• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
1. how do evolutionists explain the soul?

You would not ask the question “How does the theory of gravity explain the existence of the soul?”. At least I assume you would not ask such a question because would obviously be absurd. Asking how the theory of evolution explains the soul is equally absurd. And it is not a matter of whether or not you believe in the soul or not, the question you ask is absurd either way.

There is a great deal about our physiological and genetic makeup with can only be explained by the theory of evolution. But there is a great deal that is not explained by the theory of evolution. Evolution does not explain how gravity works (you may thing this is a ridiculous strawman on my part, but Ben Stein actually used this as an argument against evolution asking “how does evolution explain gravity”). Evolution does not explain the properties of the electromagnetic spectrum, it does not explain how stars are formed, it does not explain combustion etc. And the theory of evolution certainly does not explain the existence of the soul, or of angels, or ghosts, or jinn or any other supernatural entity. And this is in no way a weakness in the theory of evolution. No scientific theory has an explanation for the existence of any supernatural element.
 

idea

Question Everything
fantôme profane;2731239 said:
There is a great deal about our physiological and genetic makeup with can only be explained by the theory of evolution. But there is a great deal that is not explained by the theory of evolution. Evolution does not explain how gravity works (you may thing this is a ridiculous strawman on my part, but Ben Stein actually used this as an argument against evolution asking “how does evolution explain gravity”). Evolution does not explain the properties of the electromagnetic spectrum, it does not explain how stars are formed, it does not explain combustion etc. And the theory of evolution certainly does not explain the existence of the soul, or of angels, or ghosts, or jinn or any other supernatural entity. And this is in no way a weakness in the theory of evolution. No scientific theory has an explanation for the existence of any supernatural element.

Iwould substitute the word "science" for the word "evolution" in the above -

"there is a great deal that is not explained by science" ... Science does not explain the origin of the laws, science does not explain the origin of life, science does not explain where our ability to think and act comes from...

science deals with repeatable predictable phenomena... people are like snowflakes - no two are alike - we are not repeatable, we are not predictable, there is a limit to what science can say about us.
 

Looncall

Well-Known Member
Iwould substitute the word "science" for the word "evolution" in the above -

"there is a great deal that is not explained by science" ... Science does not explain the origin of the laws, science does not explain the origin of life, science does not explain where our ability to think and act comes from...

science deals with repeatable predictable phenomena... people are like snowflakes - no two are alike - we are not repeatable, we are not predictable, there is a limit to what science can say about us.

You have left out an important word: "yet".

As for your snowflake analogy, the principles that govern snowflakes are understood and those that describe people are being worked on. Religion explains nothing about either.
 

Gharib

I want Khilafah back
What you call the "soul" could be no more than a pattern in the neurons of our brain. Just as a functional computer won't do anything without software, our bodies will stop functioning without the proper pattern. Nothing even begins to suggest that this pattern can exist independently of the body.

If what we creationists reffer to the soul is in fact a neuron/s then how do you explain these neurons suddenly dying in a perfectly healthy body? They do have a life span, a long life span, so what can be said about a perfectly healthy child dying at young age?

The soul in this case would namely have to be a motor neuron, because the body although dead it reacts when you touch it because the sensory neurons are still living. Example: when an animal is slaughtered, it is by definition dead, but the body still functions in the biological sense and it reacts if you touch it.

Moreover what you are saying is that the body will cease to live/function physically once the neurons die or once a proper pattern is lost. Here is one expample that i believe strengthens my view of the soul being something different to a neuron and that a body can still, although for not very long, function even though there is no proper pattern. When a chickens head is chopped off, both the body and the head continue in this case to ‘live’ even though the body is not connected to the head anymore, and they both become motionless once the ‘soul’ actually comes out of the body.
So i have to ask, how can the body function physically when it is not connected to the head? All possible neuron paterns are lost and yet the impossible suddenly becomes possible.
 

Gharib

I want Khilafah back
Every "Evolutionist", as does every creationist, says something different about the soul. Some say it goes to God through Jesus after death, others say it goes to Allah through Muhammed after death, others say it gets reincarnated, others say soul don't exist. So many "evolutionists"; so many opinions. The Theory of Evolution itself says nothing about souls.

