Why do men have nipples?

[tarekabdo12]

[FONT=&quot]The base of your claimed non-scientific theory can't be proven by science:
First, You can never say -according to Le Chatelier principle- that original peptide bonds were formed in water because the formation of this bond causes a release of a molecule of water, which is impossible to occur in a hydrated medium which favors depolarization rather than polarization

Second, You can't assume that it was originally formed on land because the ocean would be the only protective place for amino acids from the destructive UV rays.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Third, Miller's experiment couldn't prove the origin of life on earth by chance. Miller tried to form the amino acids in the lab. However, Miller actually proved the impossibility of the formation of primordial earth's atmosphere. He used a mechanism called a "cold trap" to isolate the amino acids from the environment as soon as they were formed. However, this mechanism did not exist on the primordial earth and without it his amino acids would have been destroyed. Furthermore, he used methane and ammonia instead of carbon dioxide and nitrogen from the atmosphere of ancient earth consisted of plus water vapor at that time. In addition he didn't use oxygen which was believed to be present in the earth's atmosphere and would destroy the amino acids. All this invalidates the theory of evolution and proves that it can't find it's base till now. The only way the proteins and DNA could have been formed by is through a creator.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Fourth, we reach the left handed amino acids dilemma. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The proteins in all living things are formed from left handed amino acids only despite the presence of both right-handed and left-handed forms in nature. So if the a.a s were just formed by the chance the living proteins should contain both forms which is actually not present[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. So how can proteins select only left-handed amino acids? If this was by a matter of coincidence only it would be really impossible.[/FONT]

 

[tarekabdo12]

And I really am curious if you think a person can be both a good, observant Muslim and an "evolutionist" at the same time.

I don' think that a person can believe that he has a God and at the same time he believes that he was produced by random mutations.

 

[Jose Fly]

Every single has evolved, how? and the genetic record, how? and fossil record, how?

I've given you examples of the observed evolution of new traits. Do you have examples of new traits arising via different means? And we've been over the genetic and fossil records and your attempted rebuttals have fallen short.

We didn't see God create but we should undersstaand this from what we see in His creation.

You don't see how that is a completely circular argument?

We also didn't see a fish evolve into an amphibian.

No, but we theorize that it happened via successive speciation events, which we know for a fact happen. The fossil record for this transition is also supportive of the process.

An exceptional Devonian fish from Australia sheds light on tetrapod origins : Abstract : Nature

Ventastega - The Panda's Thumb

http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/fish-amphibian-transition.htm

Devonian Times - Tiktaalik rosea

paleoanthropologist give their findings not formulate them and if they do so they give their own views not facts.

And that brings us back to that question you never answer: How do you know what paleoanthropologists do or don't do?

Mutation: multiple studies were carried upon the drosophila and none gave useful results. All the results were deformities and damages. Because mutations are mindless they can't be assumed to create a perfect system.

Before I address this, I must ask: Who is this from?

So how can radom complications shift this extremely complex genome

Are you even paying attention? It does it all the time, every single day. We keep telling you, every one of us is born with ~100 mutations. You've been provided examples of mutations leading to new traits and increased fitness. Given that, why would you even ask that question?

can it originally form it?

Are you asking if mutations formed the first genome? Seriously?

Your latest copy from Harun Yayha fails to mention a few things. First, Michael Denton is an "evolutionist" who completely retracted his views in "Evolution, A Theory in Crisis" when he wrote "Nature's Destiny". But Harun Yahya won't tell you that. Also, he quotes from William Fix's book "The Bone Peddlers", which....well...Fix is simply a nut. His book is all about "psychogenesis", i.e. that "mental processes" are what made forms in the past. But again, Harun Yahya won't tell you that, will he?

So I have to wonder how many more "mistakes" you're willing to give H. Yahya before you realize that he's a charlatan?

I don' think that a person can believe that he has a God and at the same time he believes that he was produced by random mutations.

So if you were to recognize the validity of evolution, you believe you would have to become an atheist?

 

[Jose Fly]

[FONT=&quot]The base of your claimed non-scientific theory can't be proven by science:
First, You can never say -according to Le Chatelier principle- that original peptide bonds were formed in water because the formation of this bond causes a release of a molecule of water, which is impossible to occur in a hydrated medium which favors depolarization rather than polarization

Second, You can't assume that it was originally formed on land because the ocean would be the only protective place for amino acids from the destructive UV rays.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Third, Miller's experiment couldn't prove the origin of life on earth by chance. Miller tried to form the amino acids in the lab. However, Miller actually proved the impossibility of the formation of primordial earth's atmosphere. He used a mechanism called a "cold trap" to isolate the amino acids from the environment as soon as they were formed. However, this mechanism did not exist on the primordial earth and without it his amino acids would have been destroyed. Furthermore, he used methane and ammonia instead of carbon dioxide and nitrogen from the atmosphere of ancient earth consisted of plus water vapor at that time. In addition he didn't use oxygen which was believed to be present in the earth's atmosphere and would destroy the amino acids. All this invalidates the theory of evolution and proves that it can't find it's base till now. The only way the proteins and DNA could have been formed by is through a creator.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Fourth, we reach the left handed amino acids dilemma. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The proteins in all living things are formed from left handed amino acids only despite the presence of both right-handed and left-handed forms in nature. So if the a.a s were just formed by the chance the living proteins should contain both forms which is actually not present[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. So how can proteins select only left-handed amino acids? If this was by a matter of coincidence only it would be really impossible.[/FONT]

Dude, that isn't evolution, it's the hypothesis of abiogenesis. I'm sure the distinction has been explained to you before.

And I'm wondering, is this pretty much all you're going to do? Spam the thread with endless copy and pastes from dishonest creationist websites?

 

[painted wolf]

And what about the whole animal kingdom?

Mostly conserved... All living things on Earth share a good percentage of their genome. The closer related the two species are, the more alike their genomes are.

If you could find anything alive that is totally different from everythi8ing else, you would have evidence it was specially created and not evolved.

wa:do

 

[tarekabdo12]

Dude, that isn't evolution, it's the hypothesis of abiogenesis. I'm sure the distinction has been explained to you before.

And I'm wondering, is this pretty much all you're going to do? Spam the thread with endless copy and pastes from dishonest creationist websites?

Well, I didn't copy and paste, I read many articles then I formulated them in my way. The abiogenesis issue is very important since it represents the base of evolution and of atheism. If you can't find a base for your claims so you can't build the theory on no base and simply now it's on no base. You simply escape the issue by saying its not evolution yet it's really the base for evolution. If you can't find an explanation against creation so you can't argue and say that there's not a creator. You may argue only if the creator did create a mechanism to update his creatures or not but you can never erase the first creation. In addition, you can never explains the various complicated laws the rule life on earth and can never be explained except by deliberate design as they don't follow the laws of biology.

 

[tarekabdo12]

Mostly conserved... All living things on Earth share a good percentage of their genome. The closer related the two species are, the more alike their genomes are.

If you could find anything alive that is totally different from everythi8ing else, you would have evidence it was specially created and not evolved.

wa:do

The closeness isn't an evidence for evolution , it\s only variation. There're myriad creatures on earth and all of them are created o the same basis and this makes variation expected and closeness logical. The variety of birds' colors doesn't prove they weren't designed. If there was a company that produces computers, for example, you'll find that the computers are similar with some changes yet you can't expel that the original design is so complicated that it can be explained through randomization.

 

[painted wolf]

The closeness isn't an evidence for evolution , it\s only variation. There're myriad creatures on earth and all of them are created o the same basis and this makes variation expected and closeness logical. The variety of birds' colors doesn't prove they weren't designed. If there was a company that produces computers, for example, you'll find that the computers are similar with some changes yet you can't expel that the original design is so complicated that it can be explained through randomization.

But you just said you didn't think we were close.... now you already have a reason to dismiss closeness?

Actually computers are the opposite of living things.... the hardware is all essentially identical but the programming is totally different. Clearly showing that they are not related, but independently designed.

Like I said, if you found a critter with a genome totally different from anything else alive (Mac vs. PC vs. LINUX) then you would have proof of design.

Otherwise you just have a proposed designer that is too lazy to do anything new. Imagine if every computer still ran Fortran.

wa:do

 

[tarekabdo12]

Transition from bony fish to amphibians:

This is the transitional fossil part from Talkorigins
Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 1A

Ms. Hunt: "These ancient bony fish probably gave rise both to modern ray-finned fish (mentioned above), and also to the lobe-finned fish."
Probably, and not even to amphibians, which she claims in her earlier cited heading, but simply to another species of fish, maybe. No proof, all supposition.
Much like in a lawyer’s contract, it pays to read the fine print hidden within evolutionist depositions. This demonstrates that all of her evidence of evolution is suppositional; she simply believes in evolution and that is the proof she uses in her reasoning for the evidence of evolution! Her belief is based just as much on a "faith" as the creationists whom she so vehemently criticizes, except that the evidence-sudden appearance of unique forms in the fossil record, with no transitional forms- actually favors creationism, not evolution!
Even if there were certain skeletal similarities between some of the fish she mentioned and amphibians (but no fish with toes and no amphibians with fins), this does not at all connote a phylogenic (ancestor/descendant) relationship.
Australian scientist Michael Denton mentioned convergence, an evolutionary concept that pretty much blows all of Ms. Hunt's nice little stories of fish becoming amphibians becoming reptiles out of the water: "Then there is the problem of convergence. Nature abounds in examples of convergence: the similarity in overall shape of whales, ichthyosaurs and fishes; the similarity in the bone structure of the flippers of a whale and an ichthyosaur; the similarity of the forelimbs of a mole and the insect, the mole cricket; the great similarity in the design of the eye in vertebrates and cephalopods and the profound parallelism between the cochlea in birds and mammals. In all the above cases the similarities, although very striking do not imply any close biological relationship."
Denton mentioned the remarkable similarity between the thylacine and dogs. Both have an amazing skeletal similarity, yet in their soft anatomical reproductive systems there is a vast difference.
Ms. Hunt reveals her inherent prejudice when discussing the problems of a fish to amphibian transition by using the assumption of evolution as evidence for evolution: "Eventually, of course, amphibians did move onto the land."
Well, that was easy! We have fish, then we have amphibians, but no genuine fossil transition forms, only fish that "ought to be" be in the lineage of amphibians. It makes a fascinating story, but where's the real evidence?
"Lungs were not a problem, since lungs are an ancient fish trait and were present already."?
Well, if you have ever wondered how it was that lungs evolved, now you know!
Ms. Hunt has explained it all to us in her typically exhaustive manner, going into minute detail on every aspect of the evolution of these complex organs.
Are there any more questions? Good! Class is dismissed.
But how and when and where did lungs arrive on the scene as an ancient fish trait in the first place?
Do we have a clue at all to any of this?
Are there any transitional forms that might have had half-formed lungs?
Why would such an incredibly complex set of double organs "evolve" through blind, random evolutionary circumstances?
Regarding the other part of Ms. Hunt's imaginary story - "This involved attaching the pelvis more firmly to the spine, and separating the shoulder from the skull" - John Morris notes that in all the fish mentioned, the hard parts of the fins are loosely embedded in muscle and not even close to being attached by a pelvic arrangement to the vertebrate which would be necessary to support the weight of the body. (John Morris, BTG No. 91B, July, 1996)
Morris also pointed out the improbability of all the right changes to happen by chance for a transition from water to land to occur: "Actually the skeletal differences are only one of the many problems encountered in trying to link fish and amphibian. The internal organs are quite different also. Major changes would have had to occur in just the right order to accomplish the transition. For instance, while the pelvic girdle is forming (by mutation), and the gills are mutating into true lungs, the ears and eyes must mutate to work in the dry air. How could any possible ancestor accomplish these and other simultaneous changes?"
Transitional Vertebrate Fossils

Mr.Jose, this transition you are talking about is so complicated and I don't know how you are expressing this idea so simply. A change in the whole body system and a while transition of life and for what cause? Why would a stable fully functional organism face those great dangers on land while it's greatly working in water? And this very complicated nature of random mutations should occur at the same time to create a totally different creature and in two sexes at the same time to continue sexual reproduction. It's non-sense.

 

[tarekabdo12]

Are you even paying attention? It does it all the time, every single day. We keep telling you, every one of us is born with ~100 mutations. You've been provided examples of mutations leading to new traits and increased fitness. Given that, why would you even ask that question?

These are fine mutations that can never explain the great change in a whole nature of an organism. This is something that can never be imagined or enter a sane mind.

 

[idav]

The abiogenesis issue is very important since it represents the base of evolution and of atheism.

When looking at the big picture abiogenesis is important but evolution doesn't need abiogenesis for it to be true. Some theists might be perfectly fine with abiogenesis leading to evolution. You saying that some "guiding hand" is necessarry for it to happen doesn't take away from the fact that it still happened that way billions of years ago with or without god. I have no reason to discredit natural methods especially in a seemingly "intelligent" universe.

Aside from all this what does it have to do with nipples?

 

[Jose Fly]

Well, I didn't copy and paste, I read many articles then I formulated them in my way.

What I've noticed is that whenever you're presented with data you can't refute, you suddenly put up a whole series of posts, mostly copied web articles, one after the other and you never really directly address the data. It seems to me you're deliberately trying to bury the data behind pages of spam and once that's done, you can just pretend it doesn't exist.

The abiogenesis issue is very important since it represents the base of evolution and of atheism.

See, there's one of your main problems. I'm here discussing science, but you think you're arguing against atheism. In that regard, you haven't been totally honest with me. Earlier in this thread when I asked you how being an "evolutionist" would affect your religious beliefs and social life, and you told me it wouldn't affect either at all. Yet now when I ask if you can be a good Muslim and an "evolutionist" you say no because evolution denies your god. That, plus the statement above about atheism makes it very, very obvious that you weren't totally honest with me earlier. It's clear that you believe "evolution = atheism" and you can't honestly tell me that if you were to become an atheist, no one in your circle of friends or family would treat you any differently.

That also explains why you keep presenting yourself as an authority on the science, when you really have no idea at all what the science is; why you keep going back to dishonest sources for your copy and pastes; and why you dodge data and questions like crazy.

So let's drop the charade, ok? No more pretending that you came to your denial of evolution purely because of the science (if you had, one would think you'd be more familiar with it) and that if only the data were there, you would recognize its validity in a heartbeat with no emotional or social consequences at all. The root issue here isn't science, it's your religion. Thus, if this conversation is to ever go anywhere we need to stop going in circles at get to the heart of this thing. Agreed?

 

[tarekabdo12]

When looking at the big picture abiogenesis is important but evolution doesn't need abiogenesis for it to be true. Some theists might be perfectly fine with abiogenesis leading to evolution. You saying that some "guiding hand" is necessarry for it to happen doesn't take away from the fact that it still happened that way billions of years ago with or without god. I have no reason to discredit natural methods especially in a seemingly "intelligent" universe.

Aside from all this what does it have to do with nipples?

to happen doesn't take away from the fact that it still happened that way billions of years ago with or without god

Is that your evidence?

Aside from all this what does it have to do with nipples?

We are not bound here to the title only, many issues have been openned and we're discussing them.

 

[tarekabdo12]

See, there's one of your main problems. I'm here discussing science, but you think you're arguing against atheism.

You're not discussing science, you're hiding behind findings and twisting them to match your needs. And simply, evolution is the way to atheism and that's way they titled the creation vs evolution part under religious debates in a forum called religious forum and if it wasn't a matter of your dogma you wouldn't care much about whether evolution is valid or not but you've hidden needs so don't masquerade and try to appear as an innocent lamb.

 

[tarekabdo12]

What I've noticed is that whenever you're presented with data you can't refute, you suddenly put up a whole series of posts, mostly copied web articles, one after the other and you never really directly address the data. It seems to me you're deliberately trying to bury the data behind pages of spam and once that's done, you can just pretend it doesn't exist.

What data? notice that.I am simply telling you that you're arguing on no base so that's why I find it pertinent to what is in here and if I was escaping something I wouldn't have posted near 200 times in this thread.

 

[tarekabdo12]

That also explains why you keep presenting yourself as an authority on the science, when you really have no idea at all what the science is; why you keep going back to dishonest sources for your copy and pastes; and why you dodge data and questions like crazy.

I didn't dodge, I said that what is posted doesn't add much nor explain the massive changes in the living creature that would alter a whole form of life into another. And what sources do you consider honest? I think only those who advocate evolution. This is not a good way in an argument. I see that you won't be satisfied by me except when I admit that all your allegations are true.

 

[idav]

Is that your evidence?

Evidence for what? The evidence points to life starting from simple life forms to the complex ones we see today. Arguing that intervention was needed doesn't change that main point of simple to complex your just arguing the details of how. It either happened naturally or intervention was necessary. I tend to think that it could happen naturally. If god had some sort of lab 4 billion years ago we don't have evidence for it.

 

[painted wolf]

I'm a theist and I have no problems accepting evolution as the mechanism of creation.

God uses natural processes for everything else, like making the sun and the earth why not life as well?

wa:do

 

[tarekabdo12]

[FONT=&quot]

Yet now when I ask if you can be a good Muslim and an "evolutionist" you say no because evolution denies your god. That, plus the statement above about atheism makes it very, very obvious that you weren't totally honest with me earlier. It's clear that you believe "evolution = atheism" and you can't honestly tell me that if you were to become an atheist, no one in your circle of friends or family would treat you any differently.

Because you didn't notice that the two questions are different and my reply also included the answer for your inquiry. It won't affect my belief as a person may consider that God created the whole universe and the laws of nature as well as the first organisms and put a way in the creation to update the organisms and guide their change. In this way, it may be somehow acceptable, yet I refuse this idea not because of religious belief but as I don't accept it with my mind. And that's why I posted the issue about the abiogenesis before giving my reply. To tell you that there must be a creator who started life and if you were honest as you say you should admit so but you simply aren't. You won't to prove atheism by any means and claim that you're following science but take care that science didn't show even a fancy about the first formation of the main forms of life (proteins and cells) without a creator. Also, there's no imagined way for the formation of the original proteins in this complex pattern without the presence of a deliberate design and you say you are following science and logic. What logic says that random mutations will lead to the change of a totally different form of life to another? It's a mindless argument.

I then did tell you than observant Muslim won't follow evolution if it was in the way that that means a total absence of creator and the occurrence of progress in creatures without a deliberate guidance. That's what I can find pertinent to religions, if God wanted organisms to become more complex through evolution so He did design a mechanism via mutations that would allow the living creatures to evolve one from each others gradually. And this is a theory that one of our professors was talking about recently yet I find it-personally- not acceptable; but not in the way of total randomization. My professor said so as he couldn't explain how the world surrounding came with this complexity without a creator and how the original cells and proteins were formed. He also couldn't explain the instincts creatures have in the matter of evolution only and the morals that live into our souls. Many things can't be explained only by means of materialistic evolution. Yet, this is his theory; some people believe it and they are still considered Muslims.[/FONT]

 

[tarekabdo12]

I'm a theist and I have no problems accepting evolution as the mechanism of creation.

God uses natural processes for everything else, like making the sun and the earth why not life as well?

wa:do

Dear lady, this is an important part that I wanted to point at but you was faster than me. If theism can match evolution but atheism can't explain the things I'd previously mentioned so there is no excuse for atheists except if they want to follow their vagaries.