Origin of life

[Shad]

For those interested look up the Miller-Urey experiment. It has already toppled many of the misunderstanding present in this thread.

 

[Godobeyer]

If that is the case then why are there slightly different versions of the Quran today? About 10 different versions that are considered "authentic" and a number more that are not considered "authentic" because the chain of narration is considered weak.

Quran had versions !!!! maybe you mean , "Hadiths" ,there are authentic hadiths sources and weak hadiths sources. (not versions) . maybe because the early Muslims wre honest , to have courage to made filter , not accepting everything had doubt/weak source .

 

[Godobeyer]

If the Humans are persistantly getting God's messages wrong, then perhaps the all-wise all-knowledgable God should try a more effective method of communication?

good point , God sent us "humans" as messanger , some of us killed them and some made them Gods . so the blame on humans whom receiving .

that's up to him the method of communication for exemple : I bet if He made Facebook acount , some people would reject Him, cos they prefering Twitter . or instagram ...etc .

Also, correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Arabic a very complex and sometimes vague language where words can have multiple different meanings?

that's right Arabic , some words had different meaning as any langauge .

in English :
I made exemple of the word "Fire"

fire ,could mean shot by gun .
fire , fire from the job.
fire , fire in woods .

that's depend what you mean .

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It's not just a matter of desire for diversity but a necessity for diversity. You can't use refrigerator to cook a turkey any more than a brine shrimp can survive in the tundra. Likewise, there is a necessity for diversity in nature if all the niches are filled.

A pond freezing in Winter reduces the entropy of that pond. No purpose needed.

Given that evolution doesn't predict things that don't follow a pattern in the first place, what's the relevance?

I'm not sure what the argument is here. Why is anything more needed to explain diversification?

Practically all living things are sentient (in that they can "sense" the world around them). I'm guessing you meant "sapient" or "intelligent". Why does it matter whether intelligence is an inevitable result of evolution or not? Also, we don't know that it isn't inevitable. It's also possible that any biosphere that survives long enough will give rise to intelligence. Or it might not. Even still, Homo sapiens may speciate in the future and give rise to hundreds of other intelligent species. Or it might not. We only have one example of a biosphere and one example of an intelligent species to study and a sample size of one is not enough to extrapolate conclusions from.

I would be quite interested in hearing the details of your simulation. I've been wanting to do one myself but lack the programming knowledge.

there are a few semantic differences here, re entropy and sentience etc.. but in essence, were on the same page, even if we are interpreting it a little differently.

My point would be that the niches are the predictive pattern, the code, the blueprint, the design- without which there is no functional result.

another analogy would be plastic and a mold, DNA is the plastic, Earth (and the environment beyond) is the mold. pour that plastic onto a flat surface, and entropy alone guides the result- the plastic / DNA itself is not inherently prone to producing any emergent feature.

In this case the mold produced a single solitary being capable of knowing, exploring, appreciating creation itself...

again relating to classical physics, the superficial laws of physics - only operate a rich functional creative universe according to specific instructions detailed in the 'mold' of quantum/subatomic physics- right? this is where the information to build stars, fusion reactors reisdes- and all it's resulting emergent elements required for life. So although classical physics was considered so obvious to be 'immutable' it was fundamentally inadequate to describe the physical world.

Similarly with what i'd call today's 'classical evolution' random mutation and natural selection are the superficial observations, part of the build process, but they alone are entirely inadequate to describe the resulting life on Earth.

I'm not an expert programmer, I have written some commercial applications and games, but the more complex stuff has been for my own amusement, since it doesn't have to be polished/user friendly- you can focus on the guts of it. But coding is great for exposing your own flawed logic, it's very tough to argue with a computer that it must be wrong!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Firstly all the life on earth falls under, at most, only a couple of templates (depending on whether you consider viruses or prions to be a form of life), DNA/RNA is the single template that dominates this world's life.

The world consists of a multitude of different environments with a variety of possible ecological niches and those environments change over time. That makes diversity inevitable. If the entire world was a single stable environment we would not expect to see much change or diversity, and that is what we do see when we look at the smaller exceptionally stable environments that do exist in a few places.

Consider the bacteria recently discovered in deep rock formations, an exceptionally stable environment with very few niches, there we see little diversity and very little change over huge expanses of time.

yes, so diversity, complexity is not inherent to random mutation and survival of the fittest, just as solar systems are not inevitable results of classical physics, they both rely entirely on specific molds, instructions, to overcome entropy and create specific functional results-

 

[Aquitaine]

good point , God sent us "humans" as messanger , some of us killed them and some made them Gods . so the blame on humans whom receiving .

that's up to him the method of communication for exemple : I bet if He made Facebook acount , some people would reject Him, cos they prefering Twitter . or instagram ...etc .


that's right Arabic , some words had different meaning as any langauge .

in English :
I made exemple of the word "Fire"

fire ,could mean shot by gun .
fire , fire from the job.
fire , fire in woods .

that's depend what you mean .

The reliance on scripture is practically the same with every religion. Is it wise for a supreme entity to communicate it's divine plan via languages which are open to human interpretation?

Also, why books? Why not have a constant prophet globally communicating with humanity, or..... why not have the God actually present itself so we can actually see it?

If you reject every other religion as man-made, why stop at Islam?

 

[David M]

yes, so diversity, complexity is not inherent to random mutation and survival of the fittest, just as solar systems are not inevitable results of classical physics, they both rely entirely on specific molds, instructions, to overcome entropy and create specific functional results-

No. Diversity and complexity are emergent properties of an imperfectly replicating system. It is the environment that affects whether that diversity and complexity continues, which was the point that I was making.

So no, specific molds and instructions are not needed to overcome entropy or to create functional results, they would only needed when a functional result is the specific future goal of a process rather than one eventual outcome from many possible outcomes, and there is no evidence of live evolving with some specific future goal at the end of it.

 

[David M]

Quran had versions !!!! maybe you mean , "Hadiths" ,there are authentic hadiths sources and weak hadiths sources. (not versions) . maybe because the early Muslims wre honest , to have courage to made filter , not accepting everything had doubt/weak source .

No I mean that there are slightly different Arabic versions of the Quran itself in existence today. Its all to do with the Readers and Transmitters but an Arabic Quran widely used in parts of North Africa (the Imam Warsh version) has differences when compared to the Imam Hafs version which is widely used elsewhere in the world, which includes differences in the numbering of the verses.

Some differences are very minor but some do change the meaning of the sentence such as "they lied" against "they were lied to".

 

[Godobeyer]

The reliance on scripture is practically the same with every religion. Is it wise for a supreme entity to communicate it's divine plan via languages which are open to human interpretation?

that's up to God

God speak to each peaple by their langauge before Islam , then He speak to all Human by Arabic .
there was translations to Quran and Bible and Torah .

Also, why books? Why not have a constant prophet globally communicating with humanity, or..... why not have the God actually present itself so we can actually see it?

don't you know why books ?

Books to memorize (archive ) ,I believe also that Prophets made miracle ,which encourage the people in that time to believe in them .

If you reject every other religion as man-made, why stop at Islam?

that's called " BELIEVE"
That's because i believe Quran is not human made or editing by human .[/QUOTE]

 

[Godobeyer]

No I mean that there are slightly different Arabic versions of the Quran itself in existence today. Its all to do with the Readers and Transmitters but an Arabic Quran widely used in parts of North Africa (the Imam Warsh version) has differences when compared to the Imam Hafs version which is widely used elsewhere in the world, which includes differences in the numbering of the verses.

Some differences are very minor but some do change the meaning of the sentence such as "they lied" against "they were lied to".

There is one Quran version (no single letter plus or minus) , as i know there are 7 ways of lectures/spelling/reading .because the Arabs in deep past had different way of reading .

any the lectures don't chage the meaning or add or make any different in unique Version of Quran .

For your last sentence , i guess you mean Tafsir (interpretation/explaination) ,that's other issue , because it's was 4 big scholars make intrepretation almost the same , there are more interpretation today for modern scholars , used modern way of searching to explain .

 

[leibowde84]

There is one Quran version (no single letter plus or minus) , as i know there are 7 ways of lectures/spelling/reading .because the Arabs in deep past had different way of reading .

any the lectures don't chage the meaning or add or make any different in unique Version of Quran .

For your last sentence , i guess you mean Tafsir (interpretation/explaination) ,that's other issue , because it's was 4 big scholars make intrepretation almost the same , there are more interpretation today for modern scholars , used modern way of searching to explain .

I actually looked this up and you are correct. There is 1 agreed upon Arabic version of the Quran. More translations, but only one, in tact original source.

 

[McBell]

More translations, but only one, in tact original source.

Now anyway.
Wasn't always the case though.

 

[leibowde84]

Now anyway.
Wasn't always the case though.

I am new to this so I could be completely wrong, but everything I've read so far points to their actually being a single source now. I admit that there could have been more, but that seems unlikely and at least they are going by one Quran now. Christianity has random gospels popping up all over the place.

 

[McBell]

I am new to this so I could be completely wrong, but everything I've read so far points to their actually being a single source now. I admit that there could have been more, but that seems unlikely and at least they are going by one Quran now. Christianity has random gospels popping up all over the place.

There once were multiple versions of the Koran.
one was picked as being the one true version and the others were systematically destroyed.
Replace "gospels" with "hadiths" and there really is no difference.

 

[leibowde84]

There once were multiple versions of the Koran.
one was picked as being the one true version and the others were systematically destroyed.
Replace "gospels" with "hadiths" and there really is no difference.

Oh ... there are tons of Hadiths. No argument there. I was just referring to the Quran specifically.

 

[McBell]

Oh ... there are tons of Hadiths. No argument there. I was just referring to the Quran specifically.

Very few Muslims are Koran onlyists.

 

[SpeaksForTheTrees]

I think the reason some people struggle with evolution is because they simply cannot imagine these geological time scales.

Regularly work with numbers into the quintillions the geological time scale is a tiny number.

 

[SpeaksForTheTrees]

Where did life come from ?

During the big bang no life can exist, so what made the first cell of life to exist without being born.

Why the DNA is complex and is adjustable (mutations), how you explain those things to happen without any intelligence being involved ?

Life comes from parents.
Agreed something is behind it however to say something (a force) exists is one thing but to then go on an describe it in religion is quite another.
DNA if you look at evolution it is a disgustingly ugly affair no intelligence is involved.

 

[David M]

There is one Quran version (no single letter plus or minus) , as i know there are 7 ways of lectures/spelling/reading .because the Arabs in deep past had different way of reading .

any the lectures don't chage the meaning or add or make any different in unique Version of Quran .

For your last sentence , i guess you mean Tafsir (interpretation/explaination) ,that's other issue , because it's was 4 big scholars make intrepretation almost the same , there are more interpretation today for modern scholars , used modern way of searching to explain .

No. There are multiple versions because the written differences change, add or remove words which, in some cases, alters the meaning.

Islamic Scholars admit the differences and some claim that the fact that there are multiple versions is an improvement and not contrary to 5:19.

Are all the Arabic versions of Quran the same? | Submission.org - Your best source for Submission (Islam)

Some (like you) also say that there is still only 1 "true" Quran, which is the original, but as no copy of that original versions still exists anywhere it is merely a specious claim. Its about as accurate as claiming that the many different versions of the Bible do not invalidate a claim that the Bible is a preserved and unchanged document.

In both cases the versions have changes in meaning which means they do differ, No excuses or apologetics is going to get around that simple fact.

I actually looked this up and you are correct. There is 1 agreed upon Arabic version of the Quran. More translations, but only one, in tact original source.

Source? Because there are Islamic scholars who say that you are both wrong (as well as reality). Multiple versions in Arabic exist. Where is this intact original source?

Of course the fact that you claim that there is 1 "agreed upon" version just goes to prove that there are multiple versions, and do you have any proof that all the world's Muslims agree with that choice.

 

[Godobeyer]

No. There are multiple versions because the written differences change, add or remove words which, in some cases, alters the meaning.

Islamic Scholars admit the differences and some claim that the fact that there are multiple versions is an improvement and not contrary to 5:19.

Are all the Arabic versions of Quran the same? | Submission.org - Your best source for Submission (Islam)

Some (like you) also say that there is still only 1 "true" Quran, which is the original, but as no copy of that original versions still exists anywhere it is merely a specious claim. Its about as accurate as claiming that the many different versions of the Bible do not invalidate a claim that the Bible is a preserved and unchanged document.

In both cases the versions have changes in meaning which means they do differ, No excuses or apologetics is going to get around that simple fact.



Source? Because there are Islamic scholars who say that you are both wrong (as well as reality). Multiple versions in Arabic exist. Where is this intact original source?

Of course the fact that you claim that there is 1 "agreed upon" version just goes to prove that there are multiple versions, and do you have any proof that all the world's Muslims agree with that choice.

seems your ignorance knows Islam more than Muslims them-selves ?