Guided Evolution as Exclaimed by the Quran

[England my lionheart]

There ya go again, telling tall tales!

Hey look, he even left a footprint........

Talk about "Bigfoot", eh?

Looks like he bit his Toenails

 

[tariqkhwaja]

As far as I can see, you are deliberately ignoring the role of "ratcheting" by which gains at one time are added to by later gains, all adding up to large changes over long times.

I do not find that I am forced to any such conclusion at all. Goddidit is just the cry of defeat uttered by the ignorant.

It is true that gains add up. But what must also be appreciated is that many more losses add up as well. For the process to continue progressing in the positive direction due to natural selection ... that is the fallacy.

So I again repeat that natural selection only chooses the fittest for a certain time period. That "fittest" is probably completely unfit for several other time periods thus forcing it into extinction. Which brings us to your next argument.

You are ignoring the fact that something like 99% of the species that have existed are now extinct. Natural selection is just a filter of the changes that arise due to occurrances such as mutations. For evolution, there must be both variation and selection, both of which are observed to occur.

But do you not see the leap of logic made here. For 99% of species to be extinct they had, first, to exist. Your argument assumes 100 species existed and one survived. My argument however states that back in the beginning when there were only 1, 2, 3, or 4 species of unicellular organisms in existence the survival of the fittest in on time easily lead to extinction in the other times. When one ponders of this one realizes the probabilities become even less. Mathematically impossible.

Yet it happened and from 1 species to 4 to 100 to several species. And then several went extinct. But how did so many come into existence in the first place?

Does it not lend support to a behind-the-scenes chess player?

But why did it have to be Allah that guided evolution? Why not the Flying Spaghetti Monster? And evolution occurred over billions of years. By suggesting Allah guided evolution, are you suggesting that the Koran's depiction of the age of the Earth is incorrect?

Erm ... I don't know how it contradicts Quran's depiction of the age of the Earth. But I do believe the Earth is very old and I believe Quran supports that view.

How can that be,in the Qur'an Adam is 90 feet tall

Find the word "ninety" in any reference in the Holy Quran and I'll give you frubals. Please don't just listen to anyone.

Interesting. It is little wonder then why all too many Muslims see the Ahmadiyya sect as heretics and are only too happy to persecute you for your beliefs.

I must disagree with you. Evolution, I think, has very little if anything to do with it.

 

[tariqkhwaja]

A couple of quotes to illustrate the point from Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest

Consider for example the case of a solitary gorilla left stranded in a hostile arctic environment. In comparison to it, the polar bear and foxes stand far greater chances of survival in the same habitat. In that particular case the gorilla, despite its comparative evolutionary advancement, would be condemned to extinction by the instrument of natural selection as a worthless thing in comparison to the polar bear and the arctic foxes. Replace the gorilla with a human in the same hypothetical situation, the condemnation of him to death by the principle of survival of the fittest will be speedier than in the case of the gorilla. Hence it is wrong to believe that natural selection goes for quality as such. In the barest terms, natural selection can at best be described as 'might is right'; even when might is vicious, distorted, oppressive and merciless, might will always emerge victorious in the sight of natural selection.

Illustrating one of the billions of chicken and egg problems that natural selection does not resolve in The Essential Role of Clay and Photosynthesis in Evolution

Another intriguing problem confronting the scientists relates to two coexisting phenomena responsible for the maintenance and continuity of life. A living cell has two central talents—a capacity for metabolism and a capacity for reproduction. But the problem is that the nucleic acid cannot replicate without enzymes and enzymes cannot be made without nucleic acid. According to Watson and Crick, DNA cannot do its work, including forming more DNA, without catalytic proteins or enzymes. In short, proteins cannot form without DNA but neither can DNA form without proteins. To those pondering over the origin of life, it is another classic chicken and egg problem—which came first the proteins or the DNA?

To wriggle out of this dilemma some propose that both DNA and proteins developed separately, in parallel, until somehow they started a new phase of interdependence. A brilliant stroke of genius it seems, to some, but when examined more closely they will find neither an element of brilliance nor a trace of genius in this proposition. They shut their eyes to the question of how they could have developed and run parallel to each other while at every step their survival depended on the other.

It could not have happened merely by the chance interplay of all the necessary factors which could make this apparent impossibility possible without the supervision of experienced scientists. Such scientists needed a most advanced laboratory apparatus without which they could not have achieved any success, while the paradox quoted above is known to have happened outside any controlled conditions. Those who conducted the said experiments did so with reference to a similar paradox, which concerns self-replication of RNA without the essential presence of proteins and enzymes which it has to produce itself. But they had to admit that their success was no success indeed, in relation to the paradox which they attempted to resolve. Horgan confesses that these scientific experiments are too complicated to represent a plausible scenario for the origin of life.

'You have to get an awful lot of things right and nothing wrong' (HORGAN, J. (February, 1991) In The Beginning. Scientific American: p.119)

is the admission of Orgel who conducted these experiments. What he and Horgan agree upon is that their success under strict laboratory conditions does not prove anything happening under open conditions which prevailed before the origin of life. J. Szostak separately conducted similar experiments successfully but again under strictly controlled laboratory conditions.

Harold P. Klein of Santa Clara University expresses his doubt in the following words:

'... it is almost impossible to imagine how it happened.' (Ibid. p.120)

We only object to the word almost. Instead he should have clearly confessed it was absolutely impossible without the existence of God.

Both the above are chapters from the book here Al Islam -Revelation, Rationality, Knowledge and Truth by the 4th Caliph of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community.

 

[Looncall]

It is true that gains add up. But what must also be appreciated is that many more losses add up as well. For the process to continue progressing in the positive direction due to natural selection ... that is the fallacy.

So I again repeat that natural selection only chooses the fittest for a certain time period. That "fittest" is probably completely unfit for several other time periods thus forcing it into extinction. Which brings us to your next argument.

What natural selection does is remove the "losses", they do not accumulate. That is the whole point.

Species are constantly changing. Some of the changes give fitness in new environments. Populations vary from one individual to another. You and I are not identical.

You seem to be confused. Both variation and selection are involved. You are not identical to your parents.

But do you not see the leap of logic made here. For 99% of species to be extinct they had, first, to exist. Your argument assumes 100 species existed and one survived. My argument however states that back in the beginning when there were only 1, 2, 3, or 4 species of unicellular organisms in existence the survival of the fittest in on time easily lead to extinction in the other times. When one ponders of this one realizes the probabilities become even less. Mathematically impossible.

Balderdash. See above.

Yet it happened and from 1 species to 4 to 100 to several species. And then several went extinct. But how did so many come into existence in the first place?

Does it not lend support to a behind-the-scenes chess player?

See both aboves.

 

[England my lionheart]

Quote tariqKhwaja

Find the word "ninety" in any reference in the Holy Quran and I'll give you frubals. Please don't just listen to anyone.

OK your correct,60 cubits,1 cubit = 18 inches which is 1 and a half feet,but Muhammed did say that Adam was 60 cubits tall ,correct ?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

 

[YmirGF]

Indeed. Life is too short for this kind of drivel.

 

[England my lionheart]

Aww come on Guys,i think a ninety foot Guy is significant,imagine,eating an Apple wouldn't be worth it

 

[tariqkhwaja]

Aww come on Guys,i think a ninety foot Guy is significant,imagine,eating an Apple wouldn't be worth it

Honestly this isn't worth it.

There is no mention of 90 foot/60 cubit, etc. in the Quran. You may be referring to a hadith so please reference it. In any case hadith tend to be untrustworthy at times.

Really England my lionheart if you are honest in your search for the truth would it not be a good idea to do a proper google search before coming back?

 

[johnhanks]

A couple of quotes to illustrate the point from Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest

Consider for example the case of a solitary gorilla left stranded in a hostile arctic environment. In comparison to it, the polar bear and foxes stand far greater chances of survival in the same habitat. In that particular case the gorilla, despite its comparative evolutionary advancement, would be condemned to extinction by the instrument of natural selection as a worthless thing in comparison to the polar bear and the arctic foxes. Replace the gorilla with a human in the same hypothetical situation, the condemnation of him to death by the principle of survival of the fittest will be speedier than in the case of the gorilla. Hence it is wrong to believe that natural selection goes for quality as such. In the barest terms, natural selection can at best be described as 'might is right'; even when might is vicious, distorted, oppressive and merciless, might will always emerge victorious in the sight of natural selection.

[My emphasis.]

Tariq, this is simply unbelievably weak. Your term 'quality' has no absolute meaning in this context. In the absurd scenario you propose, of course the human would die; human physiology has precious little 'quality' in an unshielded arctic environment - just as you would expect in an animal that evolved in tropical savannah.

And no, it's not 'might will always emerge victorious' - it's 'best adapted will always leave most offspring'.

 

[England my lionheart]

Honestly this isn't worth it.

There is no mention of 90 foot/60 cubit, etc. in the Quran. You may be referring to a hadith so please reference it. In any case hadith tend to be untrustworthy at times.

Really England my lionheart if you are honest in your search for the truth would it not be a good idea to do a proper google search before coming back?

Hadith then,either way Mohamed said he was 60 cubits/90' tall,isn't Bukhari reliable.

 

[tariqkhwaja]

Not really. The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community teaches the Quran is 100% reliable. The way it was collected and the fact that ONLY ONE VERSION exists in the world today is reason enough.

But Bukhari is a collection of narrations made by people 100 to 200 years after the death of the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). There is loads of room for error (intended or otherwise). Regardless of how high standards of accuracy were made in the collection. It is a simple case of the dangers of Chinese Whispers (ever played that game?).

 

[David M]

Not really. The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community teaches the Quran is 100% reliable. The way it was collected and the fact that ONLY ONE VERSION exists in the world today is reason enough.

In that case I have some bad news for you. There are 5 versions of the Quran in use today in different parts of the world. In the past there were up to 20 different versions.

 

[tariqkhwaja]

In that case I have some bad news for you. There are 5 versions of the Quran in use today in different parts of the world. In the past there were up to 20 different versions.

Really? That's another debate then. Maybe you wanna start a new thread or give a link, etc. to your source of information.

 

[David M]

Really? That's another debate then. Maybe you wanna start a new thread or give a link, etc. to your source of information.

So you haven't heard of Hafs and Warsh then?

 

[Photonic]

A long time ago a man named George Lucas postulated that we would have handheld tablet computers.

The man was a prophet and obviously Star Wars is a guided explanation of the future of computers.

 

[camanintx]

A long time ago a man named George Lucas postulated that we would have handheld tablet computers.

The man was a prophet and obviously Star Wars is a guided explanation of the future of computers.

Blasphemy! Everyone knows that the true prophet was Stanley Kubrick.

Did Stanley Kubrick Beat Steve Jobs to Inventing the iPad? - ARTINFO.com

 

[fantome profane]

A long time ago a man named George Lucas postulated that we would have handheld tablet computers.

The man was a prophet and obviously Star Wars is a guided explanation of the future of computers.

Blasphemy! Everyone knows that the true prophet was Stanley Kubrick.

Did Stanley Kubrick Beat Steve Jobs to Inventing the iPad? - ARTINFO.com

Gene Roddenberry beat them both.

 

[Photonic]

Gene Roddenberry beat them both.

God DAMNIT.

Win.

 

[camanintx]

Gene Roddenberry beat them both.

:bow: