amazing! just think after 10 million years a species ruling the world like the dinosaurs, like us the humans. just think about it, it's so beautiful! we should live in present and suck as much as we can. after 20 million years there will be none of you. think about the humans 10000 years ago, hunting, living in caves, fighting ferocious animals, think about the man 2000 years ago looking at the moon in a desert from his camel, or just think about the man in ancient asia teaching buddhism.
@Sukhoi34F please research about the scientific miracles in the Quran, how is it possible that the Quran revelled to a man in the desert, this man never went to school or read a book, how is it possible that the Quran speaks about the big bang, that every life is made from water and that the earth is round and spheric in shape how is possible that these thing are written in the Quran from 1400 years ago these scientific facts were discovered only recently
I want all of you to think about this....if there is no such thing as God then why is there death? If your going counter with reincarnation that nonsense. If you are reincarnated...you don't remember your past life, then where is your evidence. Even if that is true then what is the point of life?
I can buy the idea of a creator, but for such a being that exists outside of space, time and all of our laws of physics, why they would bother watching every human, every life form in the universe? let alone care what animals you eat and how much of your foreskin you should remove.etc
This kind of 'being' would be so far out of our understanding... I just don't see why it would want you to worship it, Worship, good, evil etc are all human concepts, they don't matter in the grand scheme of things
@liamjd1 Good Question, we must look at the evidence, no human being has ever seen God the creator of the Heaven and earth so how do we know He exists? the Quran says: look and ponder..." looking at the universe and life we can see that there is design in them for example the human body is more complicated and has better design than any man made machine. The body has a dynamic framework of bone and cartilage that makes the skeleton which is flexible, with hinges and joints that moves.
@liamjd1 the design in creation (universe, animals, human beings etc) proves that there must be Designer that has created every details system of the universe that make everything work for example a car works because an intelligent engineers designed and created it the human body and the universe works because A Mighty Being Greater than anything we know has designed and created everything. As we have never seen this Being we can only know about Him if He communicates to us
@liamjd1 The Creator of the heaven and earth which we call Allah or you can call Him the Creator of the Heaven and Earth God Almighty communicates with us human beings through revelations, throughout time He has communicated and revelation ie the Bible, Torah and finaly the Quran was sent by the same Being to guide us and shows us the truth and purpose as why we are here on earth. He definitely cares for us every food you eat, every oxygen particle you breath He created it for you!
Your argument at 7:59, that God is the first as there must be something at first that isn' created by anything that has created all that is today. Why can't that thing be big bang? You say god created big bang, but nothing created god, why nut take one step away and say big bang created everything (which it did) but nothing created big bang? Is that really more illogical than saying that nothing created god?
@blasphemytard Allah God Almighty is Eternal Infinite and has powers beyond our comprehension. Quran: And the heaven We built with Our own powers (aydin) and indeed We go on expanding it (musi'un).
Quran: Do not the unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were a closed-up mass (ratqan), then We clove them asunder (fataqna)? And We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?...
Hold up. God didn't 'create' evil. How can you ask for free will AND a world without evil? Evil comes from the emotions of humans. Anger, revenge, envy and fear, to name a few, drive us to do evil. If we didn't have these feelings...we wouldn't have free will.
god allah what ever you want to call this invisible person. Should make himself plainly known to destroy all dobt but he wont because he dose not exsist it was fuuny to hear richard laff.
@Pawnfirst007 that's a good question, it is very clear to us Muslims that God Allah exists but let me prove to you my friend how we know Allah exists and He is the only God. We know buildings exist because there are people who construct them, your mobile phone exist because intelligent engineers programmed, designed and create them. Looking at the universe, mankind, animals etc we can see the evidence that a Mighty Being must exist that has created everything we know and that Being is Allah
@wallidjan too many self assumptions to be logically useful. 1st, you're assuming that a creator must exist but there's no evidence about that. the universe could easily have ever existed, so no one has created it, just like, from your point of view, no one created god allah. 2nd assumption. Let's assume your first assumption is right. Then why the creator should be God Allah and not some other god, maybe the christian God, maybe the jewish God, maybe Zeus, or a god that we dont know
If, according to Abrahamic religions such as islam, god is all knowing, all powerful and the creator of all, then FREE WILL CANNOT EXIST - god knows exactly how we, his creation, are going to behave, including full knowledge of our thoughts. Then why are we here? Because religion is nonsense, that's why!
@dubaipeteproof God exist the proof your house exist because construction workers has made it, your mobile phone exist because intelligent people made it, the universe and you exist because A mighty Creator, Evolver, Eternal Being Allah God Almighty has created, designed you and everything else. Allah is all knowing but you have certain free will eg you make your decisions in life but God knows the future so He already knows
@wallidjan You repeat the same argument over and over again. Your argument is this: because things exist, Allah must exist. It's ridiculous. You completely disregard the fact that there might be other god(s) who could have done it. Diamonds and tons of other things are created by a natural processes, so it's ridiculous to think that everything needs a creator in order to exist. Your reasoning really requires the IQ of a rabid squirrel, nothing else.
@joe80dmanizanerd THERE IS NO GOD BUT ALLAH, how do examine the evidence that God exists and that He is a Mighty Being called Allah, no one have seen God not even Jesus, Mohammed, Moses peace be upon them. How do we know Allah God Almighty exists! we Muslims have many proofs and it is obvious for us let me explain. There are design and organisation in nature, Human beings, universe that means that there has to be a Mighty Being that has designed, planned and put everything into existence
@wallidjan The beginning of the universe is incredibly sophisticated and complicated and difficult to study, it goes beyond normal human intuition, you need tools like mathematics, quantum physics, relativity and the large hadron collider to study it. Trying to replace this study by just saying a one-word answer "God" to explain where everything came from doesn't explain a damn thing and is childishly simplistic.
@huwrj the law of the physics are complicated, scientists have spent their life time studying these amazing things but we have to search for the questions that matters to us why are we here? and where did we came from?
what is prove for God? we need to know who God is first? looking the universe, life etc etc we can conclude that there designed, organised system in them. the Quran revelation of God is another proof that God exists! please research and study the Quran
your claim at 8:09 defies the first law of thermodynamics, that energy cannot be created or destroyed, therefore even if your particular god whoever it may be, has always existed, he could not have created the universe as this would have required him to create energy (from nothing), which as you said yourself, is absurd. I Conduct genetics research at my university and in science NOTHING is self- evident, even if we presuppose a cause you must conduct research to determine what the cause is
The true religion of Allah must be universally understandable and attainable, not confined to any people, place or time. There can not be conditions like baptism, belief in a man, as a saviour etc., for a believer to enter paradise. Within the central principle of Islam and in its definition, (the surrender of one's will to God) lies the roots of lslam's universality.
Whenever man comes to the realization that Allah is one and distinct from His creation, and submits himself to Allah, he becomes a Muslim in body and spirit and is eligible for paradise.
Men and women of wisdom have said that God exists but cannot be comprehended by human reason or perceived by human senses. The only way to acquire knowledge of Him is through the Prophets, whom He appointed as bearers of His Revelation. Given this, we must accept the guidance of Revelation if we want to know about Him.
In all of creation, there is nothing like, equal, or contrary to God. God is above all form.
The 21st century is the century when the collapse of Darwinism is declared. Following the unveiling of 100 million fossils declaring the collapse of Darwinism, the greatest blow to the theory is a newly found human foot print fossil. Contrary to all the Darwinist claims, this fossil indicates that CONTEMPORARY MAN WAS LIVING 1,5 MILLION YEARS AGO
Only the Creator truly creates and determines possible causes and effects for His creation. Therefore, we speak of God as the Sustainer, who holds and gives life to all of His Creation.
Why Can't We See God?
God is absolutely other than His creation, for the Creator cannot have the same kind of being as His creation. Although this is self-evident, some people still ask why we cannot see God directly.
These posts you are making form a nice speech, but I fear that it does not contain much else then statements that are by themselves not based on empirical observation.
Let me ask you this then: how did you come to this knowledge, what is your source?
If you are willing to answer, then please be precise. So if it is an observation, then what is this observation? If you say it is the Quran, then what passage says this? If it is something else, then what exactly is this?
The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said that some people would ask this very question: "A day will certainly come when some people will sit with their legs crossed and ask: 'If God created everything, who created God?'" (Al-Bukhari)
The Creator must be Self-Subsistent and One, without like or equal. If any created being "causes" anything, for only the Creator is Self-Existent and Self-Subsistent.
Whoa, hold up there Richard - You misrepresent the criticism of evolution "doubters". They don't say that Natural Selection is a chance operation, but that the Theory of Evolution is a chance operation.
Actually, all sides agree that natural selection does indeed take place.
So....Way to get off-base and misrepresent the argument from the very start, Richard! Doing what evolutionists do all too often - avoid the real issues and distort the view of the opposition. Bravo!
The Scandadavian countries are "civilized", but they are not "happy", at least if we take the statistics as indicitive. According to a survey, Sweden and Norway have very high rates of suicide. Hmmm?
WRT creator, where did the creator come from? b/c obviously creator is a very intelligent being creating billions of galaxies? Using Quran as a scientific basis doesn't hold. Sorry. You are not presenting any evidence, just stating things. I'd rather take the evidence we have at hand and go from there.
Did someone create you? Did you create your self? or were you created from nothing?
A creator has to exist to design and sustain everything that exists, the creator has to be the ever living the one that has existed infinitely and does not die or does not born
Do we find apparent design in biology? Yes. In fact, apparent design pervades the biologic realm [2, 3]. When we apply the general principles of detecting design to living creatures, we find it reasonable to infer the existence of a Creator.
Every breath you take its God that has provided the oxygen for you, everyday when you eat food or drink its God who sent down water for the plants to grow and you to drink little is that you know.
It is comforting to think that everything has a reason, but that does not make it true. How can you say that everything that exists needs a creator... except God? What was God doing for infinite time before the big bang? The same thing he is doing now: nothing.
Creation denotes the existence of a divine Creator who has exercised His creative abilities, creating this world and the life-forms we see. Life is the product of intelligent contrivance. Thus, apparent design in biology would constitute evidence for a Designer. It is a self-evident and universally recognized truth: concept and design require an intelligent designer.
Allah's Beautiful Names and Attributes The Guardian, the Preserver, The Maker, The Fashioner of Forms, The Magnificent, the Infinite, The Majestic, The Loving, the Kind One, The Giver of Life, The Lord of Majesty and Generosity, The Patient, the Timeless
Obviously, you don't understand the "theory" of evolution, but you felt the need to provide your expertise on the video. As for the evidence on the lack of creation of new species, you should read about the evidence from molecular biology. You should wonder why if we were created and existed at the same as Dinosaurs, then how did we survive but they didn't. Seriously, with all due respect you should learn about natural selection and the evidence supporting it before commenting on it. Thanks.
Jehoveh's Witnesses for example, will not use medicine or surgery to heal themselves or their children. To me, this is a human rights violation that parents can essentially impose death upon their children in the name of religion. Its self-imposed, superstitious, needless suffering. And it is evil.
What you will find is that the more a society embraces science and allows religion to fall away. The richer it becomes. It learns to utilize its resources for the betterment of all its citizens. The religious are hypocritical when they embrace the sciences which they utilize, and then ignore other beneficial sciences that go against their beliefs or religion.
If people would leave behind their superstition, suffering can be eliminated. Case and point is Zambia. After hearing arguments from scientists, and then from environmental and religious groups. The government decided to allow over a million of its citizens to die of starvation rather than use genetically modified crops to sustain its people. They relied on what the religious zealots told them instead of what scientists who studied and understood told them. Religion and science are incompatible.
Last but not least the main reason to defy this omnipotent being is that if it were real, it must have created evil. If not, our imagination exceeds it and then why call him God. The Bible and Qur'an do not lead to goodness. Humans who defy religious doctrine lead to goodness.
God created good and evil to test us, if human being do evil that is their free given choice but it doesnt mean God is happy with them and it doesnt mean God likes evil
In response to what you postulated; that being that God created evil. Why?Knowing what I know, I will fail to believe in any God without direct evidence. I am doomed regardless of my morality. I simply don't believe in Allah, or Yahweh or Zeus. Zeus you must realize, was worshipped the same way as Allah is now and the idea of Zeus predates Allah by a long shot. He is now dead, as fairytales should be. Would you believe anything I told you if my only evidence was a book? That is all you have.
If evil did not exist then how would appreciate good, if darkness did not exist how would you appreciate light. God could have given you one hand but NO you have 2 hands Gods knowledge encompasses our understanding (mind).
The reason we are considered the best of Gods creation (better the angels etc) because our mind (knowledge) and we have free choices do evil and good by doing good we become the best of Gods creation and by doing evil we become the worst.
What I think you need to explain is why an omniscient, omnipotent, and benign being couldn't create a universe without evil that provided for everything that everyone needed to have fun and enjoy life. Your imagination is small if you actually believe what you just said. If your world requires evil then you can have it. Mine doesn't require it, it just endures it. Evil arises from desperation, and that's why if there is a God, it is my enemy. I don't think anyone should have to suffer.
Evil is defined as intentionally immoral acts or thoughts based in cruelty, injustice or selfishness.
1. If, according to you, evil is necessary for the appreciation of goodness, why fight against it? Once eradicated, what then?
2. If God designed and created Evil, and allows it to flourish, can He still be considered "good" or "just"?
3. If God also allows evil to happen to those who don't choose it (innocents, babies), when is the free will of the innocent victims of evil considered?
one thing I do know. If we are His creations, then we are His property, and He can do what He will with His property. He is not bound by any external restraint to be either all good or all evil to us. This is a fact of life that must be accepted rather than rebelled against.
Through choosing good and rejecting evil,
The trial-and-error of this particular debate will, hopefully, result in firmer and more beneficial knowledge for everyone who looks for the truth about our existence.
Then there is indeed no free will to speak of if He can apparently do with us as He will. And thus no point in either serving or not serving since you are bound by a force you cannot resist.
WHO SAID FREE WILL, you have free choices to make do good or bad that's the choice you make but the fundamental part is that you have to believe in your creator who made you the way you are, given the things you have, but your creator is loving and good so why reject or fight Him
As I stated earlier Wallid, God can either be loving and good (and thus not allow evil to persist or happen to those who are innocent bystanders) or he is evil and malicious (and does allow evil to thrive and to overtake innocents) He CANNOT be both!! There is no compulsion in religion (2:256), so we don't HAVE to believe anything. But it is really hard to start to believe in something that is immediately contradictory.
(5) That is He, the All¬Knower of the unseen and the seen, the All¬Mighty, the Most Merciful. (6) Who made everything He has created good, and He began the creation of man from clay. (7) Then He made his offspring from semen of dispised water (male and female sexual discharge). (8) Then He fashioned him in due proportion, and breathed into him the soul (created by Allâh for that person), and He gave you hearing (ears), sight (eyes) and hearts. Little is the thanks you give! [Quran]
Wrt eyes, its known how they came into being. Again, rather than just quoting a few things doesn't make it a proof. Look at the evidence. As for the virtues of Islam, every religion offers that, so no big deal there. Finally, wrt creator, you make it sound like you "know" what happened. Again provide proof or be neutral.
Evidence for Evolution - Observed Natural Selection
(Survival of the fittest): Darwin's proposed mechanism for evolutionary change is observed in nature. Natural selection serves as a means of conservation, not one of creation. It explains survival of a species, not arrival of a species. Here's an illustration: You work in a car factory. Your job is quality control - make sure the cars work like they are supposed to.
You kick the tires and slam the doors, drive the cars around, etc. You identify and remove defects (an arbitrary selection with the same final result as natural selection). How long would it take for this selection process to turn one of those cars into an airplane naturally over time? It won't happen. "Natural selection may have a stabilizing effect, but it does not promote speciation [the arrival of a new species].
The great hypocrisy is that the Bible for instance says thou shalt not kill. Yet God kills willy nilly because people don't agree with him. These words written for all to see are proof of the very human nature of these texts. The Qur'an is even more violent than the Bible word for word. Given these words I would trust a serial killer more than any Abrahamic God. At least a serial killer isn't omnipotent. God destroys and tortures all who disagree according to the texts.
But I will say that there are things which the Bible or Qur'an says are evil which are not. Homosexuality and graven images spring to mind.
There are evils which neither text percieves, such as pedophilia.
What baffles me is those who allegedly follow these commandments in these texts yet say things they can't possibly know are true, they bear false witness or lie.
The prophets were all liars, they claimed things to be true that they did not know. That is why religion is fractured.
The same thing evil is now. 1. Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant. 2. Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet. 3. Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens. 4. Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation. 5. Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper.
Listen to the comment made by the caller. He says we all came from Adam, we didn't come from monkeys.... etc. This is what religion does. It closes your mind. If you picked up any other 1400 year old book would you base your life upon it? This is laughable. Why does God give no direction now? The mechanisms that drove human superstition (ie Belief in God) have evolved to instill fear which aided survival. Now it keeps humanity stupid.
The West assumes that all living creatures are their own lords, work in their own name and for their own pleasure, and that their only aim in life is to survive. It does not see the universal mutual helping among them, as established by their Creator. Plants help animals, and animals help humanity. But it sees even this as conflict and contention, and preaches that life consists of conflict even though all food particles or atoms help nourish the bodys cells.
You place yourself on a very high pedastal above the West. Do you not enjoy your computer and the understanding that science has brought us about medicine and nature? Plants and animals not only have symbiotic relationships but they also have parasitic and predatory relationships. You have your rosy colored religious goggles on and your understanding of nature is poor for you to make this statement. To rise above something you must first understand it. We are risen creatures, not fallen.
It used to be theory that the sun goes around the Earth, like it says in the Qur'an. But when we learned from astronomy because of retrograde motion (Thank goodness for Venus and Mercury) that the Earth in fact goes around the sun. The theory was then abondoned and replaced by the Heliocentric model, much to the displeasure of the religious class. Religion forces science to fight superstition, I am sure the religious are proud, but this is a great disservice to humankind. Accept facts.
For the religious: Science is not concrete, it is not a fixed set of beliefs. That's called being open-minded. But it shouldn't be so open that your brains fall out. Scientists do vary on their opinions except when it comes to things that have been established as fact. Evolution is called a theory for the same reason that Electromagnetism is called a theory, we understand that these things are true. But the mechanisms involved are not understood perfectly.
Ad Hominem attacks have no place in science, religion thrives on it. The comments made that try to disprove evolution because someone looks nervous and strangely antipathinc. He is acting as though evolution is normal because it is, and if you fail to see evolution as fact you can no longer call yourself devoted to science by any stretch of the imagination. Instead of beliving in something why don't you try reading and learning something.
i didnt understand anything he was mentioning actualy. he looks like he is trying to defend himself instead of explaining things understandable. and he looks nervous and strangely antipathinc..
Evolutionists are good at lying eg it took 100 years to find Fraud from Piltdown man and hopefully the public will realise the truth once they analyse the evidence for them selves.
Evidence for Evolution - Embryology:
(ex) Embryos of different vertebrates look alike in their early stages, giving the superficial appearance of relationship. (crit) Embryos of different vertebrates DO NOT look alike in their early stages.
...Embryos of different vertebrates look alike in their early stages....
There are distinct similarities that were exaggerated by Ernest Haeckel, maybe you should read some books past 1874. You are arguring against science from 1874. This is 2009 and science has things called photographs. They do not look like Haekel's drawings exactly, but even skeptics can see similarities of form, shape, and position in the early stages.
"This idea was fathered by Ernest Haeckel, a German biologist who was so convinced that he had solved the riddle of life's unfolding that he doctored and faked his drawings of embryonic stages to prove his point."(William R. Fix,"The Bone Peddlers:Selling Evolution,"1984.)Haeckel was exposed as a fraud in 1874 by Professor Wilhelm His. Nevertheless, Haeckel's fraudulent drawings(or similar representations)remain in high school and college biology textbooks to this day as evidence for evolution.
well, he looks tense because he is angry. wich is unerstandable when you are dealing with stubborn and rude people all the time. when you debate with a believer, you almost everytime come to the point, when he says: "i dont care how much you are bringing arguments up, i dont care how convincing your facts are, i dont care, because i JUST KNOW BETTER AND DONT CARE ABOUT ANYTHING ELSE THAN MY EVER UNDOUBTET BELIEFS". thats just annoying and im glad he doesnt give up though its ultimately futile.
People who believe in evolution have been brainwashed. Their main problem is not the arguments for and against evolution and creation. Their problem is they can't bring yourself to reject evolution, because they have already rejected God. Humans have a big mental fault. They are not able to admit they were wrong. Therefore, they are trapped in their previous decision of rejecting God.
well, without wanting to insult you, but this sounds like a joke for any sane person. "rececting god"? thats absurd! i could only reject him, when i ever in my life had recognized a single hint that he is there or wants me for him.
i dont reject evolution either, nor do i "belief" in it. its just a biological theory, thats based on the real world, thats all. it doesnt even claim for itself to be true. and if it were false, i wouldnt care, it werent about to change my life, was it?
If humans have such a giant mental fault, how could we possibly trust our belief in God? The feeling of God seems to be a subjective experience felt only by those who adhere to what they feel is the divine will. But if they are so faulted to the point where they can't even reject a false ideal, how could they possibly trust an admitadely subjective feeling, let alone base a life or civilization around it?
"I may here also confess that as a little boy I was much given to inventing deliberate falsehoods, and this was always done for the sake of causing excitement."
Reference(s): The Autobiography of Charles Darwin 1809-1882.
With original omissions restored. Edited by Nora Barlow. Page 23.
"I love fools' experiments. I am always making them ."
John Bartlett (18201905). Familiar Quotations, 10th ed. 1919.
What a brilliant and gentle man Richard Dawkins is, I agree with him in most of that, but he obviously is not at all spiritual which is a pity because he is also missing out.
Oh! and Wallidjan the only people debating the existance of natural selection are unenlightened religious fanatics and the uneducated.
QUOTE"the only people debating the existance of natural selection are unenlightened religious fanatics and the uneducated."
Some scientists don't believe in ID but also reject natural selection. Or at least don't think it's a fully adequate explanation for evolution. One such person is Pierre Grasse of the French National Academy of Sciences. Is he an unenlightnened, uneducated, religious fanatic? I think not.
"QUOTE" "Or at least don't think it's a fully adequate explanation for evolution"
Yes, Pierre Grasse (born1895) was one of the latter i.e. he agreed natural selection was part of the process but believed there were also other mechanisms at work, He occupied the Chair of Evolutionary Biology in Paris, so no, he didn't (he's dead by the way) count as "unenlightened, uneducated" but then, he didn't disagree that natural selection was part of evolution! I seem to have missed your point what was it?
Charles Darwin had concern about his theory of natural selection. He knew that a failure to find the missing transitional links would seriously cripple his theory of evolution, but he was hopeful the missing links would be found some day. Well, guess what. He died not finding them. Evolutionists have never found the missing links.
I'm sorry, but I have to ask. Is English your first language? Why is it you write multiple posts saying the same thing? It makes you seem unsophisticated. If your point is strong, it doesn't have to be repeated. Addressing your contention, I would say this is not true. Like I said earlier, there are numerous examples of animals sharing features of adjacent taxa. But what difference does it make? You don't even write like a learned person, so who cares what your opinion is on a scientific theory?
You were the same person who thought that no human being could be born with anything other than 46 chromosomes because you thought that the number of chromosomes was the ultimate factor that differentiated species. You obviously have very little training in anything biological. Your opinion on evolution is
centered around your religious belief which makes your opinion meaningless. My advice is to stop trying to act like you know what you're talking about.
One of the most remarkable pieces of evidence disproving evolution is the Cambrian Explosion Most textbooks never mention it, and the ones that do relegate it to a short phrase or paragraph as if it is some insignificant detail. This phenomenon is so pronounced in the fossil record that Scientific American called it lifes big bang.
It is considered one of the biggest challenges to evolutionary theory. Many reputable and highly accomplished scientists at major accredited universities worldwide say it is an insurmountable challenge. Moreover, I believe it is proof that evolution is merely a widely held myth of popular culture.
Wallidjan, Re. Cambrian explosion. Apart from ones that are not about the subject, which textbooks don't mention it? Which ones treat it as an insignificant detail? Who considers it a challenge to evolutionary theory? The pre-Cambrian "explosion" lasted 20 million years and happened 500 million years ago. Deducing the events of half a billion years ago is difficult, and evidence comes from biological and chemical signatures in rocks. Not a lot to go on to disprove or prove really?
the good news? tousands of scientist work every day geting closer to get from several dots of fossils, drawing a tree of evolution, to the few missing links we still have today
and what did creationist did today? reading the bible once again, trying to do a far fetched interpretation to match today wolrd. Good job
Unless you actually see a real fossil don't believe humans being evolved from apes please watch - Evolution of Homo sapiens, Australopithecus and Hesperopithecus and Evolution of Man from my channel
Charles Darwin admitted that fossils of the transitional links between species would have to be found in order to prove his "Theory of Evolution." Well, these transitional links have never been found. We only find individual species.
Evolutionists try to form these individual species into a link according to similar major features, such as wings or four legs, but this simply proves the Theory of Evolution to be a fraud. Darwin was hopeful that future fossils would prove his theory correct, but instead, the lack of transitional links has proven his theory to be wrong.
what is an "individual species"? 2 different spiecies are defined as " not able to interbreed".
you could have two animals visualy different, that are able to breed, while two other really close unable to.
plus, transitional fossils are difficult to find, because the spiecies are transitional: their characteristics evolve quickly to adapt to a new niche.
we are living in the 21st century; there is no God and never has been. We are a product of three billion years of evolution, in an uncaring universe. But life is good!
We know from the teachings of Muhammad, peace be upon him, that no one has ever actually seen God - at least not in this lifetime. Nor are we able to use our senses to make some kind of contact with Him. However, we are encouraged in Islam to use our senses and our common sense to recognize that all of this universe could not possibly come into existence on its own.
Something had to design it all and then put it into motion. That is beyond our ability to do.
Allah says in His Quran that He did not create all of this for any foolish purpose. He tells us that He created us for the purpose of worshiping Him, Alone and without any partners.
The average single human gene is a piece of DNA comprised of 100,000 pairs of amino acids all of which are perfectly sequenced. It is impossible for a new gene to appear by chance or by "natural selection."
As you read this, many of you are asking "What about mutations? Can't they create a new gene". The answer is "Absolutely not." Mutations can change only existing genes. But mutations have nothing whatever to do with creating an entirely new gene. We invite you to google or yahoo terms such as "add a gene" and you will be able to verify that there has never been a case where a species added a gene. But apes would have had to add many genes (and be created anew) in order to become human.
Evolutionists claim we evolved from the simplest form of bacterial life to ever more complex forms of life. The most basic bacteria had less than 500 genes; man has over 22 thousand. In order for bacteria to evolve into man, organisms would have to be able to add genes. But there is no genetic mechanism that adds a gene. (Mutations change an existing gene but never add a gene.) This means there is no mechanism for Darwinian Evolution and this is a fatal flaw in the Theory of Evolution.
An interesting problem - indeed, the question of how new genes can arise in a genome is one that is very worthy of research. So much so, that molecular biologists and geneticists answered it decades ago. During cell replication, the DNA is replicated - and before the cell divides a process called DNA recombination occurs in which duplicate pairs of chromosomes swap segments of DNA. It can frequently happen that one of the chromosomes can gain extra gene copies while the other loses them.
Mutations occurring in these duplicated genes on the same chromosome will obviously cause the DNA sequences of the initially identical genes to diverge over time - eventually resulting in two very different genes where once there was one.
If you're interested, there are many other related mechanisms that are well understood - DNA recombination is an entire subject in itself - but the example above is sufficient to explain how new genes can arise. Hope this helps...
LOL that is not at all what evolution proposes. Simple genetic recombinations simple alter the allelle combinations between mother and father such that we can millions of variant allele mixes. None of them creates a new gene potentially a new creative protein. There is not a single observed example of a functional protein, spontaneously arising due to mutation in any multicellular research program.
Thanks for the reply - (though I'm not sure which part of my explanation was that amusing!). I'm encouraged that you understand genetic recombination and the mixing of alleles during meiosis. The idea I didn't seem to communicate very well is that during this recombination, sometimes the lengths of DNA swapped are not equal. Are you familiar with this? This can produce duplicate genes (the well known gene clusters) that then diverge from each other by mutation.
A standard textbook example of gene clusters would be the heavily researched globin genes. You can read up on this or any other examples of gene clusters in almost any university textbook of genetics - "Genes" by Benjamin Lewin, and "The Cell" by Alberts et. al. are probably the most well known.
can you provide me a journal article, or the page numbers of the book you quoted giving examples of globin proteins forming spontaneously from gene duplciation mechanisms.
Wait. So in meiosis. When the chromosomes become haploid, one of the 23 chromosome of the now haploid cell might have additional genes, a duplicate of one of its genes usually from the other parent. And then this gene undergoes mutation to form a new protein. OK. Maybe unequal allele swapping do occur, which leaves the daughter cell with unequal shares of alleles. I have never read this before.
However two things. Is there any example of a protein from the scientific database of proteins we know to form via this mechanism which is known to have diverged from the original gene which coded for the original protein. No.2 why does the subsequent mutation spontaneously occur only in the duplcate gene and not in the original one.
Again interesting questions. For no. 1 I'd have to repeat that there is a whole field of research called phylogenetics and bioinformatics which is used to determine the gene families - an example would be the PRINTS database at Manchester uni, or the COGs data in genbank (at the ncbi).
Num 2 is much simpler. Each base mutation is entirely random - it would be astonishing for the same random mutations to happen in both copies of the gene. Nearly all the mutations will reduce the functionality..
Well - you've understood the idea, which is impressive without having read it before. There is again a huge subject (part of bioinformatics if you're interested) called phylogenetics that models all these biological mechanisms mathematically to produce ancestral trees of individual gene families (rather than organisms).
I can give you an entire textbook of mutations making genes dysfunctional. Bring me one which creates a new protein and which science has proved occurs spontaneously.
This is genuinely interesting to me. You clearly understand that most mutations of a functional gene will make the gene dysfunctional, but then seem to be saying this somehow shows the above explanation (of how new genes arise) to be flawed in some way. Do you understand that every gene you look at in an organism has arisen by mutation from its ancestral gene? A simple example of a single base mutation creating a viable alternative gene is the haemoglobin base mutation involved in sickle cell.
I knew it. This is eventually how evolution explains everything. The proteins are here, we will hypothesize how they came here. And then we will say it happened because the protein or the gene is here. The transitional fossils are not there but we are here and the fossil record shows simple organisms initially, thus evolution must have happened. ITs all dogmatic ways of viewing science.
What is being attacked here is the fundamental scientific practice of extrapolation, without which we would be unable to make any predictions or conclusions about data. It is the last resort of all anti-evolutionists who don't understand what science is. The argument is something like this: "You weren't there, so how do you know how it happened?" This "hypothesis" is based on the firm principles of heredity. For two living things to share similar genes, it must have shared a common ancestor.
hehehe. Evolutionist dogma at work. Because we share similar bodies or biochemicla similarities we must be related and evolved out of a common ancestor. Thats a hypothesis unsupported by evidence. There is no evidence of spontaneous mutations creating new functional proteins nor is there evidence of transitional fossils in the fossil record. The hypothesis fails when 100 million fossils are placed under scrutiny.
The data is that we share the fundamental criterion of life. Since heredity exists in the world, the best theory to explain why organisms so diverse should share these fundamental criteria of life is common descent.. If we had no relation whatsoever to these other animals, it is statistically impossible to share these similarities. 102 naturally occuring nucleotides occur but we all use the same 4. 390 aa occur naturally, we all share the same 22.
We share the same similarity because we are in the same environment making use of similar organic elements. Thats not a reason to say we have a common descent. Life requires a consistent organic elements whether be it a worm or a human being. Thus the striking resemblance in some genomes. ITs not proof that one species transform into another species. That is a completely different proposal.
This is quite an old argument, but untrue. If it were true, you would expect that DNA sequences between animals with very similar function and environment would have more similar sequences. This is not the case. For ex, bat cytochrome c is much more similar to human cytochrome c than to hummingbird cytochrome c; porpoise cytochrome c is much more similar to human cytochrome c than to shark cytochrome c. Reason being bats and humans and porpoises are all mammals, and thus more closely related.
Evolutionists claim we evolved from the simplest form of bacterial life to ever more complex forms of life. The most basic bacteria had less than 500 genes; man has over 22 thousand. In order for bacteria to evolve into man, organisms would have to be able to add genes. But there is no genetic mechanism that adds a gene
.(Mutations change an existing gene but never add a gene)This means there is no mechanism for Darwinian Evolution and this is a fatal flaw in the Theory of Evolution
Here are 4 examples suggesting you are wrong. These are just from the last 5 years.
1) gene duplication with subsequent mutation resulting in a new adaptive gene: Chen et al (2008) Mitochondrial targeting adaptation of the hominoid-specific glutamate dehydrogenase driven by positive Darwinian selection.
2) gene(s) duplication with subsequent upregulation resulting in new adaptations: Rosso et al (2008) Transcriptomic and genomic evolution under constant cold in Antarctic notothenioid fish.
3) lateral gene transfer resulting in adaptive phenotypic changes: Nedelcu et al 2008: Adaptive eukaryote-to-eukaryote lateral gene transfer: stress-related genes of algal origin in the closest unicellular relatives of animals.
4) Increased rates of nonsynonymous mutations resulting in adaptive immune changes: Ota et al (2003) Positive Darwinian selection operating on the immunoglobulin heavy chain of Antarctic fishes.
Mutations are not the only mechanism. They are but one of many. I had already mentioned some of these mechanisms to you in a previous post. Instead of addressing them, you simply repeated your exact same argument again.
Here's a dumb way to understand it. Person A may have a particular type of nose, with a particular shape. His brother has the same nose as well. Is it absolutely crazy to then assume that the reason these two SIBLINGS share this characteristic is b/c they INHERITED it from somebody they share as an ancestor? No. When the human and chimp genomes were sequenced and found to be extraordinary similar, one has to explain why. There is no mech. known in science for this other than heredity.
If there is no mechanism in science to explain then it should be left unexplained. Similar biochemical physiology will require similar genetics, we use the same things in the environment. Some simple worms have 75% striking resemblance with the human genome. SO are we 75% similar? Come on, failure to explain something is not reason for dogma to be showered in science textbooks.
There is a mechanism to explain it. It's called heredity, as I said. We are actually, more strikingly similar than you think. You probably are comparing the worm's exterior appearance with ours. But that's precisely what you should not do. We all share the fundamental criteria that characterize life: 1) replicate using the same molecule and the same bases; 2) we inherit this molecule from ancestors; 3) we perform protein catalysis with the exact same 22 aa; 4) share the universal genetic code.
Sickle cell Hemoglobin is a dysfuntional protein. Its not beneficial. no one would choose to be sickle celled even if living in africa. Its not mutational addition and a constructive improvement in a gene. its a substituion which is unfortunate
. I will never be happy if my genes coding my hemoglobin undergo the sickle cell mutation. I live in africa there are other ways i can protect myself from mosquitoes. ITs like saying having your legs cut off is beneficial because you wont have any road accidents. A survival value for all pedestrians.
Ohno, S. (1984) "Birth of a unique enzyme from an alternative reading frame of the preexisted, internally repetitious coding sequence." PNAS 81: 2421-5
This protein was spontaneously formed by using a previously unused open reading frame. Amazing right?
Honestly man, you must be kidding. The following are all mech. shown to irreversibly and heritably alter/add to genomes of living things: gene flow, random genetic drift, mobile introns, gene duplications, recombination, transpositions, retroviral insertions (horizontal gene transfer). Chromosomal rearrangements: entire genome duplications (polyploidy,) unequal crossing over, inversions, translocations, fissions, fusions, chromosome duplications and deletions.
Humans have 46 chromosomes. This chromosome count is a steady factor. This determines what is called the "fixity of species" because the chromosome count doesn't vary. People always give birth to people. Dogs always give birth to dogs, etc.
The genes can produce variety within the species, but cannot result in a different species. Genes allow for people to be short, tall, fat, thin, blond, brunette, etc., but they are still all human beings. The chromosomes make crossing of the species an un-crossable barrier. This certainly would hinder any evolution. Dogs cannot breed with cats. This fact stops evolution dead in its tracks.
For evolution, it does not require two different species to be able to breed. I don't know where you get this from. A group of reproductive animals will have inherent variety within it. Any particular variety within that group better suited to survive, differentially survives leading to a greater representation of that trait/traits in the subsequent generations. This leads to a gradual change in the average genotype and morphology of the subsequent generations. This leads to a new species.
Your inability to understand this is because your mind is unable to expand into the kind of time it takes for this to happen. It takes MILLENIA for this to happen. In addition, you cannot say "dogs don't turn into cats, monkeys don't turn into humans." This is a misrepresentation of evolution. Two modern species don't turn into one another. Modern species today share common ancestors from which they have derived many shared characteristics (for example our common use of DNA, glycolysis, ATP etc
This new species will not look incredibly different at first from the parent species. But if enough time passes and gene flow has stopped, they will become very different in time, but still share many things in common due to ancestry. This is what Darwin noticed with his finches and btwn chimps and humans. While we are different in many ways (we have been traveling separately for 6 mill years), we are still very similar in our genes e.g. our cytochrome c gene sequence is IDENTICAL etc.
But during this passage of time, the two groups may actually acquire very different numbers of chromosomes and genes through the mechanisms that I wrote about. It is difficult for us to believe because we are comparing the two endpoints to each other because all the transitionals, are in many cases, necessarily dead. Sorry to write so much. Evoluition is a complex topic and it requires thinking about it more closely. You have a bit more work to do.
Your argument that a human always has 46 chromosomes is uninformed. There are numerous instances (for example, Down's syndrome, Klinefelter's, Turner's syndrome, Double Y males among others) being born with 47 and 45 chromosomes. While these may be pathological conditions, many of them are still capable of reproduction and are still considered human beings. Your argument that there has never been and never can be a human being born with anything other than 46 chromosomes is simply false.
The question is simple, which of all these mechanisms results in a new functional protein unknown to science. Which mutations in any gene we know is known to transform that gene into a different functional protein in any multicellular species we know of in the entire world. I will give you at least a thousand mutations which can devastate proteins.
These are examples from the metazoan world, just as you asked. They happen to be beneficial. WHat they serve to show is that new genes/proteins are built from preexisting genes/proteins by graual incremental steps.
1) Ffrench-Constant et al. 2000 -- cyclodiene resistance in Drosophila.
2) Richter and Ronald 2000 -- LRR regions and plant disease resistance.
3) Franceschini G, et al. (1980) AI milano apoprotein mutation and resistance to atherosclerotic disease.
Why bother reading the papers? Over the course of this discussion, I have come to see that you have made your mind up about science, the scientific method, and about the nature of science as dogma. And yet, I can't help but notice your screen name and wonder whether you have succumbed to dogma in the past?
Are you too scared for me to make reference to this papers and see whether they are actual proofs of new functional proteins. If so you should be happy that I would shut up. I won't argue over mutations again if there is proof that mutations can create entirely new functional complex proteins. If there are no examples will you leave your dogma that life's complexity can be explained via spontaneous mutations?
Let me give you the full titles so you will be able to find them easier on Pubmed.
1) Ffrench-Constant et al. (2000) Cyclodiene insecticide resistance: from molecular to population genetics
2) Richter and Ronald (2000) The evolution of disease resistance genes.
3) Franceschini G, et al. (1980) A-IMilano apoprotein. Decreased high density lipoprotein cholesterol levels with significant lipoprotein modifications and without clinical atherosclerosis in an Italian family.
The evolutionist will claim that the presence of many individual species proves evolution. This shallow statement is devoid of reason, logic and scientific proof. Evolutionists line up pictures of similar looking species and claim they evolved one to another. The humans "family tree" is an example of this flawed theory. Petrified skulls and bones exist from hundreds of species of extinct monkeys and apes.
They simply fill in the big gaps with make-believe creatures to fit the picture. This procedure can be done with humans only because there are many extinct monkey and ape species. They never do this with giraffes, elephants or the Platypus. The pictures are placed in all of the text books that evolutionists use to teach kids this nonsense. The pictures are simply a grouping of individual species that does not prove evolution.
amazing! just think after 10 million years a species ruling the world like the dinosaurs, like us the humans. just think about it, it's so beautiful! we should live in present and suck as much as we can. after 20 million years there will be none of you. think about the humans 10000 years ago, hunting, living in caves, fighting ferocious animals, think about the man 2000 years ago looking at the moon in a desert from his camel, or just think about the man in ancient asia teaching buddhism.
Sukhoi34F 1 month ago
@Sukhoi34F please research about the scientific miracles in the Quran, how is it possible that the Quran revelled to a man in the desert, this man never went to school or read a book, how is it possible that the Quran speaks about the big bang, that every life is made from water and that the earth is round and spheric in shape how is possible that these thing are written in the Quran from 1400 years ago these scientific facts were discovered only recently
wallidjan 4 weeks ago
I want all of you to think about this....if there is no such thing as God then why is there death? If your going counter with reincarnation that nonsense. If you are reincarnated...you don't remember your past life, then where is your evidence. Even if that is true then what is the point of life?
xXdancingmidgetsXx 1 month ago
I can buy the idea of a creator, but for such a being that exists outside of space, time and all of our laws of physics, why they would bother watching every human, every life form in the universe? let alone care what animals you eat and how much of your foreskin you should remove.etc
This kind of 'being' would be so far out of our understanding... I just don't see why it would want you to worship it, Worship, good, evil etc are all human concepts, they don't matter in the grand scheme of things
liamjd1 1 month ago 23
@liamjd1 Good Question, we must look at the evidence, no human being has ever seen God the creator of the Heaven and earth so how do we know He exists? the Quran says: look and ponder..." looking at the universe and life we can see that there is design in them for example the human body is more complicated and has better design than any man made machine. The body has a dynamic framework of bone and cartilage that makes the skeleton which is flexible, with hinges and joints that moves.
wallidjan 4 weeks ago
@liamjd1 the design in creation (universe, animals, human beings etc) proves that there must be Designer that has created every details system of the universe that make everything work for example a car works because an intelligent engineers designed and created it the human body and the universe works because A Mighty Being Greater than anything we know has designed and created everything. As we have never seen this Being we can only know about Him if He communicates to us
wallidjan 4 weeks ago
@liamjd1 The Creator of the heaven and earth which we call Allah or you can call Him the Creator of the Heaven and Earth God Almighty communicates with us human beings through revelations, throughout time He has communicated and revelation ie the Bible, Torah and finaly the Quran was sent by the same Being to guide us and shows us the truth and purpose as why we are here on earth. He definitely cares for us every food you eat, every oxygen particle you breath He created it for you!
wallidjan 4 weeks ago
Your argument at 7:59, that God is the first as there must be something at first that isn' created by anything that has created all that is today. Why can't that thing be big bang? You say god created big bang, but nothing created god, why nut take one step away and say big bang created everything (which it did) but nothing created big bang? Is that really more illogical than saying that nothing created god?
blasphemytard 1 month ago 6
@blasphemytard Allah God Almighty is Eternal Infinite and has powers beyond our comprehension. Quran: And the heaven We built with Our own powers (aydin) and indeed We go on expanding it (musi'un).
Quran: Do not the unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were a closed-up mass (ratqan), then We clove them asunder (fataqna)? And We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?...
wallidjan 4 weeks ago
Hold up. God didn't 'create' evil. How can you ask for free will AND a world without evil? Evil comes from the emotions of humans. Anger, revenge, envy and fear, to name a few, drive us to do evil. If we didn't have these feelings...we wouldn't have free will.
BilalWasHere 2 months ago
@BilalWasHere God created evil but this does not mean that God is evil, evil is there to test us human beings whether we will do evil or good?
wallidjan 2 months ago
@BilalWasHere Isaiah 45:7: "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create EVIL: I the LORD do all these things."
" יוצר אור ובורא חשך עשה שלום ובורא רע"
So "god" is the author of evil as well as good.
myp410up 4 weeks ago
god allah what ever you want to call this invisible person. Should make himself plainly known to destroy all dobt but he wont because he dose not exsist it was fuuny to hear richard laff.
Pawnfirst007 7 months ago 300
@Pawnfirst007 that's a good question, it is very clear to us Muslims that God Allah exists but let me prove to you my friend how we know Allah exists and He is the only God. We know buildings exist because there are people who construct them, your mobile phone exist because intelligent engineers programmed, designed and create them. Looking at the universe, mankind, animals etc we can see the evidence that a Mighty Being must exist that has created everything we know and that Being is Allah
wallidjan 7 months ago
@wallidjan too many self assumptions to be logically useful. 1st, you're assuming that a creator must exist but there's no evidence about that. the universe could easily have ever existed, so no one has created it, just like, from your point of view, no one created god allah. 2nd assumption. Let's assume your first assumption is right. Then why the creator should be God Allah and not some other god, maybe the christian God, maybe the jewish God, maybe Zeus, or a god that we dont know
andrearoll79 2 months ago 4
If, according to Abrahamic religions such as islam, god is all knowing, all powerful and the creator of all, then FREE WILL CANNOT EXIST - god knows exactly how we, his creation, are going to behave, including full knowledge of our thoughts. Then why are we here? Because religion is nonsense, that's why!
dubaipete 9 months ago 508
@dubaipeteproof God exist the proof your house exist because construction workers has made it, your mobile phone exist because intelligent people made it, the universe and you exist because A mighty Creator, Evolver, Eternal Being Allah God Almighty has created, designed you and everything else. Allah is all knowing but you have certain free will eg you make your decisions in life but God knows the future so He already knows
wallidjan 9 months ago
@wallidjan You repeat the same argument over and over again. Your argument is this: because things exist, Allah must exist. It's ridiculous. You completely disregard the fact that there might be other god(s) who could have done it. Diamonds and tons of other things are created by a natural processes, so it's ridiculous to think that everything needs a creator in order to exist. Your reasoning really requires the IQ of a rabid squirrel, nothing else.
joe80dmanizanerd 2 months ago 31
@joe80dmanizanerd THERE IS NO GOD BUT ALLAH, how do examine the evidence that God exists and that He is a Mighty Being called Allah, no one have seen God not even Jesus, Mohammed, Moses peace be upon them. How do we know Allah God Almighty exists! we Muslims have many proofs and it is obvious for us let me explain. There are design and organisation in nature, Human beings, universe that means that there has to be a Mighty Being that has designed, planned and put everything into existence
wallidjan 2 months ago
@wallidjan The beginning of the universe is incredibly sophisticated and complicated and difficult to study, it goes beyond normal human intuition, you need tools like mathematics, quantum physics, relativity and the large hadron collider to study it. Trying to replace this study by just saying a one-word answer "God" to explain where everything came from doesn't explain a damn thing and is childishly simplistic.
huwrj 1 month ago
@huwrj the law of the physics are complicated, scientists have spent their life time studying these amazing things but we have to search for the questions that matters to us why are we here? and where did we came from?
what is prove for God? we need to know who God is first? looking the universe, life etc etc we can conclude that there designed, organised system in them. the Quran revelation of God is another proof that God exists! please research and study the Quran
wallidjan 4 weeks ago
your claim at 8:09 defies the first law of thermodynamics, that energy cannot be created or destroyed, therefore even if your particular god whoever it may be, has always existed, he could not have created the universe as this would have required him to create energy (from nothing), which as you said yourself, is absurd. I Conduct genetics research at my university and in science NOTHING is self- evident, even if we presuppose a cause you must conduct research to determine what the cause is
Manford5847 10 months ago 100
The true religion of Allah must be universally understandable and attainable, not confined to any people, place or time. There can not be conditions like baptism, belief in a man, as a saviour etc., for a believer to enter paradise. Within the central principle of Islam and in its definition, (the surrender of one's will to God) lies the roots of lslam's universality.
wallidjan 2 years ago
Whenever man comes to the realization that Allah is one and distinct from His creation, and submits himself to Allah, he becomes a Muslim in body and spirit and is eligible for paradise.
wallidjan 2 years ago
Men and women of wisdom have said that God exists but cannot be comprehended by human reason or perceived by human senses. The only way to acquire knowledge of Him is through the Prophets, whom He appointed as bearers of His Revelation. Given this, we must accept the guidance of Revelation if we want to know about Him.
In all of creation, there is nothing like, equal, or contrary to God. God is above all form.
wallidjan 2 years ago
The 21st century is the century when the collapse of Darwinism is declared. Following the unveiling of 100 million fossils declaring the collapse of Darwinism, the greatest blow to the theory is a newly found human foot print fossil. Contrary to all the Darwinist claims, this fossil indicates that CONTEMPORARY MAN WAS LIVING 1,5 MILLION YEARS AGO
wallidjan 2 years ago
Only the Creator truly creates and determines possible causes and effects for His creation. Therefore, we speak of God as the Sustainer, who holds and gives life to all of His Creation.
Why Can't We See God?
God is absolutely other than His creation, for the Creator cannot have the same kind of being as His creation. Although this is self-evident, some people still ask why we cannot see God directly.
wallidjan 2 years ago
These posts you are making form a nice speech, but I fear that it does not contain much else then statements that are by themselves not based on empirical observation.
Let me ask you this then: how did you come to this knowledge, what is your source?
If you are willing to answer, then please be precise. So if it is an observation, then what is this observation? If you say it is the Quran, then what passage says this? If it is something else, then what exactly is this?
Wushuki 2 years ago 402
The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said that some people would ask this very question: "A day will certainly come when some people will sit with their legs crossed and ask: 'If God created everything, who created God?'" (Al-Bukhari)
The Creator must be Self-Subsistent and One, without like or equal. If any created being "causes" anything, for only the Creator is Self-Existent and Self-Subsistent.
wallidjan 2 years ago
Al jazeera is an Arabic word this channel is from Qatar which is in the middle east
wallidjan 2 years ago
Whoa, hold up there Richard - You misrepresent the criticism of evolution "doubters". They don't say that Natural Selection is a chance operation, but that the Theory of Evolution is a chance operation.
Actually, all sides agree that natural selection does indeed take place.
So....Way to get off-base and misrepresent the argument from the very start, Richard! Doing what evolutionists do all too often - avoid the real issues and distort the view of the opposition. Bravo!
ThisIDig 2 years ago
barak allah feik......
omaro0ot 2 years ago
The Scandadavian countries are "civilized", but they are not "happy", at least if we take the statistics as indicitive. According to a survey, Sweden and Norway have very high rates of suicide. Hmmm?
bayreuth79 11 months ago
We do add nucleotides, its called addition.
WRT creator, where did the creator come from? b/c obviously creator is a very intelligent being creating billions of galaxies? Using Quran as a scientific basis doesn't hold. Sorry. You are not presenting any evidence, just stating things. I'd rather take the evidence we have at hand and go from there.
thefrontrow99 2 years ago 23
Where did you come from?
Did someone create you? Did you create your self? or were you created from nothing?
A creator has to exist to design and sustain everything that exists, the creator has to be the ever living the one that has existed infinitely and does not die or does not born
wallidjan 2 years ago
"Did someone create you? Did you create your self? or were you created from nothing?"
Of cause I was created by someone, my mum and dad!
Andylocksigma 2 years ago 93
Do we find apparent design in biology? Yes. In fact, apparent design pervades the biologic realm [2, 3]. When we apply the general principles of detecting design to living creatures, we find it reasonable to infer the existence of a Creator.
Every breath you take its God that has provided the oxygen for you, everyday when you eat food or drink its God who sent down water for the plants to grow and you to drink little is that you know.
wallidjan 2 years ago
It is comforting to think that everything has a reason, but that does not make it true. How can you say that everything that exists needs a creator... except God? What was God doing for infinite time before the big bang? The same thing he is doing now: nothing.
johnweston 2 years ago 1144
Creation denotes the existence of a divine Creator who has exercised His creative abilities, creating this world and the life-forms we see. Life is the product of intelligent contrivance. Thus, apparent design in biology would constitute evidence for a Designer. It is a self-evident and universally recognized truth: concept and design require an intelligent designer.
wallidjan 2 years ago
Allah's Beautiful Names and Attributes The Guardian, the Preserver, The Maker, The Fashioner of Forms, The Magnificent, the Infinite, The Majestic, The Loving, the Kind One, The Giver of Life, The Lord of Majesty and Generosity, The Patient, the Timeless
These are some of Gods attributes in Islam
wallidjan 2 years ago
Obviously, you don't understand the "theory" of evolution, but you felt the need to provide your expertise on the video. As for the evidence on the lack of creation of new species, you should read about the evidence from molecular biology. You should wonder why if we were created and existed at the same as Dinosaurs, then how did we survive but they didn't. Seriously, with all due respect you should learn about natural selection and the evidence supporting it before commenting on it. Thanks.
thefrontrow99 2 years ago 20
im sick of hearing "the theory of evolution". its no theory
dreadedwheat26 2 years ago
2+2=4 is a theory, this theory isnt being challenged by theists yet though.
yearight1970 2 years ago 11
true enough.
dreadedwheat26 2 years ago
Jehoveh's Witnesses for example, will not use medicine or surgery to heal themselves or their children. To me, this is a human rights violation that parents can essentially impose death upon their children in the name of religion. Its self-imposed, superstitious, needless suffering. And it is evil.
stevenweir76 2 years ago 14
What you will find is that the more a society embraces science and allows religion to fall away. The richer it becomes. It learns to utilize its resources for the betterment of all its citizens. The religious are hypocritical when they embrace the sciences which they utilize, and then ignore other beneficial sciences that go against their beliefs or religion.
stevenweir76 2 years ago 7
If people would leave behind their superstition, suffering can be eliminated. Case and point is Zambia. After hearing arguments from scientists, and then from environmental and religious groups. The government decided to allow over a million of its citizens to die of starvation rather than use genetically modified crops to sustain its people. They relied on what the religious zealots told them instead of what scientists who studied and understood told them. Religion and science are incompatible.
stevenweir76 2 years ago 8
Last but not least the main reason to defy this omnipotent being is that if it were real, it must have created evil. If not, our imagination exceeds it and then why call him God. The Bible and Qur'an do not lead to goodness. Humans who defy religious doctrine lead to goodness.
stevenweir76 2 years ago 5
God created good and evil to test us, if human being do evil that is their free given choice but it doesnt mean God is happy with them and it doesnt mean God likes evil
wallidjan 2 years ago
In response to what you postulated; that being that God created evil. Why?Knowing what I know, I will fail to believe in any God without direct evidence. I am doomed regardless of my morality. I simply don't believe in Allah, or Yahweh or Zeus. Zeus you must realize, was worshipped the same way as Allah is now and the idea of Zeus predates Allah by a long shot. He is now dead, as fairytales should be. Would you believe anything I told you if my only evidence was a book? That is all you have.
stevenweir76 2 years ago
If evil did not exist then how would appreciate good, if darkness did not exist how would you appreciate light. God could have given you one hand but NO you have 2 hands Gods knowledge encompasses our understanding (mind).
The reason we are considered the best of Gods creation (better the angels etc) because our mind (knowledge) and we have free choices do evil and good by doing good we become the best of Gods creation and by doing evil we become the worst.
wallidjan 2 years ago
What I think you need to explain is why an omniscient, omnipotent, and benign being couldn't create a universe without evil that provided for everything that everyone needed to have fun and enjoy life. Your imagination is small if you actually believe what you just said. If your world requires evil then you can have it. Mine doesn't require it, it just endures it. Evil arises from desperation, and that's why if there is a God, it is my enemy. I don't think anyone should have to suffer.
stevenweir76 2 years ago
Evil is defined as intentionally immoral acts or thoughts based in cruelty, injustice or selfishness.
1. If, according to you, evil is necessary for the appreciation of goodness, why fight against it? Once eradicated, what then?
2. If God designed and created Evil, and allows it to flourish, can He still be considered "good" or "just"?
3. If God also allows evil to happen to those who don't choose it (innocents, babies), when is the free will of the innocent victims of evil considered?
OriMeissa 2 years ago 7
one thing I do know. If we are His creations, then we are His property, and He can do what He will with His property. He is not bound by any external restraint to be either all good or all evil to us. This is a fact of life that must be accepted rather than rebelled against.
Through choosing good and rejecting evil,
The trial-and-error of this particular debate will, hopefully, result in firmer and more beneficial knowledge for everyone who looks for the truth about our existence.
wallidjan 2 years ago
Then there is indeed no free will to speak of if He can apparently do with us as He will. And thus no point in either serving or not serving since you are bound by a force you cannot resist.
You can't have it both ways, wallidjan :)
OriMeissa 2 years ago 5
WHO SAID FREE WILL, you have free choices to make do good or bad that's the choice you make but the fundamental part is that you have to believe in your creator who made you the way you are, given the things you have, but your creator is loving and good so why reject or fight Him
wallidjan 2 years ago
As I stated earlier Wallid, God can either be loving and good (and thus not allow evil to persist or happen to those who are innocent bystanders) or he is evil and malicious (and does allow evil to thrive and to overtake innocents) He CANNOT be both!! There is no compulsion in religion (2:256), so we don't HAVE to believe anything. But it is really hard to start to believe in something that is immediately contradictory.
OriMeissa 2 years ago 2
(5) That is He, the All¬Knower of the unseen and the seen, the All¬Mighty, the Most Merciful. (6) Who made everything He has created good, and He began the creation of man from clay. (7) Then He made his offspring from semen of dispised water (male and female sexual discharge). (8) Then He fashioned him in due proportion, and breathed into him the soul (created by Allâh for that person), and He gave you hearing (ears), sight (eyes) and hearts. Little is the thanks you give! [Quran]
wallidjan 2 years ago
Wrt eyes, its known how they came into being. Again, rather than just quoting a few things doesn't make it a proof. Look at the evidence. As for the virtues of Islam, every religion offers that, so no big deal there. Finally, wrt creator, you make it sound like you "know" what happened. Again provide proof or be neutral.
thefrontrow99 2 years ago 22
Evidence for Evolution - Observed Natural Selection
(Survival of the fittest): Darwin's proposed mechanism for evolutionary change is observed in nature. Natural selection serves as a means of conservation, not one of creation. It explains survival of a species, not arrival of a species. Here's an illustration: You work in a car factory. Your job is quality control - make sure the cars work like they are supposed to.
wallidjan 2 years ago
You kick the tires and slam the doors, drive the cars around, etc. You identify and remove defects (an arbitrary selection with the same final result as natural selection). How long would it take for this selection process to turn one of those cars into an airplane naturally over time? It won't happen. "Natural selection may have a stabilizing effect, but it does not promote speciation [the arrival of a new species].
wallidjan 2 years ago
The great hypocrisy is that the Bible for instance says thou shalt not kill. Yet God kills willy nilly because people don't agree with him. These words written for all to see are proof of the very human nature of these texts. The Qur'an is even more violent than the Bible word for word. Given these words I would trust a serial killer more than any Abrahamic God. At least a serial killer isn't omnipotent. God destroys and tortures all who disagree according to the texts.
stevenweir76 2 years ago 5
But I will say that there are things which the Bible or Qur'an says are evil which are not. Homosexuality and graven images spring to mind.
There are evils which neither text percieves, such as pedophilia.
What baffles me is those who allegedly follow these commandments in these texts yet say things they can't possibly know are true, they bear false witness or lie.
The prophets were all liars, they claimed things to be true that they did not know. That is why religion is fractured.
stevenweir76 2 years ago 3
If you don't like "the West". Take it up with God. He allegedly created us.
stevenweir76 2 years ago
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
Epicurus (341-270 BC)
Thank Goodness the Arabic world saved the teachings of the great philoshophers.
stevenweir76 2 years ago 9
Hey, what is evil without God?
et00et 2 years ago
The same thing evil is now. 1. Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant. 2. Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet. 3. Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens. 4. Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation. 5. Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper.
stevenweir76 2 years ago
Listen to the comment made by the caller. He says we all came from Adam, we didn't come from monkeys.... etc. This is what religion does. It closes your mind. If you picked up any other 1400 year old book would you base your life upon it? This is laughable. Why does God give no direction now? The mechanisms that drove human superstition (ie Belief in God) have evolved to instill fear which aided survival. Now it keeps humanity stupid.
stevenweir76 2 years ago 2
The West assumes that all living creatures are their own lords, work in their own name and for their own pleasure, and that their only aim in life is to survive. It does not see the universal mutual helping among them, as established by their Creator. Plants help animals, and animals help humanity. But it sees even this as conflict and contention, and preaches that life consists of conflict even though all food particles or atoms help nourish the bodys cells.
wallidjan 2 years ago
You place yourself on a very high pedastal above the West. Do you not enjoy your computer and the understanding that science has brought us about medicine and nature? Plants and animals not only have symbiotic relationships but they also have parasitic and predatory relationships. You have your rosy colored religious goggles on and your understanding of nature is poor for you to make this statement. To rise above something you must first understand it. We are risen creatures, not fallen.
stevenweir76 2 years ago 2
It used to be theory that the sun goes around the Earth, like it says in the Qur'an. But when we learned from astronomy because of retrograde motion (Thank goodness for Venus and Mercury) that the Earth in fact goes around the sun. The theory was then abondoned and replaced by the Heliocentric model, much to the displeasure of the religious class. Religion forces science to fight superstition, I am sure the religious are proud, but this is a great disservice to humankind. Accept facts.
stevenweir76 2 years ago 2
For the religious: Science is not concrete, it is not a fixed set of beliefs. That's called being open-minded. But it shouldn't be so open that your brains fall out. Scientists do vary on their opinions except when it comes to things that have been established as fact. Evolution is called a theory for the same reason that Electromagnetism is called a theory, we understand that these things are true. But the mechanisms involved are not understood perfectly.
stevenweir76 2 years ago 2
Ad Hominem attacks have no place in science, religion thrives on it. The comments made that try to disprove evolution because someone looks nervous and strangely antipathinc. He is acting as though evolution is normal because it is, and if you fail to see evolution as fact you can no longer call yourself devoted to science by any stretch of the imagination. Instead of beliving in something why don't you try reading and learning something.
stevenweir76 2 years ago 4
Richard Dawkins is a brilliant man, indeed. Keep the good work, Mr. Dawkins!
blackcrazydog 2 years ago 7
i didnt understand anything he was mentioning actualy. he looks like he is trying to defend himself instead of explaining things understandable. and he looks nervous and strangely antipathinc..
Ramdariel 2 years ago
Evolutionists are good at lying eg it took 100 years to find Fraud from Piltdown man and hopefully the public will realise the truth once they analyse the evidence for them selves.
Evidence for Evolution - Embryology:
(ex) Embryos of different vertebrates look alike in their early stages, giving the superficial appearance of relationship. (crit) Embryos of different vertebrates DO NOT look alike in their early stages.
wallidjan 2 years ago
...Embryos of different vertebrates look alike in their early stages....
There are distinct similarities that were exaggerated by Ernest Haeckel, maybe you should read some books past 1874. You are arguring against science from 1874. This is 2009 and science has things called photographs. They do not look like Haekel's drawings exactly, but even skeptics can see similarities of form, shape, and position in the early stages.
stevenweir76 2 years ago 2
"This idea was fathered by Ernest Haeckel, a German biologist who was so convinced that he had solved the riddle of life's unfolding that he doctored and faked his drawings of embryonic stages to prove his point."(William R. Fix,"The Bone Peddlers:Selling Evolution,"1984.)Haeckel was exposed as a fraud in 1874 by Professor Wilhelm His. Nevertheless, Haeckel's fraudulent drawings(or similar representations)remain in high school and college biology textbooks to this day as evidence for evolution.
wallidjan 2 years ago
well, he looks tense because he is angry. wich is unerstandable when you are dealing with stubborn and rude people all the time. when you debate with a believer, you almost everytime come to the point, when he says: "i dont care how much you are bringing arguments up, i dont care how convincing your facts are, i dont care, because i JUST KNOW BETTER AND DONT CARE ABOUT ANYTHING ELSE THAN MY EVER UNDOUBTET BELIEFS". thats just annoying and im glad he doesnt give up though its ultimately futile.
Thronsohn 2 years ago
People who believe in evolution have been brainwashed. Their main problem is not the arguments for and against evolution and creation. Their problem is they can't bring yourself to reject evolution, because they have already rejected God. Humans have a big mental fault. They are not able to admit they were wrong. Therefore, they are trapped in their previous decision of rejecting God.
wallidjan 2 years ago
well, without wanting to insult you, but this sounds like a joke for any sane person. "rececting god"? thats absurd! i could only reject him, when i ever in my life had recognized a single hint that he is there or wants me for him.
i dont reject evolution either, nor do i "belief" in it. its just a biological theory, thats based on the real world, thats all. it doesnt even claim for itself to be true. and if it were false, i wouldnt care, it werent about to change my life, was it?
Thronsohn 2 years ago
If humans have such a giant mental fault, how could we possibly trust our belief in God? The feeling of God seems to be a subjective experience felt only by those who adhere to what they feel is the divine will. But if they are so faulted to the point where they can't even reject a false ideal, how could they possibly trust an admitadely subjective feeling, let alone base a life or civilization around it?
Boognish64 2 years ago
EVOLUTION: FACT OR FICTION?
Charles Darwin hereby speaks for himself:
"I may here also confess that as a little boy I was much given to inventing deliberate falsehoods, and this was always done for the sake of causing excitement."
Reference(s): The Autobiography of Charles Darwin 1809-1882.
With original omissions restored. Edited by Nora Barlow. Page 23.
"I love fools' experiments. I am always making them ."
John Bartlett (18201905). Familiar Quotations, 10th ed. 1919.
Inquiry000 2 years ago
What a brilliant and gentle man Richard Dawkins is, I agree with him in most of that, but he obviously is not at all spiritual which is a pity because he is also missing out.
Oh! and Wallidjan the only people debating the existance of natural selection are unenlightened religious fanatics and the uneducated.
cannissolis 3 years ago
cannissolis-
QUOTE"the only people debating the existance of natural selection are unenlightened religious fanatics and the uneducated."
Some scientists don't believe in ID but also reject natural selection. Or at least don't think it's a fully adequate explanation for evolution. One such person is Pierre Grasse of the French National Academy of Sciences. Is he an unenlightnened, uneducated, religious fanatic? I think not.
philosophy7575 2 years ago
"QUOTE" "Or at least don't think it's a fully adequate explanation for evolution"
Yes, Pierre Grasse (born1895) was one of the latter i.e. he agreed natural selection was part of the process but believed there were also other mechanisms at work, He occupied the Chair of Evolutionary Biology in Paris, so no, he didn't (he's dead by the way) count as "unenlightened, uneducated" but then, he didn't disagree that natural selection was part of evolution! I seem to have missed your point what was it?
cannissolis 2 years ago
In the Name Of Allah, All Merciful, Most Merciful
Recite: In the Name of your Lord who created,
Created man from clots of blood
Recite: And your Lord is the Most Generous
He who taught by the pen
taught man what he did not know
No Indeed! Truly man is unbridled
seeing himself as self-sufficient
Verily it is to your Lord that you will be return
wallidjan 2 years ago
Charles Darwin had concern about his theory of natural selection. He knew that a failure to find the missing transitional links would seriously cripple his theory of evolution, but he was hopeful the missing links would be found some day. Well, guess what. He died not finding them. Evolutionists have never found the missing links.
wallidjan 3 years ago
I'm sorry, but I have to ask. Is English your first language? Why is it you write multiple posts saying the same thing? It makes you seem unsophisticated. If your point is strong, it doesn't have to be repeated. Addressing your contention, I would say this is not true. Like I said earlier, there are numerous examples of animals sharing features of adjacent taxa. But what difference does it make? You don't even write like a learned person, so who cares what your opinion is on a scientific theory?
overfloater81 3 years ago 4
You were the same person who thought that no human being could be born with anything other than 46 chromosomes because you thought that the number of chromosomes was the ultimate factor that differentiated species. You obviously have very little training in anything biological. Your opinion on evolution is
centered around your religious belief which makes your opinion meaningless. My advice is to stop trying to act like you know what you're talking about.
overfloater81 3 years ago 6
One of the most remarkable pieces of evidence disproving evolution is the Cambrian Explosion Most textbooks never mention it, and the ones that do relegate it to a short phrase or paragraph as if it is some insignificant detail. This phenomenon is so pronounced in the fossil record that Scientific American called it lifes big bang.
wallidjan 3 years ago
It is considered one of the biggest challenges to evolutionary theory. Many reputable and highly accomplished scientists at major accredited universities worldwide say it is an insurmountable challenge. Moreover, I believe it is proof that evolution is merely a widely held myth of popular culture.
wallidjan 3 years ago
Wallidjan, Re. Cambrian explosion. Apart from ones that are not about the subject, which textbooks don't mention it? Which ones treat it as an insignificant detail? Who considers it a challenge to evolutionary theory? The pre-Cambrian "explosion" lasted 20 million years and happened 500 million years ago. Deducing the events of half a billion years ago is difficult, and evidence comes from biological and chemical signatures in rocks. Not a lot to go on to disprove or prove really?
cannissolis 2 years ago 3
The Cambrian explosion is evidence for evolution. There are clear transitional fossils from single cellular life to multicellular life.
Internetaccount133 2 years ago 10
watch my video wallid - Prove God does not exist?
wallidjan 2 years ago
There are thousands of transitional fossils...
PVTSolis 3 years ago 4
the good news? tousands of scientist work every day geting closer to get from several dots of fossils, drawing a tree of evolution, to the few missing links we still have today
and what did creationist did today? reading the bible once again, trying to do a far fetched interpretation to match today wolrd. Good job
kanchi2015 3 years ago 5
Unless you actually see a real fossil don't believe humans being evolved from apes please watch - Evolution of Homo sapiens, Australopithecus and Hesperopithecus and Evolution of Man from my channel
wallidjan 2 years ago
Charles Darwin admitted that fossils of the transitional links between species would have to be found in order to prove his "Theory of Evolution." Well, these transitional links have never been found. We only find individual species.
wallidjan 3 years ago
Evolutionists try to form these individual species into a link according to similar major features, such as wings or four legs, but this simply proves the Theory of Evolution to be a fraud. Darwin was hopeful that future fossils would prove his theory correct, but instead, the lack of transitional links has proven his theory to be wrong.
wallidjan 3 years ago
what is an "individual species"? 2 different spiecies are defined as " not able to interbreed".
you could have two animals visualy different, that are able to breed, while two other really close unable to.
plus, transitional fossils are difficult to find, because the spiecies are transitional: their characteristics evolve quickly to adapt to a new niche.
kanchi2015 3 years ago
Very good piece with Dr. Dawkins. Kudos to Aljazeera.
PVTSolis 3 years ago
"adam peace upon him" ? didn't know he had a last name.
splendorfulguris 3 years ago
we are living in the 21st century; there is no God and never has been. We are a product of three billion years of evolution, in an uncaring universe. But life is good!
chrisbuxton1958 3 years ago 4
Who cares? We all die anyway yet we spend all the time we have alive debating.
JamesKM1ll 3 years ago
We know from the teachings of Muhammad, peace be upon him, that no one has ever actually seen God - at least not in this lifetime. Nor are we able to use our senses to make some kind of contact with Him. However, we are encouraged in Islam to use our senses and our common sense to recognize that all of this universe could not possibly come into existence on its own.
Something had to design it all and then put it into motion. That is beyond our ability to do.
wallidjan 3 years ago
Allah says in His Quran that He did not create all of this for any foolish purpose. He tells us that He created us for the purpose of worshiping Him, Alone and without any partners.
wallidjan 3 years ago
The average single human gene is a piece of DNA comprised of 100,000 pairs of amino acids all of which are perfectly sequenced. It is impossible for a new gene to appear by chance or by "natural selection."
wallidjan 3 years ago
As you read this, many of you are asking "What about mutations? Can't they create a new gene". The answer is "Absolutely not." Mutations can change only existing genes. But mutations have nothing whatever to do with creating an entirely new gene. We invite you to google or yahoo terms such as "add a gene" and you will be able to verify that there has never been a case where a species added a gene. But apes would have had to add many genes (and be created anew) in order to become human.
wallidjan 3 years ago
google or yahoo terms such as "add a gene" <-- this is not how scientists do their research.
EpicHiroDJ 3 years ago
Evolutionists claim we evolved from the simplest form of bacterial life to ever more complex forms of life. The most basic bacteria had less than 500 genes; man has over 22 thousand. In order for bacteria to evolve into man, organisms would have to be able to add genes. But there is no genetic mechanism that adds a gene. (Mutations change an existing gene but never add a gene.) This means there is no mechanism for Darwinian Evolution and this is a fatal flaw in the Theory of Evolution.
wallidjan 3 years ago
An interesting problem - indeed, the question of how new genes can arise in a genome is one that is very worthy of research. So much so, that molecular biologists and geneticists answered it decades ago. During cell replication, the DNA is replicated - and before the cell divides a process called DNA recombination occurs in which duplicate pairs of chromosomes swap segments of DNA. It can frequently happen that one of the chromosomes can gain extra gene copies while the other loses them.
mediteight 3 years ago
Mutations occurring in these duplicated genes on the same chromosome will obviously cause the DNA sequences of the initially identical genes to diverge over time - eventually resulting in two very different genes where once there was one.
If you're interested, there are many other related mechanisms that are well understood - DNA recombination is an entire subject in itself - but the example above is sufficient to explain how new genes can arise. Hope this helps...
Best wishes, Paul
mediteight 3 years ago
LOL that is not at all what evolution proposes. Simple genetic recombinations simple alter the allelle combinations between mother and father such that we can millions of variant allele mixes. None of them creates a new gene potentially a new creative protein. There is not a single observed example of a functional protein, spontaneously arising due to mutation in any multicellular research program.
kenyanmuslim 3 years ago
Thanks for the reply - (though I'm not sure which part of my explanation was that amusing!). I'm encouraged that you understand genetic recombination and the mixing of alleles during meiosis. The idea I didn't seem to communicate very well is that during this recombination, sometimes the lengths of DNA swapped are not equal. Are you familiar with this? This can produce duplicate genes (the well known gene clusters) that then diverge from each other by mutation.
mediteight 3 years ago
A standard textbook example of gene clusters would be the heavily researched globin genes. You can read up on this or any other examples of gene clusters in almost any university textbook of genetics - "Genes" by Benjamin Lewin, and "The Cell" by Alberts et. al. are probably the most well known.
mediteight 3 years ago
can you provide me a journal article, or the page numbers of the book you quoted giving examples of globin proteins forming spontaneously from gene duplciation mechanisms.
kenyanmuslim 3 years ago
HI there - neat real time :)
The whole of chapter 4 (specifically p. 90-) of genes VII by Benjamin Lewin, is the example I had in mind.
mediteight 3 years ago
Wait. So in meiosis. When the chromosomes become haploid, one of the 23 chromosome of the now haploid cell might have additional genes, a duplicate of one of its genes usually from the other parent. And then this gene undergoes mutation to form a new protein. OK. Maybe unequal allele swapping do occur, which leaves the daughter cell with unequal shares of alleles. I have never read this before.
kenyanmuslim 3 years ago
However two things. Is there any example of a protein from the scientific database of proteins we know to form via this mechanism which is known to have diverged from the original gene which coded for the original protein. No.2 why does the subsequent mutation spontaneously occur only in the duplcate gene and not in the original one.
kenyanmuslim 3 years ago
Again interesting questions. For no. 1 I'd have to repeat that there is a whole field of research called phylogenetics and bioinformatics which is used to determine the gene families - an example would be the PRINTS database at Manchester uni, or the COGs data in genbank (at the ncbi).
Num 2 is much simpler. Each base mutation is entirely random - it would be astonishing for the same random mutations to happen in both copies of the gene. Nearly all the mutations will reduce the functionality..
mediteight 3 years ago
Well - you've understood the idea, which is impressive without having read it before. There is again a huge subject (part of bioinformatics if you're interested) called phylogenetics that models all these biological mechanisms mathematically to produce ancestral trees of individual gene families (rather than organisms).
mediteight 3 years ago
I can give you an entire textbook of mutations making genes dysfunctional. Bring me one which creates a new protein and which science has proved occurs spontaneously.
kenyanmuslim 3 years ago
This is genuinely interesting to me. You clearly understand that most mutations of a functional gene will make the gene dysfunctional, but then seem to be saying this somehow shows the above explanation (of how new genes arise) to be flawed in some way. Do you understand that every gene you look at in an organism has arisen by mutation from its ancestral gene? A simple example of a single base mutation creating a viable alternative gene is the haemoglobin base mutation involved in sickle cell.
mediteight 3 years ago
I knew it. This is eventually how evolution explains everything. The proteins are here, we will hypothesize how they came here. And then we will say it happened because the protein or the gene is here. The transitional fossils are not there but we are here and the fossil record shows simple organisms initially, thus evolution must have happened. ITs all dogmatic ways of viewing science.
kenyanmuslim 3 years ago
What is being attacked here is the fundamental scientific practice of extrapolation, without which we would be unable to make any predictions or conclusions about data. It is the last resort of all anti-evolutionists who don't understand what science is. The argument is something like this: "You weren't there, so how do you know how it happened?" This "hypothesis" is based on the firm principles of heredity. For two living things to share similar genes, it must have shared a common ancestor.
overfloater81 3 years ago
hehehe. Evolutionist dogma at work. Because we share similar bodies or biochemicla similarities we must be related and evolved out of a common ancestor. Thats a hypothesis unsupported by evidence. There is no evidence of spontaneous mutations creating new functional proteins nor is there evidence of transitional fossils in the fossil record. The hypothesis fails when 100 million fossils are placed under scrutiny.
kenyanmuslim 3 years ago
The data is that we share the fundamental criterion of life. Since heredity exists in the world, the best theory to explain why organisms so diverse should share these fundamental criteria of life is common descent.. If we had no relation whatsoever to these other animals, it is statistically impossible to share these similarities. 102 naturally occuring nucleotides occur but we all use the same 4. 390 aa occur naturally, we all share the same 22.
overfloater81 3 years ago
We share the same similarity because we are in the same environment making use of similar organic elements. Thats not a reason to say we have a common descent. Life requires a consistent organic elements whether be it a worm or a human being. Thus the striking resemblance in some genomes. ITs not proof that one species transform into another species. That is a completely different proposal.
kenyanmuslim 3 years ago
This is quite an old argument, but untrue. If it were true, you would expect that DNA sequences between animals with very similar function and environment would have more similar sequences. This is not the case. For ex, bat cytochrome c is much more similar to human cytochrome c than to hummingbird cytochrome c; porpoise cytochrome c is much more similar to human cytochrome c than to shark cytochrome c. Reason being bats and humans and porpoises are all mammals, and thus more closely related.
overfloater81 3 years ago
Evolutionists claim we evolved from the simplest form of bacterial life to ever more complex forms of life. The most basic bacteria had less than 500 genes; man has over 22 thousand. In order for bacteria to evolve into man, organisms would have to be able to add genes. But there is no genetic mechanism that adds a gene
wallidjan 3 years ago
.(Mutations change an existing gene but never add a gene)This means there is no mechanism for Darwinian Evolution and this is a fatal flaw in the Theory of Evolution
wallidjan 3 years ago
Here are 4 examples suggesting you are wrong. These are just from the last 5 years.
1) gene duplication with subsequent mutation resulting in a new adaptive gene: Chen et al (2008) Mitochondrial targeting adaptation of the hominoid-specific glutamate dehydrogenase driven by positive Darwinian selection.
2) gene(s) duplication with subsequent upregulation resulting in new adaptations: Rosso et al (2008) Transcriptomic and genomic evolution under constant cold in Antarctic notothenioid fish.
overfloater81 3 years ago
3) lateral gene transfer resulting in adaptive phenotypic changes: Nedelcu et al 2008: Adaptive eukaryote-to-eukaryote lateral gene transfer: stress-related genes of algal origin in the closest unicellular relatives of animals.
4) Increased rates of nonsynonymous mutations resulting in adaptive immune changes: Ota et al (2003) Positive Darwinian selection operating on the immunoglobulin heavy chain of Antarctic fishes.
overfloater81 3 years ago
Mutations are not the only mechanism. They are but one of many. I had already mentioned some of these mechanisms to you in a previous post. Instead of addressing them, you simply repeated your exact same argument again.
overfloater81 3 years ago
Here's a dumb way to understand it. Person A may have a particular type of nose, with a particular shape. His brother has the same nose as well. Is it absolutely crazy to then assume that the reason these two SIBLINGS share this characteristic is b/c they INHERITED it from somebody they share as an ancestor? No. When the human and chimp genomes were sequenced and found to be extraordinary similar, one has to explain why. There is no mech. known in science for this other than heredity.
overfloater81 3 years ago
If there is no mechanism in science to explain then it should be left unexplained. Similar biochemical physiology will require similar genetics, we use the same things in the environment. Some simple worms have 75% striking resemblance with the human genome. SO are we 75% similar? Come on, failure to explain something is not reason for dogma to be showered in science textbooks.
kenyanmuslim 3 years ago
There is a mechanism to explain it. It's called heredity, as I said. We are actually, more strikingly similar than you think. You probably are comparing the worm's exterior appearance with ours. But that's precisely what you should not do. We all share the fundamental criteria that characterize life: 1) replicate using the same molecule and the same bases; 2) we inherit this molecule from ancestors; 3) we perform protein catalysis with the exact same 22 aa; 4) share the universal genetic code.
overfloater81 3 years ago
No its the genome which is 75% similar.
kenyanmuslim 3 years ago
Sickle cell Hemoglobin is a dysfuntional protein. Its not beneficial. no one would choose to be sickle celled even if living in africa. Its not mutational addition and a constructive improvement in a gene. its a substituion which is unfortunate
kenyanmuslim 3 years ago
. I will never be happy if my genes coding my hemoglobin undergo the sickle cell mutation. I live in africa there are other ways i can protect myself from mosquitoes. ITs like saying having your legs cut off is beneficial because you wont have any road accidents. A survival value for all pedestrians.
kenyanmuslim 3 years ago
Ohno, S. (1984) "Birth of a unique enzyme from an alternative reading frame of the preexisted, internally repetitious coding sequence." PNAS 81: 2421-5
This protein was spontaneously formed by using a previously unused open reading frame. Amazing right?
overfloater81 3 years ago
Honestly man, you must be kidding. The following are all mech. shown to irreversibly and heritably alter/add to genomes of living things: gene flow, random genetic drift, mobile introns, gene duplications, recombination, transpositions, retroviral insertions (horizontal gene transfer). Chromosomal rearrangements: entire genome duplications (polyploidy,) unequal crossing over, inversions, translocations, fissions, fusions, chromosome duplications and deletions.
overfloater81 3 years ago
Humans have 46 chromosomes. This chromosome count is a steady factor. This determines what is called the "fixity of species" because the chromosome count doesn't vary. People always give birth to people. Dogs always give birth to dogs, etc.
wallidjan 3 years ago
The genes can produce variety within the species, but cannot result in a different species. Genes allow for people to be short, tall, fat, thin, blond, brunette, etc., but they are still all human beings. The chromosomes make crossing of the species an un-crossable barrier. This certainly would hinder any evolution. Dogs cannot breed with cats. This fact stops evolution dead in its tracks.
wallidjan 3 years ago
For evolution, it does not require two different species to be able to breed. I don't know where you get this from. A group of reproductive animals will have inherent variety within it. Any particular variety within that group better suited to survive, differentially survives leading to a greater representation of that trait/traits in the subsequent generations. This leads to a gradual change in the average genotype and morphology of the subsequent generations. This leads to a new species.
overfloater81 3 years ago
Your inability to understand this is because your mind is unable to expand into the kind of time it takes for this to happen. It takes MILLENIA for this to happen. In addition, you cannot say "dogs don't turn into cats, monkeys don't turn into humans." This is a misrepresentation of evolution. Two modern species don't turn into one another. Modern species today share common ancestors from which they have derived many shared characteristics (for example our common use of DNA, glycolysis, ATP etc
overfloater81 3 years ago
This new species will not look incredibly different at first from the parent species. But if enough time passes and gene flow has stopped, they will become very different in time, but still share many things in common due to ancestry. This is what Darwin noticed with his finches and btwn chimps and humans. While we are different in many ways (we have been traveling separately for 6 mill years), we are still very similar in our genes e.g. our cytochrome c gene sequence is IDENTICAL etc.
overfloater81 3 years ago
But during this passage of time, the two groups may actually acquire very different numbers of chromosomes and genes through the mechanisms that I wrote about. It is difficult for us to believe because we are comparing the two endpoints to each other because all the transitionals, are in many cases, necessarily dead. Sorry to write so much. Evoluition is a complex topic and it requires thinking about it more closely. You have a bit more work to do.
overfloater81 3 years ago
Your argument that a human always has 46 chromosomes is uninformed. There are numerous instances (for example, Down's syndrome, Klinefelter's, Turner's syndrome, Double Y males among others) being born with 47 and 45 chromosomes. While these may be pathological conditions, many of them are still capable of reproduction and are still considered human beings. Your argument that there has never been and never can be a human being born with anything other than 46 chromosomes is simply false.
overfloater81 3 years ago
The question is simple, which of all these mechanisms results in a new functional protein unknown to science. Which mutations in any gene we know is known to transform that gene into a different functional protein in any multicellular species we know of in the entire world. I will give you at least a thousand mutations which can devastate proteins.
kenyanmuslim 3 years ago
These are examples from the metazoan world, just as you asked. They happen to be beneficial. WHat they serve to show is that new genes/proteins are built from preexisting genes/proteins by graual incremental steps.
1) Ffrench-Constant et al. 2000 -- cyclodiene resistance in Drosophila.
2) Richter and Ronald 2000 -- LRR regions and plant disease resistance.
3) Franceschini G, et al. (1980) AI milano apoprotein mutation and resistance to atherosclerotic disease.
overfloater81 3 years ago
I will read these papers and see, Wether a new functional protein is created.
kenyanmuslim 3 years ago
Why bother reading the papers? Over the course of this discussion, I have come to see that you have made your mind up about science, the scientific method, and about the nature of science as dogma. And yet, I can't help but notice your screen name and wonder whether you have succumbed to dogma in the past?
overfloater81 3 years ago 2
Are you too scared for me to make reference to this papers and see whether they are actual proofs of new functional proteins. If so you should be happy that I would shut up. I won't argue over mutations again if there is proof that mutations can create entirely new functional complex proteins. If there are no examples will you leave your dogma that life's complexity can be explained via spontaneous mutations?
kenyanmuslim 3 years ago
Let me give you the full titles so you will be able to find them easier on Pubmed.
1) Ffrench-Constant et al. (2000) Cyclodiene insecticide resistance: from molecular to population genetics
2) Richter and Ronald (2000) The evolution of disease resistance genes.
3) Franceschini G, et al. (1980) A-IMilano apoprotein. Decreased high density lipoprotein cholesterol levels with significant lipoprotein modifications and without clinical atherosclerosis in an Italian family.
overfloater81 3 years ago
The evolutionist will claim that the presence of many individual species proves evolution. This shallow statement is devoid of reason, logic and scientific proof. Evolutionists line up pictures of similar looking species and claim they evolved one to another. The humans "family tree" is an example of this flawed theory. Petrified skulls and bones exist from hundreds of species of extinct monkeys and apes.
wallidjan 3 years ago
They simply fill in the big gaps with make-believe creatures to fit the picture. This procedure can be done with humans only because there are many extinct monkey and ape species. They never do this with giraffes, elephants or the Platypus. The pictures are placed in all of the text books that evolutionists use to teach kids this nonsense. The pictures are simply a grouping of individual species that does not prove evolution.
wallidjan 3 years ago
Comment removed
overfloater81 3 years ago