Hominid fossils, and Islam

[Kerr]

watch this video to get the idea that there is no thing like evolution. [youtube]2xePj8rANrA[/youtube]
YouTube - Evidence For Creation (Part 2) Giraffe

___________________________________________________________________________
Hadiths on Ramadan | Hadith about Ramadan

He seems to argue against Lemarcks theory on the topic and not evolution. Or I am just misunderstanding him, lol.

 

[TashaN]

I think evolution theory was an eye-opener for many people and it will remain to do so until they go further than where they have reached today or get replaced with a better theory from a scientific point of view of how we came into being.

I believe science should remain as science, but what some excited atheists do is to try to go so far and deny the creation story as if they have already know the entire truth of what really happened.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I think evolution theory was an eye-opener for many people and it will remain to do so until they go further than where they have reached today or get replaced with a better theory from a scientific point of view of how we came into being.

I believe science should remain as science, but what some excited atheists do is to try to go so far and deny the creation story as if they have already know the entire truth of what really happened.

I agree that science should remain as science. I also agree with you that there are excited atheists who try to deny the creation story and pretend they know the entire truth of what happened. But, those excited atheists are responding to excited religious people, who deny scientific evidence and who also believe they know the entire truth of what really happened.

I don't think I'm one of the excited atheists, and I don't think you're one of the excited religious people. So since we're not like them, let's just look at the matter as scientists. In this thread, I really am accurately, honestly representing what science says. And it's not just atheist scientists who get excited about evolution, it's any scientist who has examined the enormous amount of evidence honestly and objectively.

Francis Collins is an evangelical Christian and former head of the Human Genome Project which decoded the human genome (DNA). He is both a firm Christian and a renowned scientist, and he believes his faith is compatible with science and evolution. He gets very excited about evolution. Here is what he has said:

As someone who's had the privilege of leading the human genome project, I've had the opportunity to study our own DNA instruction book at a level of detail that was never really possible before.

It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming.
...
I would say that the stance that some believers take, which is simply to reject evolution, is also to reject the information that God has given us, the ability to understand. I believe God did intend, in giving us intelligence, to give us the opportunity to investigate and appreciate the wonders of His creation. He is not threatened by our scientific adventures.
​

Scientist Francis Collins on evolution science faith religion genome gene language of God- Beliefnet.com

Here is part 1 of [youtube]po0ZMfkSNxc[/youtube]
an interview with Father George Coyne, a Catholic Jesuit priest. He also has a PhD in astronomy and is a respected scientist. The person interviewing him is Richard Dawkins, a biologist and well-known atheist. As you can see from the interviews, he is pretty excited about evolution and he seems to be firmly convinced that the scientific evidence for evolution is sound.

These are just two examples. In general, I think you will find that from the scientific perspective, it's really not about being an atheist. It's about being a biologist (or a scientist). Scientists get excited about evolution, because it's an amazing fact which explains the diversity of life, AND the evidence for it is overwhelming.

Now, whether the facts of biology, geology, and genetics conflict with the creation story or not, I don't know, that's why I started this thread and asked. I am not one of those atheists who would be excited if science conflicted with the creation story, because I would like all people, religious or otherwise, to benefit from the amazing things we have learned from science.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

watch this video to get the idea that there is no thing like evolution.

Darwin actually answered this very argument, about 150 years ago.

I will conclude this chapter by some remaiks on an important
subject. With animals such as the giraffe, of which
the whole structure is admirably co-ordinated for certain purposes,
it has been supposed that all the parts must have been
simultaneously modified ; and it has been argued that, on the
principle of natural selection, this is scarcely possible. But in
thus arguing, it has been tacitly assumed that the variations
must have been abrupt and great. No doubt, if the neck
of a ruminant were suddenly to become greatly elongated,
the fore limbs and back would have to be simultaneously
strengthened and modified ; but it cannot be denied that an
animal might have its neck, or head, or tongue, or fore-limbs
elongated a very little without any corresponding modification
in other parts of the body ; and animals thus slightly
modified would, during a dearth, have a slight advantage,
and be enabled to browse on higher twigs, and thus survive.
A few mouthfuls more or less every day would make all the
difference between life and death. By the repetition of the
same process, and by the occasional intercrossing of the sur-
\7ivors, there would be some progress, slow and fluctuating
though it would be, towards the admirably co-ordinated
structure of the giraffe.

From Darwin's book Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication, Chapter 20, 1868. The book is free to read online.
Table of Contents: http://www.esp.org/books/darwin/variation/facsimile/contents.htm
Chapter 20: http://www.esp.org/books/darwin/variation/facsimile/contents/darwin-variation-chap-20-i.pdf

Indeed, the okapi (see photo below) is a modern-day species of giraffid and a cousin of the giraffe. It has a long neck, but not so long as a giraffe's. I am not an expert but presumably it also has heart modifications to handle bloodflow to the brain, but those modifications are not as extreme as the giraffe's because blood flow is not so great a problem as with the giraffe. So ... there's really no argument as to why an animal can't evolve a slightly longer neck, followed by slight modifications to allow better blood flow to the brain. There's no argument why repeating this process for many generations cannot result in a neck as long as the giraffe's.

Also, in the last 150 years many fossils of giraffe ancestors and relatives (called "giraffids") have been found, although I wasn't able to easily find any photos of complete skeletons on Google. We know they are related to giraffes due to teeth, skull, horn and other bone structures. In one particular table of data, from one paper, scientists measured the lengths/width ratios of the bones in the spine of different giraffids (the name of the species is on the left, the length/width ratio is the number on the right). Specifically, in this table, they measured the atlas, which is the bone in the spine just below the head. The increase in this number is one of many pieces of evidence which demonstrates a gradual elongation of the neck:

Giraffa 1.17
Litocranius 1.11
Lama 0.71
Capreolus 0.71
Cervus elaphus 0.60
Okapia 0.62

Source information: Fossil Giraffes from the Miocene of Africa and a Revision of the Phylogeny of the Giraffoidea
Author(s): W. R. Hamilton
Source: Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, Vol. 283, No. 996 (May 9, 1978), pp. 165-229
Published by: The Royal Society
Stable URL: Fossil Giraffes ....
(You might need to use a computer at a library to access the full article)

So, we have fossils which show animals can have very long necks like a giraffe, semi-long necks like the okapi (see Table and photo above), and many gradations of neck length in between. The evidence backs up Darwin's argument from 150 years ago. It seems the guy in the video adhmed.zafar posted is not aware of the last 150 years of biology.

 

[painted wolf]

The Giraffe demonstrates what is wrong with intelligent design... either that or they accept that the designer is a moron.

[youtube]0cH2bkZfHw4[/youtube]
YouTube - Laryngeal Nerve of the Giraffe Proves Evolution [Transcript]

Regardless... I don't think Creator is a moron, evolution is the only answer that keeps the Creator intelligent and truthful. If you really want to appreciate the beauty of nature I highly suggest the "Inside Natures Giants" series.

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

I think evolution theory was an eye-opener for many people and it will remain to do so until they go further than where they have reached today or get replaced with a better theory from a scientific point of view of how we came into being.

I believe science should remain as science, but what some excited atheists do is to try to go so far and deny the creation story as if they have already know the entire truth of what really happened.

I think it's just as tragic for atheists to misunderstand evolution and try to use it to deny god as it is tragic for theists to misunderstand evolution and try to use "creationism" to deny science.

wa:do

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Thank you painted wolf for posting that video! How can anyone watch that and not be utterly amazed and fascinated by nature?

Like I said before, my purpose in this thread is not really to disprove anyone's religion. What I really want to see is if Muslims are aware of these fossils, if they have ever looked at them at all, and whether or not Muslims can accept the conclusions of science. I hope that they can. Many religious people accept evolution and I gather that not4me and others on RF are open to evolution, but I'm curious to flesh this issue out with more people on RF like Tashan, maro, and the other Muslim members.

 

[TashaN]

Thank you painted wolf for posting that video! How can anyone watch that and not be utterly amazed and fascinated by nature?

Like I said before, my purpose in this thread is not really to disprove anyone's religion. What I really want to see is if Muslims are aware of these fossils, if they have ever looked at them at all, and whether or not Muslims can accept the conclusions of science. I hope that they can. Many religious people accept evolution and I gather that not4me and others on RF are open to evolution, but I'm curious to flesh this issue out with more people on RF like Tashan, maro, and the other Muslim members.

To me, i'm not a big fan of biology as i told you before, but when a topic interest me, i usually go to a great extent in order to understand it and cover it from all angles. I would usually spend countless hours reading online about a certain topic, or go to the library "when i was still at the University" and collect a dozen of books to read about.

That's why any opinion i might voice here now would be based on speculations and insufficient information, and it would be really an insult to the science. That's why i promise that i'll look into this topic and read about it then try to come back to you later on--i'm afraid it won't be soon--with a more informed opinion.

Thank you so much for your effort and i'll make sure to read every single post you and others have posted here including the links, videos, etc.


Peace.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I understand. I would not expect any intelligent or self-respecting person to just take my word for it.

Peace!

 

[painted wolf]

TashaN... feel free to ask me any questions you have and I'll try to do my best to answer. If you would rather do so by PM that is fine.

also if you have time check out my thread here: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/evolution-vs-creationism/94931-ask-biologist.html

wa:do

 

[newhope101]

Scientists say that one species evolves into another totally different one. A giraffe is still a giraffe regardless of how long its neck is. I'm not going to refute every point because it's using one hypothesis against another and could go on forever. Any designer has a signature through their handywork, artists, house designers etc. Our genetic code is Gods signature. That's probably why we share so many genes with all living creatures. Genes did not evolve themselves in graduations towards the human species. It's the code of life. It's the carbon based life form blueprint. Scientists are surprised that we share so many genes. This was not expected.

I think your Islamic interpretation is correct or much closer to the truth. I looked up Islamic views on TOE. It's a little hard to grasp without understanding your faith. I don't know about plants evolving into other species, but I'm convinced humans did not evolve but were created intelligent and fully human. No doubt our ancestors adapted to different environments. I still have not given up belief that humans were created 6,000 years ago. However if they were around longer, I still believe they were created human, in one hit. Yes, Neanderthal had a bigger brain and I think they could have been the biblical nephilim. That would fit. However, I have no faith in radiometric dating. That's another story. Then again, I'm not sure Neanderthal isn't just an ape, or something like that, after all I've learned.

The skull evidence proves nothing. Scientists do not know what they have found at all and I'll prove it.

Just one more time I'll demonstrate than one cannot take fossil evidence seriously. Now I do not have scientific credentials. However the researcher below is as credentailed as anyone on RF, and more so.You have looked up homo florensiensis on Wiki or evolution net. Scientists had skulls so similar with the Hobbit and Taung child yet Taung child was scooted from florensiensis, just above home sapiens, right back in the evolutonary tree to australepithicus, before even the Homo genus. Yet they looked so similar researchers debated it.

Last year, the Homo florensienses Hobbit was researched and found not only to be NOT our immediate sick ancestor but not even a close relative but diverged from homo sapiens 2 million years ago. I, as an uneducated lay person, was expecting this. This Hobbit had a tiny brain, was only a few feet tall, yet was placed as a transitional phase species above homo sapiens. It doesn't take a researcher to use common sense. I couldn't believe how stupid this classification was. This work below was published in the 'Journal of Human Evolution'. They don't publish just any rubbish.

Now this educated researcher accepts her results, obviously. She has no problem accepting that this homo florensensis hobbit specimen is from way back and evolved separate to humans. It proves to me that scientists have no idea what they are doing apart from trying their darndest to make it all fit and provide evidence for TOE. All these fossils are just apes, chimps, orangatangs etc. Humans did not evolve from apes. As easy as one would think it is to tell a chimp skull from a human skull they cannot. This hobbit is no where near human if 2 million years old. Obviously this researcher does not see any reason to believe her research is flawed. In her mind, with her knowledge she has no trouble accepting her results. So how morphologically different must a species just above sapiens be from something 2 millions years old.

Scientists also maintain that no species alive today is a human ancestor. So ToE cannot be satisfied without trying to show ancestors of differing species and branching. So they came up with Genus species kingdom etc to make it all fit.

If scientists were trying to prove creation they would much more easily accomplish it with the genetic evidence they have today. All this dilemma is because they are trying to prove something that did not happen. Hence all the confusion and debate. If they can't tell a species above homo sapiens from a creature 2 millions years old they can't tell us anything at all.

AUSTRALIAN research has thrown a question mark over long-held beliefs of human evolution thanks to never-before-tried technology on a set of "hobbit bones'' found in Indonesia.
Researchers based in Canberra and Wollongong set to work on a "hobbit'' skeleton found on the Indonesian island of Flores in 2004, using new cladistic analysis.
It compares the forms of organisms to determine ancestral relationships - the first time it was used on this set of homo floresiensis bones.
The results were surprising.
Anthropologist Debbie Argue concluded the bones diverged from the Homo sapiens evolutionary line nearly two million years ago, meaning that it did not share an immediate ancestor with modern humans.
The homo floresiensis bones have previously been dismissed as the remains of a sick human or near-human impacted by environmental factors.
''(The results) suggests that H. floresiensis was not a sick modern human, not even a very close relative,'' Dr Argue said.
It would then also dispute the theory that Homo sapiens were the only hominin around after the Neanderthals, she said.
The research has been published in the Journal of Human Evolution.

 

[painted wolf]

so.... this is a Giraffe?

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

Look up homo florensiensis on Wiki or evolution net. Scientists had skulls so similar with the Hobbit and Taung child yet Taung child was scooted from florensiensis, just above home sapiens, right back in the evolutonary tree to australepithicus, before even the Homo genus. Yet they looked so similar researchers debated it.

In addition... this is a lie... I've explained why it's a lie... yet you still cite it.

If creationism needs lies to support it, it isn't very worthwhile.

wa:do

 

[Mr Spinkles]

[/b]In addition... this is a lie... I've explained why it's a lie... yet you still cite it.

If creationism needs lies to support it, it isn't very worthwhile.

wa:do

But even if this was true if wouldn't have any bearing on the basics of human evolution. If evolution occurred, then we would expect to find a large variety of fossils, many of which are only slightly different and therefore difficult to classify, resulting in many debates and several plausible constructions of the evolutionary tree. However, if humans didn't evolve, then it should be easy to classify every fossil into a small number of "kinds" whose ancestral lines stretch back parallel to each other to a single moment of creation.

 

[painted wolf]

But even if this was true if wouldn't have any bearing on the basics of human evolution. If evolution occurred, then we would expect to find a large variety of fossils, many of which are only slightly different and therefore difficult to classify, resulting in many debates and several plausible constructions of the evolutionary tree. However, if humans didn't evolve, then it should be easy to classify every fossil into a small number of "kinds" whose ancestral lines stretch back parallel to each other to a single moment of creation.

I agree completely... I just abhor people throwing around obvious lies as facts... That is why I stopped being a creationist all those years ago. I got sick of the lies posing as facts.

wa:do

 

[Mr Spinkles]

A giraffe is still a giraffe regardless of how long its neck is

But the ancestors of the giraffe are like the modern-day okapi, the giraffe's cousin (see painted wolf's photo): it has a shorter neck, sure. But it also has a bunch of other slight modifications. All these slight modifications added up together prevent the two animals from producing fertile offspring. Two members of the same species should be able to reproduce together, wouldn't you agree? Therefore, the giraffe and the okapi and the giraffe's ancient ancestors are different species. They are not all giraffes. Yet, they are all connected by an evolutionary line of slight modifications.

 

[Tristesse]

Well, I have a question ,

If we possibly a development version of Monkeys or whatever, How about other monkeys who are probably our brother and sisters. Why did they fail to develop or mature physically and mentally like how our ancestors did?

I'm sure a hundred people have already commented on this post, so, this is my only response.

 

[newhope101]

Mr Spinkles "But even if this was true if wouldn't have any bearing on the basics of human evolution. If evolution occurred, then we would expect to find a large variety of fossils, many of which are only slightly different and therefore difficult to classify, resulting in many debates and several plausible constructions of the evolutionary tree. However, if humans didn't evolve, then it should be easy to classify every fossil into a small number of "kinds" whose ancestral lines stretch back parallel to each other to a single moment of creation".

I agree Mr Spinkles. The Taung child info is found in macrevolution net under florensiensis. It would make it all so much easier if science would try to come up with various hypothesis around evidence for a creation event. My hobbit florensiensis info shows they are very unsure what goes where. It is by no means an exact science, far from it.

I’ve done some homework.
With the Okapi info below I see subspecies with varying chromosomes 44-46. I’m curious about this word ‘species’, even when it comes to non human species. I see giraffes have 30 chromosomes, significantly less than the Okapi. This info is a little old. I note a little debate with both giraffe and okapi classifications same as human decent confusion.

Species and other taxonomic classifications are a concept invented to explain what is seen in nature. By ToE species are phases neither with a beginning nor end necessarily.

I’d say there are too many levels, class, order, family, genus, species. I think kingdom is another classification. Different species are generally not supposed to interbreed successfully. However they do as do similar subspecies. This blurs it all. This is not tight and doesn’t sound right. I think some creatures are just classified to be too far apart when they are the same animal basically with adaptive differences. However this does not sound good in light of ToE.

Okapi have not been seen to interbreed, however as I said that could be for many reason but may be genetically compatible with zebra. The “Quagga” is a reverse Okapi in that its’ top half is striped. The Quagga is a subspecies of the plains zebra. I think Okapi is the same as horse, donkey, zebra, quagga and anything like it are the same family with different adaptations.

With the recent advances in genetic testing, I would like to see the Okapi tested again. I’d say Okapi would share 99% genes with a zebra, given how close humans are to chimps. I’d guess Okapi horse, donkey, zebra, mule etc are 99% the same. Genes alone do not appear to reflect species differentiation these days.

The classification is based on the neck length. This is another classic example of the silliness of the classification system. Okapi has not been genetically compared to a Zebra nor giraffe but a cow. Have I missed it?

If Okapi and horses zebra’s etc were classified together because they look alike it would indicate a much closer common ancestor than an Okapi coming from a giraffe with the ancestor supposedly in the Miocene period. Again, science has overcomplicated the obvious and simple.

Without more solid information I’d say Okapi is a Zebra with adaptive differences and not a different species at all. It’s been classed as a different species because it suits ToE to turn every adaptive variation into a new species. I don’t think Okapi has anything to do with a giraffe.

Some info I found:
13) Genetics
The okapi chromosome number is 44, 45, or 46 in different animals (Ulbrich & Schmitt, 1969; Hösli & Lang, 1970; Koulisher, 1978). The fact that so many animals with 2n=45 have been identified, suggested that this karyotype may also exist in the wild (Benirschke et al., 1983). This has been established with certainty from the study of a wild-caught male (Petit & de Meurichy, 1986). Fusion of the acrocentric elements #8 and #21 from such a progenitor stock with 2n=46 is likely to have taken place in Zaire. It has now been verified in a specimen from Zaire by special banding techniques (Petit & de Meurichy, 1986). Moreover, Vermeesch et al. (1996) identified a specimen with a further reduction of chromosome number to 2n=44.

They compared the fusion events with giraffes and also with the nilgai antelope. Although numerically, the nilgai antelope is similar, some specific karyotypic differences exist from the okapi karyotype (Benirschke et al., 1983; Vermeesch et al., 1996). It is desirable that more detailed comparisons are made in the future between these two species' chromosomes. A study of nilgai chromosomes was compared with that of cattle (Gallagher et al., 1998), but not with giraffidae. The giraffes, on the other hand, have only 30 chromosomes.

Hybrids of okapis with other species are not known. De Bois et al. (1990) analyzed mortality with respect to parental relationship. They found a somewhat higher neonatal mortality in newborns when inbreeding coefficients were high and suggested some degree of "inbreeding depression" to be a possible cause.
22 million years ago in Libya. (Heintz 1975, cited in Skinner &
Smithers 1990). The intermediate ancestor of the modern giraffe was
Paleotragus, from the African Pliocene (Estes 1991). Giraffids of
varied forms once ranged through Eurasia, however Africa is considered
to be the original centre for evolution of the early giraffids (Heintz
1975 cited in Skinner & Smithers 1990).

Prior to the 1990’s nine subspecies of giraffe were formerly recognised
(Dagg & Foster 1976). However (Kingdon, 1984 & 1997) grouped giraffe as
four regional populations: Somali Arid, Saharan, Northern Savanna and
Southern Savanna. These four populations incorporate eight of the nine
subspecies; the home range of Rothschild’s Giraffes falls in the
overlap between the first three populations, and they are referred to
as possible hybrids.

It is likely that this natural subspecies hybridization has been taking
place for some time, as a recent DNA study of captive giraffe
subspecies in U.S.A, (whose founders were wild caught in the 1960’s)
indicated that G.c.rothschildi are not genetically distinct from G. c.
reticulata (Baysdorfer 2000). So giraffe taxonomy is likely to be
debated for sometime into the future.

2.2 Subspecies and Taxonomic Issues
Giraffe taxonomy has been much debated. Each subspecies has been
identified by a particular geographical range, coat pattern and coat
coloration. The home ranges of several subspecies overlap, and
subspecies hybridization occurs in the wild. Formerly there are nine
recognised subspecies of giraffe, (Dagg & Foster 1976 Table 1).
Considerable uncertainty surrounds the validity and geographic limits
of many off the described giraffe subspecies.

 

[painted wolf]

If Okapi and horses zebra’s etc were classified together because they look alike it would indicate a much closer common ancestor than an Okapi coming from a giraffe with the ancestor supposedly in the Miocene period. Again, science has overcomplicated the obvious and simple.

Without more solid information I’d say Okapi is a Zebra with adaptive differences and not a different species at all. It’s been classed as a different species because it suits ToE to turn every adaptive variation into a new species. I don’t think Okapi has anything to do with a giraffe.

I'm sorry but this is silly and shows a deep lack of biological intelligence...

Okapi and Giraffes are artiodactyles... they have
1) 4 chambered stomach
2) even number of hoofed toes
3) Ossicones (skin covered "horns" that are made from a particular type of bone.)
4) Long prehensile tongues (both bluish skinned to protect them from the sun: even though the Okapi lives in the deep forest)
5) Bracydont dentition
6) "double pulley" ankle
7) morphology of the metacarpals
8) no teeth on the upper front jaw

Zebra as Perisodactlys have the following features
1) single chambered stomach
2) odd number of hoofed toes
3) no horns of any kind, nor the proper bone to grow them
4) "single pulley" ankle
5) very different metacarpal anatomy
6) teeth on the upper front jaw
7) Hypsodont teeth
8) short, non-prehensile tongue that is pink in color.

You looked at what? They both have stripes? They have a similar number of chromosomes?
It would take far more evolution to turn a zebra into a okapi than it would to turn an okapi into a giraffe. :bonk:

ps.. you really should cite your sources.. I'll do it for you: Comparative Placentation
students.mim.iml.uts.edu.au/.../zoo/.../Giraffe_Husbandry_manual.pdf


perhaps you should try some others...
Differences in the distribution and nature of the ... [Cytogenet Cell Genet. 1996] - PubMed result
Karyotype evolution of giraffes (<i>Giraffa camelopardalis</i>) revealed by cross-species chromosome painting with Chinese muntjac (<i>Muntiacus reevesi</i>) and human (<i>Homo sapiens</i>) paints
SpringerLink -
ScienceDirect - Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part B: Comparative Biochemistry : A comparative study of haemoglobins from the artiodactyla by isoelectric focusing

and so on....

wa:do

 

[Ria23]

Thank you so much for your effort and i'll make sure to read every single post you and others have posted here including the links, videos, etc.

as I have probably said earlier, you can learn only so much from the internet, unless you have the patience to read several dozens of pages off a browser at a time. as well, you can follow a collegiate-level discussion on aspects of evolution (or anything else) without a context for it.