Atheism/Lets talk about GOD!

[5]

I'm not even going to bother with you.

[Johnny B]

Originally posted by 2+2=5:

I'm not going to bother with you.

How about bothering us with "THE TRUTH" , namely explaining the creation theory for us?

 

Mind, if i remind you where you started?

 

the truth is that Allah Almighty created us, everything around us, everything that existed prior to our existence and everything that will exists after us. We did not evolve from an organism, or an ape, nor will we ever evolve into another species.

The above statements are well atriculated and very clear, so all we ask for is just a little attempt of sharing as to why the creation theory( "God" + a piece of "mud" + "blowing" ( driving a current of air upon the mud) = first Human being, namely Adam) , unlike the evolution theory, is absolutely "the truth".

 

Aren't you interested? if not we call it a day and move on ?!

[5]

Johnny B, am I interested? This has been about as exciting as a Lion bar.

 

There's plenty of information available. Get a new experience, go to a library. Eller hur?

 

I am done.

[Johnny B]

Aj Aj Kapten !

[Som@li]

I have recently been following Charles Darwin's Theories, (150 years since his birth so lots of programs on air these days), I believe there is some truth to his theories, He needed directions and if he only knew the Koran, he would understand more.

 

Some of his theories does not conflict religion

[Raamsade]

^Even if Evolution Theory does disagree with "religion," and it does, who cares? Religions are mostly a collection of old wives' tale. It's like saying chemistry disagrees with alchemy. No kidding.

 

Originally posted by 2+2=5:

I'm not even going to bother with you.

You mean you're conceding the debate to me?

 

I can live with that.

[5]

Raamsade, you've proven to me that you don't know what you're talking about. You are a fraud. So the debate has ended for me. If you cannot keep up with what's being said or understand what the references are or what we are talking about, there isn't even a debate.

 

I could easily continue, but what is the use? You won't be able to understand and you'll try to rephrase your words. You're not interested in debating, you're interested in correcting yourself and appearing right.

 

Also, there is only Norfsky who seems to read this thread. It is very frustrating when other users comment with a few lines without reading what has been written.

 

So again, what is the point? You are no real opponent, and there is only one reader.

 

So this is what I propose. Lets take this discussion elsewhere. Lets take it to a science forum. That way, you can give way to more knowledgable folks, and as an end result, perhaps even return to Islam.

[Raamsade]

Originally posted by 2+2=5:

Raamsade, you've proven to me that you don't know what you're talking about. You are a fraud. So the debate has ended for me. If you cannot keep up with what's being said or understand what the references are or what we are talking about, there isn't even a debate.

This coming from someone who can't distinguish Abiogenesis from Evolution Theory or claims that Australopithucines (bipedal species) were the ancestors of modern chimps or thinks most genetic mutations are deleterious... that's really rich.

 

You would have long been tossed out of this debate for your flagrant flouting of debating etiquette and complete inability to defend your positions. By every objective measure you've lost this debate eons ago and by margins as wide as the Atlantic ocean. Don't confuse that fact I continued this debate thusfar as validation of your debating skills or confirmation that you were making valid points. You weren't. I only kept this debate going this far to combat the hostility and suspicion Somalis generally have of science in large and Evolution Theory in particular informed in large part by religiously induced obscurantism.

 

You're just another creationist addition to my scalp collection. But I must confess, you're not one I'm proud of.

 

 

Originally posted by 2+2=5:

So this is what I propose. Lets take this discussion elsewhere. Lets take it to a science forum. That way, you can give way to more knowledgable folks, and as an end result, perhaps even return to Islam.

I fail to see how carrying this debate in this section prevents any of your "knowledgeable folks" from partaking.

[5]

Lets see.

 

1. You did not understand my reference to saltation, and instead mocked me that my knowledge is gleamed from cartoons.

 

2. You lied that according to fossil evidence, the floreansis looked more human to you. When I gave you drawings as proof, you mocked them and called me 'an ignorant child'. Then when you saw the fossils, you tried to back down by saying there is a possibility they were dwarfs.

 

3. About evolutionary scientists who believe birds didn't evolve from dinosaurs. You initially said: "Rubbish. The consensus in the scientific community regarding birds is that they evolved from theropod dinosaurs." Later on you went on to say: "I meant what the overwhelming majority of scientists accept today. There will always be dissenting voices. That's given." And then accused me of name-dropping when I gave you the evidence.

 

4. I asked you for the definition of evolution (to prove my point evolutionary theory isn't even in accordance with itself) and you gave me a description that completely conflicted Ernst Mayer's. Finding it hard to stomach, you accused me of "misconstruing others" and asked for proof. I gave you a quote from the book, you concluded Mayr is wrong. Then you said both of you were right because you agreed.

 

5. When I asked you if you found it odd that natural selection created protections (DNA repair mechanism) against the very thing that enabled evolution (beneficial mutatations) you replied "who said natural selection created these "protections", and when I asked whether the first cell had them, you said "possibly".

 

6. You said: "Evolution is a process not an event. They will never be a scenario where the offspring of one species suddenly (like in one or two generation) becomes another distinct species".

I had previously quoted Mayr: "[Evolution…] may lead to the production of a new species-individual in a single step." –‘What Evolution is’ 2001 page 174

Most likely you will retreat from your previous comment and say he is wrong. If this does not prove my point of "evolution not being in accordance with itself", nothing will.

 

7. You made a claim that evolution does not proceed from less complex to more complex and as a proof said there are single celled organisms. When I asked you where single celled oranisms of today came from, you yelled straw man fallacy & now you claim I don't know the meaning of Abiogenesis.

 

Now the reason I didn't bother with you, is because you are dumb (yes, you really are) and it's utterly useless arguing with you because you are a stubborn id1ot. You can't even see how you are wrong. You don't get it. It's like trying to talk to a wall.

 

I'll reply to your ****** post and show you why I didn't bother with it.

 

You wrote that humans and other apes can't synthesize vitamin C, I replied that some other animals couldn't either. Now you wrote: "But the point I was making completely sailed over your head."

 

Even though I corrected you. I wrote down what you were trying to say. I wrote: "What you are trying to say here is that the mutation that makes vitamin C gene inactive is almost the same to the mutation seen in chimps." Then I proceeded to ask if you had ever heard of pseudogenes. Again, this reference went completely to deaf ears. You replied: "The fact all of them can't synthesize their own vitamin C like us, indicates we share an immediate common ancestor with them. Keep in mind that EVOLUTION THEORY postulates that closely related animals should display close similarities"

 

This is a ****** answer. Guinea pigs can't synthesize vitamin C, we share a common ancestor with them too? Again, back to my point (which, if you knew anything about, you would understand), have you or have you not heard of pseudogenes? Do you understand the reason for my asking this question? Of course you don't.

 

"Another evidence for evolution from biochemistry is the DNA molecule. All living things use the same molecule to transfer genetic information from generation to another. This is consistent with Evolution Theory but NOT with the Theory of Special Creation. