Has evolution facts destroyed Adam?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

the mapping of the human genome is in agreement with the genesis account that all humans have descended from one man and one woman.

No, it's not.

 

[loverOfTruth]

Everyone is asking a simple question, where is the fact the Adam was the first man except religious texts?

And if he was the first man created by Allah, how does this not disapprove evolution. So one has to be considered wrong ... Evolution or Adam.

Which one are u with?

I totally agree that one has to be wrong ... and that's what I have been saying since my first post. That's why I have shown the loopholes in the Evolution theory - refuting it....hence the Adams story from the Qur'an stands the ground.

 

[jonman122]

I totally agree that one has to be wrong ... and that's what I have been saying since my first post. That's why I have shown the loopholes in the Evolution theory - refuting it....hence the Adams story from the Qur'an stands the ground.

Just because you think one thing is wrong doesn't make the other thing right, now what you have to do, when you postulate something is true, is you have to prove that its true. You now have to prove that the Qu'ran as the absolute truth, that God truly does exit to prove that he had a hand in making it, and that the Qu'ran is flawless and the Adam and Eve story is an absolute truth.

good luck.

now, to refute that other page of yours...
"The process is sometimes divided into macroevolution (true evolution), and microevolution (variation), and this distinction is very important as they are two distinct phenomena but evolutionists tend to bundle them together to give their theory more credibility"

when reading this further, for micro-evolution, he literally describes natural selection as it's process, and then goes on to say "macro-evolution uses natural selection" which means the person who wrote this website, this evolution vs. islam, actually just proved to himself why he's wrong about his first paragraph.

and this, straight from UC Berkeley's website:
Microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species. Despite their differences, evolution at both of these levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change.

hence... giving the theory of evolution more credibility.

 

[Gurtej]

I totally agree that one has to be wrong ... and that's what I have been saying since my first post. That's why I have shown the loopholes in the Evolution theory - refuting it....hence the Adams story from the Qur'an stands the ground.

So u r saying in ur Eyes evolution is wrong then Adam has to be right.. It's a typical mindset of ppl from old civilisation

 

[uberrobonomicon4000]

Hi All

As a sikh I don't believe in Adam, there is only one reference of Adam in sikh scriptures but only as a reference point. But I know a lot of other religions have the belief that god created Adam with its own hand and that he was the first human being ever.

This belief certainly doesn't go with evolution and the evidence is so strong for evolution that u simply can't reject it. Where does this leave the beliefs and how do they contradict with evolution?

I read a lot and watched some debates regarding this and everytime evolution comes on top. Keep religious beliefs aside, do u think that science has destroyed
So called image of Adam ?

I will go ahead and put an end to any “so called debate” and let you know right now that Adam (and Eve) is just reference point from the time man (which includes women) went from being uncivilized to being aware. What I mean by this is that people went from being “pray” too learning how to adapt. Then the human species acquired the ability to recognize and be aware of its environment to determine that it had some control over it.

Nothing more or nothing less: It is just part of the evolutionary process.

 

[Thief]

Sorry, I do not agree with that.

Adam(pbuh) is the first man created and the first man in the Garden.

"And We have certainly created you, [O Mankind], and given you [human] form. Then We said to the angels, "Prostrate to Adam"; so they prostrated, except for Iblees. He was not of those who prostrated. [ Allah ] said, "What prevented you from prostrating when I commanded you?" [Satan] said, "I am better than him. You created me from fire and created him from clay." (Al Qur'an 7:11-12)
...
""O Adam! dwell thou and thy wife in the Garden, and enjoy (its good things) as ye wish: but approach not this tree, or ye run into harm and transgression." (Al Qur'an 7:19)



Also, receiving Spirit from God doesn't make one Son. It still is a Creation of God.

I don't see how this takes away Day Six of Genesis....Man as a species.
Adam (as I see it) was not the first Man.

But he was the first to walk with God.

 

[McBell]

I am sorry ... I am not a magician that I can cure willful ignorance. Please try somewhere else.

Not whilst you are hiding behind your willful ignorance.

Interesting how you make the same claim over and over " I have shown enough scientific evidence to refute evolution" yet are completely unable to point out where you did so.

Seems you are starting to believe your own lies.

 

[Alceste]

When some ppl say" god created Adam with nuts own hand"..
Some questions arise:

1. How old was Adam when born?
2. Does this literal interpretation means god has hands?
3. My understanding, please correct if I am wrong here. But Adam was created before eve? Why man before a woman? What does evolution say about this.. Was the first human being ever created was a man or woman.. I guess we don't know, correct.

Judaism was an extremely patriarchal culture. That's why Adam came first in their stories, eve not only came second, but is also made out of part of him and is only created to serve him.

There are some neat matriarchal creation myths in these parts. The first woman was lonely and cried so hard she dribbled snot everywhere. Visitors from the sky told her to catch it in a clam shell, so she did, and it turned into a little clam creature. She moved it from one thing to another until it grew into a little snot boy. She slept with it and got pregnant with the first human male. Most of their social problems were thought to be caused by men being half snot.

 

[Alceste]

I totally agree that one has to be wrong ... and that's what I have been saying since my first post. That's why I have shown the loopholes in the Evolution theory - refuting it....hence the Adams story from the Qur'an stands the ground.

If you have done such a thorough job refuting evolution with scientific evidence, how is it that you have not persuaded one single person in this forum that evolution is false, or even debatable?

I myself have little trouble persuading people of things when I have scientific evidence. I can give you some tips if you like.

 

[Looncall]

All rhetoric. This kind of haughty talk really doesn't suit, especially someone, who have not spoken a word of science in this thread let alone showing scientific evidence.

On the other hand, I have shown enough scientific evidence to refute evolution and did not use Qur'an as a reason to disprove it. Muslims don't have blind faith, we have faith based on evidence.

Yes, we do believe in whatever the Qur'an says because it is from the Almighty Creator because we have evidence for its Truth. But anyway it doesn't contradict with established/proven science one bit. And you should also note that science keeps changing but the Truth doesn't.

Also, I would be more worried about people like you teaching nonsense fairy tales to students in the name of science than someone using scientific reasoning to refute evolution.

If you are sincere about this topic, read this essay which scientifically analyses and refutes evolution in detail (yet in layman terms) :
Evolution vs Islam

That would be more productive and useful.

Peace.

Thanks for the interesting link.

It leads to a remarkable farrago of ignorance and lies. Is all islamic scholarship so contemptible?

 

[Pegg]

No, it's not.

there is only one species of human, we are all black all white all yellow and all red.

that is what the project has discovered without a doubt. The aboriginal people of australia had their genes tested and they are found to have european blood in them. So no matter who we are or where we are from, we all have the same ancestors. And that is what genesis also states.

 

[jonman122]

there is only one species of human, we are all black all white all yellow and all red.

that is what the project has discovered without a doubt. The aboriginal people of australia had their genes tested and they are found to have european blood in them. So no matter who we are or where we are from, we all have the same ancestors. And that is what genesis also states.

Ancestors as in tribes of dozens, hundreds or maybe even thousands, all originating in africa, not 2 people.

 

[OurCreed]

There seems to be a lot of misconception regarding Prophet Adam (as).

Many believe Adam (as), whom lived 6000 years ago, was the first man on Earth.

This ideology is wrong and misunderstood.

Adam (as) was the first PROPHET of God, but NOT the first human.

Why would God sent down a prophet if he was the first human?

A prophet is required to spread the message of One God to their people. How could Adam (as) do this if there was nobody around?

There were indeed people living millions of years before Adam (as), this is why God told us to use our Aql, (reasoning), and our minds. Science is a blessing from God, our brains is a gift from God, use it people.

Science has found out that humans lived way past 6000 years in the past, now who is wrong? Nobody is wrong, there is just misunderstandings.

Both are right if you have found the inevitable truth.

Adam (as) wasn't the first man, but the first prophet and messenger of God sent to his people.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

there is only one species of human, we are all black all white all yellow and all red.

that is what the project has discovered without a doubt. The aboriginal people of australia had their genes tested and they are found to have european blood in them. So no matter who we are or where we are from, we all have the same ancestors. And that is what genesis also states.

Yes, we all have the same ancestors. In the vast majority of cases, you only have to go back 1,000 to 2,000 years at most before you'll find a common ancestor for any two particular people on the planet. We're all distant cousins.

However, this is different from your claim that all of humanity descended from one lone pair of individual humans. Speciation doesn't work that way.

 

[loverOfTruth]

Thanks for the interesting link.

It leads to a remarkable farrago of ignorance and lies. Is all islamic scholarship so contemptible?

I guess we are finally even with the Atheist Evolutionists then...

 

[loverOfTruth]

If you have done such a thorough job refuting evolution with scientific evidence, how is it that you have not persuaded one single person in this forum that evolution is false, or even debatable?

I myself have little trouble persuading people of things when I have scientific evidence. I can give you some tips if you like.

That is really a silly and nonsensical argument. So if I may ask the same, how many Creationists did the Evolutionists in this thread convince with their All Knowing Scientific evidence ?

Thank God that most people don't have that kind of mentality. Otherwise, we'd still be believing that the Sun revolves around the Earth.

 

[loverOfTruth]

Sorry for the delay in replying.

Just because you think one thing is wrong doesn't make the other thing right, now what you have to do, when you postulate something is true, is you have to prove that its true. You now have to prove that the Qu'ran as the absolute truth, that God truly does exit to prove that he had a hand in making it, and that the Qu'ran is flawless and the Adam and Eve story is an absolute truth.

good luck.

I agree with you on that ... and that's why I have already provided you (here) links to 2 threads where I have discussed the existence of God and the evidence for the Truth of Islam. They are too huge and separate topics to be discussed here.

now, to refute that other page of yours...
"The process is sometimes divided into macroevolution (true evolution), and microevolution (variation), and this distinction is very important as they are two distinct phenomena but evolutionists tend to bundle them together to give their theory more credibility"

when reading this further, for micro-evolution, he literally describes natural selection as it's process, and then goes on to say "macro-evolution uses natural selection" which means the person who wrote this website, this evolution vs. islam, actually just proved to himself why he's wrong about his first paragraph.

and this, straight from UC Berkeley's website:
Microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species. Despite their differences, evolution at both of these levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change.

hence... giving the theory of evolution more credibility.

I don't know what you are trying to refute here - I don't see anything wrong in those statements. You just seem to have misunderstood this issue of macroevolution vs microevolution. If you would have read the later sections of that paper which describes this issue in detail, it should have been clear. Let me just summarize this for you - One of the processes for Microevolution is Natural Selection and the theory of Macroevolution also relies heavily on 'Natural selection'. So there's nothing contradictory or wrong about those statements from that paper.

In fact, you just proved that your own claims are false. Here's something from your Berkeley site ...

"There are a few basic ways in which microevolutionary change happens. Mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection are all processes that can directly affect gene frequencies in a population."
From : Evolution 101: Microevolution

and

"Just as in microevolution, basic evolutionary mechanisms like mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection are at work and can help explain many large-scale patterns in the history of life."
From : Evolution 101: Macroevolution

You should know that Creationists have no problem with Microevolution since it is evidence based observed scientific phenomenon. What Creationists do not believe in is Macroevolutionary extrapolation of Microevolution. Unlike microevolution, there's plenty of loop holes in the theory of Macroevolution and not to mention lots of speculations/guessess and not Scientific evidences. In fact, there is significant evidence against it.

For example, the very first single-celled organism did not possess all of the genetic information for a human, so in order for evolution to have occurred from a primitive single-celled organism, a lot of genetic information had to be added along the way. Some evolutionists use 'gene duplication' as an explanation for this. But according to some research, it is not possible to add such complex life information to Gene that way. As per one such research, "although the process of gene duplication and subsequent random mutation has certainly contributed to the size and diversity of the genome, it is alone insufficient in explaining the origination of the highly complex information pertinent to the essential functioning of living organisms." From : Is gene duplication a viable explanation for the origination of biological information and complexity? - Bozorgmehr - 2010 - Complexity - Wiley Online Library

Also, see this video regarding adding information to DNA (which is impossible by evolution) : Collapse of Evolution

And finally, you only need to look at the animal kingdom and the uniqueness of features in all different species to realize what a myth evolution is. Watch here : Evolution is a Joke

Peace.

 

[fantome profane]

For example, the very first single-celled organism did not possess all of the genetic information for a human, so in order for evolution to have occurred from a primitive single-celled organism, a lot of genetic information had to be added along the way. Some evolutionists use 'gene duplication' as an explanation for this. But according to some research, it is not possible to add such complex life information to Gene that way. As per one such research, "although the process of gene duplication and subsequent random mutation has certainly contributed to the size and diversity of the genome, it is alone insufficient in explaining the origination of the highly complex information pertinent to the essential functioning of living organisms.

Gene duplication alone is not a sufficient explanation for the creation of new genetic information. However gene duplication along with mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, etc is a fully sufficient explanation.

But just for fun.

Is there any other theory or hypothesis anywhere in any of the scientific literature that can explain where all of the genetic information came from, other than the theory of evolution?

Can you suggest any possible mechanism, other than the theory of evolution, to explain how we get new genetic information?

And don't just tell me that "God did it". For the sake of argument, let me concede that "God did it". My question for you now is how did "God do it"? Other than through the processes of the theory of evolution can you propose any other way?

 

[loverOfTruth]

Gene duplication alone is not a sufficient explanation for the creation of new genetic information. However gene duplication along with mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, etc is a fully sufficient explanation.

No it doesn't - what you just described is microevolution and there is no known way for entirely new genetic information to be added to a genome through microevolution, which is also true for gene duplication because it essentially includes those processess - so both combined together is the same. Which is also clear from the video I linked in my last post about DNA.

But just for fun.

Is there any other theory or hypothesis anywhere in any of the scientific literature that can explain where all of the genetic information came from, other than the theory of evolution?

Can you suggest any possible mechanism, other than the theory of evolution, to explain how we get new genetic information?

Just because there's no better scientific explanation available doesn't mean that you have to believe in the fake scientific myth with so many loopholes that exists. Just because we don't know how ... doesn't mean it is not possible.

In fact, it is more scientific to state that a Creator did it regardless of how. Notice that the Science is not on the creation of Cells alone. It is on the observation of a finite number of similar scenarios and deducing a conclusion from it. Let's take Gravity, for example. Do you think Scientists threw every object against every other object in the Universe to prove Gravity ? No. They tested/observed a finite set of scenarios and came up with a conclusion. Similarly, if we can observe a finite number of things (which are perfectly functional and complex) and conclude that they must have been planned, designed and created - why can't we conclude the same for the Universe and the Human Beings? It is more rational to conclude that than coming up with a fairy tale that life came from non-life(which is so far scientifically unsupportable) and then fish turned into monkeys who turned into humans.

And don't just tell me that "God did it". For the sake of argument, let me concede that "God did it". My question for you now is how did "God do it"? Other than through the processes of the theory of evolution can you propose any other way?

"The similitude of Jesus before Allah(God) is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: "Be". And he was." (The Holy Qur'an 3:59)

"O mankind! reverence your Guardian-Lord, who created you from a single person, created, of like nature, His mate, and from them twain scattered (like seeds) countless men and women;- reverence Allah, through whom ye demand your mutual (rights), and (reverence) the wombs (That bore you): for Allah ever watches over you." (The Holy Qur'an 4:1)

"...For to Allah belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between. He createth what He pleaseth. For Allah hath power over all things." (The Holy Qur'an 5:17)

"And yet among men there are such as dispute about Allah(God), without knowledge, and follow every evil one obstinate in rebellion! About the (Evil One) it is decreed that whoever turns to him for friendship, him will he lead astray, and he will guide him to the Penalty of the Fire.

O mankind! if ye have a doubt about the Resurrection, (consider) that We created you out of dust, then out of sperm, then out of a leech-like clot, then out of a morsel of flesh, partly formed and partly unformed, in order that We may manifest (our power) to you; and We cause whom We will to rest in the wombs for an appointed term, then do We bring you out as babies, then (foster you) that ye may reach your age of full strength; and some of you are called to die, and some are sent back to the feeblest old age, so that they know nothing after having known (much), and (further), thou seest the earth barren and lifeless, but when We pour down rain on it, it is stirred (to life), it swells, and it puts forth every kind of beautiful growth (in pairs).

This is so, because Allah(God) is the Reality: it is He Who gives life to the dead, and it is He Who has power over all things. And verily the Hour will come: there can be no doubt about it, or about (the fact) that Allah(God) will raise up all who are in the graves. " (The Holy Qur'an 22:3-7)

However, I do understand that just disproving evolution does not render Islam/Qur'an to be true, that's why I have provided (here) links to 2 threads where I have discussed the existence of God and the evidence for the Truth of Islam. They are too huge and separate topics to be discussed here.

Peace.

 

[fantome profane]

No it doesn't - what you just described is microevolution and there is no known way for entirely new genetic information to be added to a genome through microevolution, which is also true for gene duplication because it essentially includes those processess - so both combined together is the same.

I have just been reading about the evolution of tri-colour vision in primates. One hypothesis involves gene duplication. It is possible that a single mutation on one part of a duplicated gene sequence lead to our tri-colour vision.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_color_vision_in_primates#section_2

Gene duplication

The alternate hypothesis is that opsin polymorphism arose in platyrrhines after they diverged from catarrhines. By this hypothesis, a single X-opsin allele was duplicated in catarrhines and M and L opsins diverged later by small changes in the gene sequences. Geneticists use the "molecular clocks" technique to determine an evolutionary sequence of events. It deduces elapsed time from a number of minor differences in DNA sequences.[9][10] Nucleotide sequencing of opsin genes suggests that the genetic divergence between New World primate opsin alleles (2.6%) is considerably smaller than the divergence between Old World primate genes (6.1%).[8] Hence, the New World primate color vision alleles are likely to have arisen after Old World gene duplication.[4] It is also proposed that the polymorphism in the opsin gene might have arisen independently through point mutation on one or more occasions,[4] and that the spectral tuning similarities are due to convergent evolution.Despite the homogenization of genes in the New World monkeys, there has been a preservation of trichromacy in the heterozygous females suggesting that the critical amino acid that define these alleles have been maintained.[11]

Whether or not this hypothesis is correct, it is clear that gene duplication plus mutation, plus natural selection is one way in which new information is created.