Muslims do not believe that the soul goes to Allah through Muhammed.
The theory of evolution doesn’t say anything about the soul, thats why in my post i said:
“if none of you can accept the soul as real, then please explain this from the evolutionist/scientific/atheistic perspective of how one can be dead but at the same time they are "living".”
 

Gharib

I want Khilafah back
Evolution says nothing about a soul... that is a topic for religion. Since a soul can't be measured, observed or even really defined, it has no place in science.

Each religion has a different view on what a soul is and who has one... for example my religion says that everything has a soul while others insist only humans have a soul.

wa:do

In Islam we believe that only humans and animals (from large mammals to small insects) have souls, although we believe everything else to be alive, they have no souls. This in a way is like i said in my earlier post of the human body living even though it is motioneless because of the soul having come out of that body. Everything else is alive but is motioneless (doesn’t physically move by itself) due to no soul pressence.
 

Gharib

I want Khilafah back
Since most of you would rather not discuss the soul as it has nothing to do with evolution, which i believe is true, then i believe we should leave this question/topic and move on. I will post my second question another time.
 

Alceste

Vagabond
In Islam we believe that only humans and animals (from large mammals to small insects) have souls, although we believe everything else to be alive, they have no souls. This in a way is like i said in my earlier post of the human body living even though it is motioneless because of the soul having come out of that body. Everything else is alive but is motioneless (doesn’t physically move by itself) due to no soul pressence.

The existence of a soul is something your religion assumes without any evidence. Because there is no evidence it is true, science doesn't have to "explain" it. When there is evidence the "soul" is an observable, quantifiable phenomenon in the material world (IOW, the world of science), then science will need to "explain" it, and it will eagerly take on the task.
 

McBell

Unbound
Since most of you would rather not discuss the soul as it has nothing to do with evolution, which i believe is true, then i believe we should leave this question/topic and move on. I will post my second question another time.
What?
Without defining what you mean by "soul" and presenting evidence of its existence?
 

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
In Islam we believe that only humans and animals (from large mammals to small insects) have souls, although we believe everything else to be alive, they have no souls. This in a way is like i said in my earlier post of the human body living even though it is motioneless because of the soul having come out of that body. Everything else is alive but is motioneless (doesn’t physically move by itself) due to no soul pressence.
Ah, but every atom is in constant motion. Rivers flow and the sea moves with the tides... even mountains move as they grow upwards slowly and then are worn down in old age.

Everything is in constant motion if you stop and really observe. :cool:

But because there is no way to really measure a soul then we can't tell if it evolves or not. It would just be guesswork with evidence and that is not allowed in science. But the day you can actually study a soul scientifically, then people will be excited to study if they evolve.

wa:do
 

ScottySatan

Well-Known Member
Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest

I know this topic has been discussed before and i also know that this is a make or break topic for evolution so i would like to discuss this topic of Natural Selection and whether it is a flawed perspective or an accurate and logical one.

Actually, natural selection does not make or break evolution. It only makes or breaks "evolution by natural selection" but its role is debatable in a contemporary model where the focus is on the nature of the genetic change rather than selection, which merely changes the frequencies of alleles.
 

Zoe Doidge

Basically a Goddess
The soul may not be scientific but consciousness certainly is. The soul is considered something intangible which existed before you were born and survives after death, whereas consciousness is considered something purely physical which does not. Other than that, they are different explanations for the same thing, namely that we have awareness.

Because of its nature, there is no evidence for a soul that could not simply be 'written off' as evidence for consciousness. Still, I think asking why consciousness evolved would be a valid question, although it likely evolved long before we did.
 

Gharib

I want Khilafah back
i will continue with my second question:

2. what are the chances of some transitional species, surviving through those changes that they went through and how vulnerable would some of these species be to predators or even nature itself and their fight for survival.

some more info on what exactly i mean by that question;
first lets take the reptile-bird theory. the changes that a species goes through as evolution says, are very slow, they take many many years and all parts do not necessarily go through these changes at the same time since after all, we are talking about random changes.

to begin with, i will mention 1 very significant difference between birds and reptiles, and that is the lung structure and how it works, thats one difference among many.

regarding this difference i would like to present an article:

Avian lungs

Another factor that makes the scenario of evolution from dinosaur to bird impossible is the unique structure of the avian lung, which cannot be explained in evolutionary terms.

The lungs of terrestrial animals have a two-way structure: During inhalation, air travels down into the lungs through increasingly narrower channels, halting at tiny air sacs, where the exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide takes place. Later, this CO2-laden air moves in the opposite direction, leaving the lung by the same path through which it entered, and is expelled through the main bronchial passage.

In birds, on the other hand, the air travels in one way only along the so-called pulmonary canal. The lungs' entry and exit canals are different from one another, and air always travels in the same direction, thanks to the special air sacs extending along the passages. This means a bird can absorb oxygen in the air non-stop, meeting its high energy requirements.

This unique respiratory system, known as the avian lung, is described in these terms by Michael Denton, a molecular biologist from Otega University in Australia:
In the case of birds, the major bronchi break down into tiny tubes which permeate the lung tissue. These so-called parabronchi eventually join up together again, forming a true circulatory system so that air flows in one direction through the lungs. . . [T]he structure of the lung in birds and the overall functioning of the respiratory system is quite unique. No lung in any other vertebrate species is known which in any way approaches the avian system. Moreover, it is identical in all essential details in birds as diverse as humming birds, ostriches and hawks.83

It is impossible for the reptilian lung, with its two-way air flow, to have evolved into the avian lung, with a one-way flow. No transitional stage between these two pulmonary structures is possible. Any vertebrate must breathe in order to survive, and the first step in any change of pulmonary structure would lead to the death of that intermediate stage.

Furthermore, the theory of evolution maintains that all changes took place gradually, over millions of years. Yet no creature whose lungs do not function can survive for more than a few minutes.

In his book A Theory in Crisis, Michael Denton sets out the impossibility of explaining the origin of the avian lung from an evolutionary perspective:
This one-directional flow of air is maintained in breathing in and breathing out by a complex system of interconnected air sacs in the bird's body, which expand and contract in such a way as to ensure a continuous delivery of air through the parabronchi . . . The structure of the lung in birds, and the overall functioning of the respiratory system, are quite unique. No lung in any other vertebrate species in any way approaches the avian system. Moreover, in its essential details, it is identical in [all] birds.84

In short, a transition from one type of lung to the other is not possible, because no "transitional" lung could function properly.

In addition, reptiles have a diaphragmatic respiratory system, while birds have no diaphragm. The differing structures also make evolution between the two types impossible. John Ruben, an authority on respiratory physiology, comments:

The earliest stages in the derivation of the avian abdominal air sac system from a diaphragm-ventilating ancestor would have necessitated selection for a diaphragmatic hernia in taxa transitional between theropods and birds. Such a debilitating condition would have immediately compromised the entire pulmonary ventilatory apparatus and seems unlikely to have been of any selective advantage.85

Still another feature refuting the evolution of the avian lung is that its structure leaves it never empty of air, and faces the danger of collapse if it should become empty. Michael Denton has this to say:

Just how such a different respiratory system could have evolved gradually from the standard vertebrate design without some sort of direction is, again, very difficult to envisage, especially bearing in mind that the maintenance of respiratory function is absolutely vital to the life of the organism. Moreover, the unique function and form of the avian lung necessitates a number of additional unique adaptations during avian development. As H. R. Dunker, one of the world's authorities in this field, explains, because first, the avian lung is fixed rigidly to the body wall and cannot therefore expand in volume and, second, because of the small diameter of the lung capillaries and the resulting high surface tension of any liquid within them, the avian lung cannot be inflated out of a collapsed state, as happens in all other vertebrates after birth. The air capillaries are never collapsed as are the alveoli of other vertebrate species; rather, as they grow into the lung tissue, the parabronchi are from the beginning open tu bes filled with either air or fluid.86

This system, totally different from the lungs of reptiles and other terrestrial vertebrates, cannot have formed gradually through unconscious mutations, as evolution maintains. Denton states that the avian lung's structure invalidates Darwinism:

The avian lung brings us very close to answering Darwin's challenge: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."87

83. Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, pp. 210-211.
84. Ibid., pp. 211-212.
85. J. A. Ruben, T. D. Jones, N. R. Geist, and W. J. Hillenius, "Lung Structure And Ventilation in Theropod Dinosaurs and Early Birds," Science, Vol. 278, p. 1267.
86. Michael J. Denton, Nature's Destiny, New York: Free Press, 1998, p. 361.
87. Ibid., pp. 361-362.
 

Alceste

Vagabond
Eselam, you can't really argue against evolution by saying this or that feature could never have evolved. The minute someone explains to you how the transition occurred from reptile to bird you can change the subject. Ok, so maybe bird lungs could have evolved, but what about the eyeball? Ah, ok, so the eyeball could have evolved, what about the neck of the giraffe? And so on and so on until the involution of every single feature of every single species has been explained to your satisfaction.
 

johnhanks

Well-Known Member
The avian lung brings us very close to answering Darwin's challenge: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
Neither you nor Denton have demonstrated the impossibility of the avian lung having evolved from an earlier system: you have both merely asserted your own incredulity that it could, and expected others to treat that incredulity as an argument. It is no such thing.
 

Noaidi

slow walker
first lets take the reptile-bird theory. the changes that a species goes through as evolution says, are very slow, they take many many years and all parts do not necessarily go through these changes at the same time since after all, we are talking about random changes.

to begin with, i will mention 1 very significant difference between birds and reptiles, and that is the lung structure and how it works, thats one difference among many.
This may be of use:
Bird Lung

regarding this difference i would like to present an article:
Could you provide a source for this article, please?
 

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
i will continue with my second question:

2. what are the chances of some transitional species, surviving through those changes that they went through and how vulnerable would some of these species be to predators or even nature itself and their fight for survival.

some more info on what exactly i mean by that question;
first lets take the reptile-bird theory. the changes that a species goes through as evolution says, are very slow, they take many many years and all parts do not necessarily go through these changes at the same time since after all, we are talking about random changes.
Each small change is still beneficial in some way... or at least not detrimental. Take a feather... the earliest feathers were simple filaments more like hairs than what we think of as feathers. Yet, these still provided a benefit to the animals that had them. They helped them stay a little warmer, broke up their outlines and let them hide from predators better, made them look sexy to the lady dinosaurs and so on.

Transitional features aren't random jumbles, they are still full features unto themselves. A transitional feather is still a complete feature, even if it isn't a complete feather as we know it.

to begin with, i will mention 1 very significant difference between birds and reptiles, and that is the lung structure and how it works, thats one difference among many.

regarding this difference i would like to present an article:

Avian lungs

Another factor that makes the scenario of evolution from dinosaur to bird impossible is the unique structure of the avian lung, which cannot be explained in evolutionary terms.

83. Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, pp. 210-211.
84. Ibid., pp. 211-212.
85. J. A. Ruben, T. D. Jones, N. R. Geist, and W. J. Hillenius, "Lung Structure And Ventilation in Theropod Dinosaurs and Early Birds," Science, Vol. 278, p. 1267.
86. Michael J. Denton, Nature's Destiny, New York: Free Press, 1998, p. 361.
87. Ibid., pp. 361-362.
We have learned a lot since the 1990's... including the fact that crocodilians like Alligators have transitional lungs between reptiles and birds.

Their lungs move air like a birds does... that is unidirectional... despite the fact they don't have a complex system of air sacs. It works quite well for crocs, letting them use oxygen much more efficiently than a reptile, but not as effectively as a bird.

So yes, you can survive quite happily with this "impossible" structure that is between birds and reptiles.

We also know that if you look at dinosaurs through time you can see the bird air sac system evolve over time. In birds air sacs integrate with the backbone and ribs and this leaves distinctive marks on and inside the bones. As you observe theropod dinosaurs you can see these marks and they get more bird like as you get closer to the birds ancestry.

This is the problem with holding up a feature of a modern animal and then declaring it "impossible" to have evolve. Knowledge is always advancing.

wa:do
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
The avian lung brings us very close to answering Darwin's challenge: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."87
I doubt anyone can break down the theory. At a very basic level single celled organism have much the same functionality as a complex multicellular organism which is one of many reasons evolution is so highly probable. Not to mention the fact that our DNA is so similar across all species needing only slight modifications to see the variations we have today. We are 70% similar in DNA compared to slugs.
 
Top