one generation remains the same: reproduce, mutate, survive, repeat.

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's because our brains are used to dealing with days, weeks, months, years. Even decades already become problematic.
In evolutionary changes of this order, we are talking about millions of years.
This speaks to a limitation of our imagination only.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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?

Our oldest evidence of life goes back some 3.8 billion years.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I get where you are coming from. The thing is even tho the claim of evolution is considered a fact by a majority of scientists, we all know that things can change when more evidence is found. And since there are also scientists who are theist, I would like to also wanna hear the evidence of their position.

The vast majority of theists, both in science as well as the general populace, actually have no problems with evolution theory at all.

Or do you think that there is no evidence that contradicts evolution?

No, there is no such evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well it’s a problem because it contradicts form a Islamic point of view, since we are told in the Quran that we are 2 different creations of god.

Well, I'm sorry to break it to you, but on the one hand you have beliefs and on the other you have the facts of reality.
And when the beliefs don't match the facts of reality... it's not reality that is incorrect.

Also the idea that we all come from a single cell is something we disagree with, but I assume this theory is not part of the subject evolution .

No, the evolution of the cell is part of evolution.

In fact, for the first 3 billion years on this planet, life was single celled.

 

[MayPeaceBeUpOnYou]

Don't know about any documentaries but I can recommend the book The Greatest Show on Earth by prof Richard Dawkins.
It is in fact written specifically to an audience of creationists who might not be educated in biology at all. So it stays relatively clear of "difficult" words and scientific jargon and instead is a nice layout and simple explanation of how it works and how we know that it works as it discusses lots of lines of evidence in rather simple terms.

Thanks for you taking time to answer my questions, i appreciate it.
And about Dawkins I don’t take him seriously . Even tho he know what he is talking about, but I avoid him since he has a agenda Saw some of his speeches and interviews and for me he can’t be trusted.

The difference between micro-and macro evolution is about the amount of modifications that are accumulated over time, which WERE selected for by natural selection.

Correct me if I am wrong,
micro evolution are minor changes in short time and this we can observe
macro evolution are bigger changes in longer time., this cannot be observed

Our oldest evidence of life goes back some 3.8 billion years.

The vast majority of theists, both in science as well as the general populace, actually have no problems with evolution theory at all.

Sure I agree to some extent, tho it also depends on which theists we are talking about. If you refer evolution as a whole including the single cell and common ancestors theorie then I would say that these 2 contradict with the abrahamic religions for sure. Obviously not saying that there are no abrahamic believers that accept this but this goes against their scriptures. So it all depends how strict

As a muslim though, you should also know that prof Dawkins does like to take a stab at god beliefs. But I guess you can simple read over that and ignore it but I don't remember how much it is actually present in that book. If memory serves me right, it only targets rather specific fundamentalist creationist god beliefs and doesn't address religious beliefs in general at all as the topic of the book is evolution in contrast to creationism.

yeah like I said here above, he has some grudge against creationism. He is freely to do what he wants but for me he is biased.

No, the evolution of the cell is part of evolution.

In fact, for the first 3 billion years on this planet, life was single celled.

Right. I was really confused before, if this was part of the evolution theory or not.