Exclusive: an Islamic scientific viewpoint on Darwin theory

[CYBERJITH]

1:20 the islands name is galapagos not calatropis

[venuram1]

If I have to disagree Darwin evolution then I have the only choice of agreeing that my God is a racist bastard

[SloveintzWend]

I have never come across of any book which says fact of gravitation. I wonder why?

[kilroy227]

1 minute in and I can already call this guy ignorant...

[tskasa1]

Okay then...so you admit that animals CAN undergo morphological and genetical changes within a species. So now, what mechanism, exactly, prevents these morphological and genetic changes from becoming so large that a long and distant animal branches off and become its own separate species? I'd LOVE to hear about this mechanism that you know of that NO biologist in the world has yet discovered. Hell, you're guaranteed a noble prize in biology for it.

[tskasa1]

How many of those noble prize winners are actually biologists? I thought so.

Furthermore, no, you CAN tell what descended from what based on the fossil record, and this is due in part to a nice little thing called morphology and genetics (albeit genetics is not always usable), which is a genetic trait and can be passed down from generation to generation. In other words, the closer 2 things are morphologically speaking, the higher the probability that they are related. Comparative anatomy 101

[tskasa1]

...What are you talking about? There are no links between Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon man? Is this why the dna evidence says the EXACT opposite?? Furthermore...no, cro-magnon didn't evolve from neanderthals, and BOTH of these species ARE homo sapiens.

[tskasa1]

And what the hell are you talking about? Darwin didn't receive support because his theory was against the bible. In fact, at first it was critically panned by most scientists precisely BECAUSE it contradicted the bible. They only started picking it up a few years later after there had been FAR too much evidence supporting evolution to be casually dismissed. Again, dishonesty.

[tskasa1]

Also...are you seriously using an argument from ("lack" of missing links) ~150 years ago as evidence against evolution? I mean....we've discovered MILLIONS of the bloody things since Darwin published his book. Yes, science HAS progressed since the mid-1800s, surprise-surprise.

[tskasa1]

Yes...Charles Darwin DID say that there were missing links, yet missing links don't debunk evolution. This is because in much the same manner that you can often tell what the image of a jigsaw puzzle will be without having to put every piece together, you can often infer things about the natural world without needing every single last example from the beginning to the end of time.

[tskasa1]

Yes...because Darwin only observed Finches, right? No. Darwin used finches to explain his concept of NATURAL SELECTION, which is a component of evolutionary theory, but not the theory itself. And yes, Darwin observed more than Finches.

And...what? Darwin didn't have any proof?? Darwin spent the several decades between his trip to the Galapagos and publishing his book collecting and sorting this data. Darwin NEVER said such a thing, and to claim that he did is outright dishonest.

[tskasa1]

I guarantee that you've also never seen any [real] science book that talks about the "fact" of gravity, or quantum mechanics, or even the fact of respiration. That is because so far as science is concerned a theory is the absolute closest you can get to what can be called truth. A scientific theory, for all matters of practicality, is essentially a fact.

[KaonNeutre]

* Some part of DNA are rare retroviral infections that are given to the early stage of the fetus and the virus DNA is hereditary transmitted to the children. One can see more than 100 000 retroviral infections at the exact same place on the human DNA than the chimp's...

* and so on and so on and so on..

One could ask himself who is really doubting of evolution and why... because it is not scientists. The debate only exist inside religion.

[KaonNeutre]

* Dolphin embryo has 4 legs ; 2 of them gonna make fins and the 2 others gonna disapear.

* In whales, those two legs are developing inside the whale tail (under the skin)!!!

* Human have a tail in its embryo. Sometimes (not so rarely) it doesn't disappear and the doctor has to cut it!!!

* We share 99% of the Chimp DNA.

[KaonNeutre]

Nakir Zaik is either a fool or an ignorant.I don't believe in evolution. I rather accept evolution as the best explanation of the observations. Evolution theory is, by far, the best way we can explain the extremely numerous facts that everybody can see and that science teach us.

For example (out of so many others) :

* You can follow in fossils, step by step, the evolution of the superior bone of the reptilian jaw into the little bone of our ears.

[sunlitekid01]

wow not only is this so called doctor lying about everything he has studied in school... but he doesn't even know how to speak proper English.....Albert Gyorgyi did not INVENT, he DISCOVERED Vitamin C. In spite of all those things.. I challenge to find all the names he just said and see if ANYONE can find half of the scientists he mentioned and see what happens. FUCKING LIAR!!! this man is after ur money nothing else!

[BlackMetalWarewolf]

hehe, im not even in university yet and i know

1. More about science than him

2. WAAAY More about evolution than him

isnt it cute?

[gamingsoul11]

I've never seen a book that said atomic fact either. They're all atomic theory. All these poor sheep.

[groundboy16]

He says evolution is a theory and not a fact, but every scientific miracle he is explaining in the Qur'an is also no more than "theory"

[chyrd]

I wish I could be so unethical, that I would make my money by lying to people.

[pusilnilapulapu123]

animals didn't Evolved. Only Replaced..........

[NUFCRossy]

Lol evolution is fact, it's theory just like the theory of gravity and the theory of relitivity intact most scientists rely on evolution to combat viruses and predict mutation, theory has more substance than Allah

[244Ohiro]

It feels SO good, knowing that I know more about evolution that a man who claims himself a "Dr", who has sway over this amount of people and probably more!

[qwerty0019]

@244Ohiro

With all due respect, what you wrote remains vague and general. Would you mind being more specific: in what aspects do you disagree with the points mentioned in the video?

[244Ohiro]

@qwerty0019 It is pointless debating specifics if the whole picture is wrong BUT I'll give you one example. "Dr" claims evolution to be "just a theory", receiving applause as a result. Evolution is a scientific FACT, supported by overwhelming amounts of evidence, the fact that is is called a "theory" is misleading, as with the "theory of gravity". Dr is either lying or misinformed about evolution. In both cases, I trump him with truth, and so can you, my friend!

[1n354a]

@qwerty0019 you mean apart from his lack of understanding of how the word 'theory' is used in modern science? his quote mining of Charles Darwin? his understanding of human evolution?

I mean seriously, look at the ladies face at 2:40 - she knows that he is full of it!

224Ohiro hit the nail on the head...it is not hard to know more than this man, regardless of how many titles he claims.

[itzahazylife]

@qwerty0019

DO NOT listen to people like this man regarding evolution. he is not an evolutionary scientist. he is greatly misinformed. that is what happens when one doesn't use other sources to learn about science, and not scientific sources..it really complicates things, and causes great misinformation and confusion. look up articles or watch videos by actual experts, not religious inspired pseudo intellectuals like this.

[venuram1]

@qwerty0019

1, This guy agrees that Lucy came 3 and half million years ago and followed by home-saphiens, neandranthal and cro-magnon.... is that not enough for him to think why his God must have created these souls before reaching the complete man????

2, disagrees evolution theory becos there is no link between these species, can he able to make a link between his child photo to his current posture? afterall our life is some years but he says there is no perfect 'link' 3 and half mill. years

[Peace488]

If the coincidental formation of even one of the proteins is impossible,

it is billions of times more impossible for about one million of these

proteins to come together properly by chance and make up a complete

human cell.

It is impossible for even a single cell to come by itself forget about a Human appearing from nowhere.

[Peace488]

A professor of applied mathematics and astronomy from University

College (Cardiff, Wales), Chandra Wickramasinghe, said

"The likelihood of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate matter is

one to a number with 40.000 noughts after itÉ it is big enough to bury

Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, either

on this planet or on any other, and if the beginning of life was not by

chance, it must therefore have been the creation of purposeful intelligence"

[Ronilowich]

@Peace488

"The likelihood of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate matter is

one to a number with 40.000 noughts after itÉ it is big enough to bury

Darwin and the whole theory of evolution."

The theory of evolution explains the diversity of life, not the origin. Go read a science book.

[Peace488]

Robert Shapiro, professor of chemistry at New York University and

a DNA expert, calculated the probability of the coincidental formation of

the 200 types of proteins found in single bacteria. (There are 200,000 different

types of proteins in a human cell) The number that was found was

1 over 1040.000.

[Peace488]

All the mutations that we know of that take place in humans result

in physical deformities, in infirmities such as mongolism, albinism,

dwarfism or cancer. The people exposed to the radiation of the nuclear

weapons dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the recent past are concrete

examples of the mutations occurring in living beings due to radiation.

Mutation does not lead to formation of new species as Evolutionists claim it is a figment of the Evolutionists.

[skyparticle]

its just a theory, not a fact y can't u guess dat

[Kibernautas]

And one more thing, english isn't my native language, I may make mistakes, but you, umarkkkk, have nothing to say and don't understand what Darwins theory is about. Only you can say, that I wrote one letter wrong? You are not descended from apes or from common ancestor, you are descended from something completely brainles.

[Kibernautas]

Mutation not necesary have only positive or negative effect, it may depend on circumstances. People vho have mutated CCR5-Δ32 allele. This allele is found in 5-14% of Europeans but is rare in Africans and Asians. CCR5-Δ32 individuals have shown to be disproportionately at higher risk of West Nile virus, but they are much more resistant to the HIV and some other diseases. Depending on situation, it could have positive or negative effect, acumulate during generations or disapeare.

[Kibernautas]

Evolution is powered by mutations, most of them have negative impact, but even if positive mutations are only 0.01 percent of all mutations, they acumulate in future generations. Example of this could be viruses and bacterias becoming resistant to drugs. Their life is very short and such changes could be visible much sooner than in biger spechies.

[Kibernautas]

Darwins theory is testable, and milions of fosils discowered shows that he was right. If you want to deny all this, you have to deny science at all.

[johndri688]

in what way is it testable?

[BalthazzarCH]

google for polyester digesting bacteria

[umarkkkk]

dude before testing darwins theory..first learn how to write english properly.."discowered"..lol..n­y way if humans r evolved from apes..how comes apes still here...lmao..

[BalthazzarCH]

they didn't evolve from modern apes, they evolved from comon ancestors.

You haven't a clue what evolution is if you think that lifeforms don't speciate

[araless]

You can't be serious, right? Apes are evolved well to survive in their environment, we are evolved in a different way to survive in ours. We are not evolved from them, we are primates that descended from the same common ancestor.

[progressthruscience]

@umarkkkk

If Americans came from Europeans, why are there still Europeans?

[Kibernautas]

It is just comon sense, that you don't have to prove to every idiot, that he is idiot. There are beter things in life to do. If somebody want to believe, that snow is black, earth is flat and evrything is created by god, it is his choce. Such people do not see diference between "I believe" and "I know". Example of evolution could be domesticated animals, lets take dogs. They hawe had comon ancestor, but by using selection ove many generations, we now have diferent dogs for diferent needs.

[johndri688]

dog breeding is a great example of change within a species. but there are genetic bounderies. you will never breed dogs into a new species. God made species adaptable. natural selection may in fact occur to bring about small changes within a species. the problem is darwins full theory claims species originated though natural selection. this is unscientific. you cant apply the scientific method to it. its not testable or observable. its philosophicaly a tuantology. it cant be disproven or proven.

[BalthazzarCH]

before you make any claims about evolution and how it works, you must know what you are talking about.. an hour @ wikipedia and accepting the possibility that the earth is older than 6000 should open your eyes.

[araless]

Dog breeding is really not an example of evolution, but evolutionary theory always matches observation and makes correct predictions. Speciation is evident in nature, and small changes over an small amount of time resulting in large changes over a large amount of time is evident. Looking at the fossil, genetic, and physiological evidence, you can't refute it. On top of that, it makes logical sense.

[Gutsukyo]

Most of the dogs you see today(as well as cats) are a product of cross-breeding. They did not evolve.

[thefrontrow99]

Please learn the "theory" of evolution. There is a lot more information available than Dr. Naik would like all knowing mulsims to know. Obviously, he is refuting thousands of scientists and millions of articles written on it. If you don't know about it, don't pretend that your Holy book is correct just b/c one self-styled scholar says so. Btw, I can tell you that a few scientists here in Canada did rebut him on face to face, but obviously "he didn't have time for them". Peace.

[Darslam]

That's the game, islamic version

[tashlash]

if Dr. Naik is a "slick salesman", if he has no idea about fact or theory, and if most of his comments are ignorance, then y hav u ppl not proven him wrong with a factual comment or at least a link or source. all u do is point a finger without backing it up. if there's a doc. showin the fact of evolution then give the name i'll go evaluate it. further, Naik was not giving a half truth, just a general understanding becuz it was a question/answer session which has to be brief.

[Frikgeek]

@tashlash 1.Evolution is a FACT 2.The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is how we understand that fact. 3.Is there a document independent of the q'ran that mentions the FACT of the skydaddy

[blueduderanch]

this guy is such a slick salesman, he has nothing really to say but he can make people buy the product. he completely ignores that we have undeniable proof that evolution has occured, whether it be by the slow hand of god, or by natural selection

[zenitxpto]

Most of his comments are ignorance, diskised with sprinkles of actually sicentific and historical facts. From the question of the missing links (that actually exist in one form or another), to the facts of the life of darwin. I couldn't say the informations are incorrect, but more incomplete up to the point that serves is argument. Half truths are the base of the best of lies. In this case half truth contadicts the truth because he made it look like that.

[madzyzome]

HAHAHA I love set up questions.

Once again a person that has no idea about the definition of fact or theory. In the colloquial sense evolution is a fact. It happens, we have documented it we have entire industries making billions of dollars of the principals of evolution.

To say most scientists support evolution only because it goes against the bible is also ignorant. They accept it because all the facts point that way. This guy has no clue about double nested hierarchies or synapomorphies.

[lvildos]

dhakagod...you can blindly believe both in evolution theory as you can believe in Allah, plus you can blindly believe in many other things. Why not? We are free men and women to think and believe in anything we want

[Godblesstruth]

he is the man, he is smart bi-idni-allah.

I really like what ahmed deedat once said: "why jews,atheist,hindus, etc do not hate all the imams in south africa? why? because they are so silent as mice, they do not open their mouth against them. But everybody hate Deedat? why? because he does dawah, and when someone says the truth, people begin hate him.

Why Muhammed pbuh was called amin, and after islam they hate him??? answer: saying truth"

And I see today kafirs hate, hate, dr. Zakir Naik.

[nakhatoo]

On the basis of theories, these people stop believing in ALLAH (swt). I cant even imagine how are they able to do such things? We got alot of work to do.

[dhakagod]

If there are missing links, thn why blindly believe that there can be links between the 4 species ? if you can blindly believe that, why cant you blindly believe Allah ?

[eaststorm2008]

well,i can say darwin theory is wrong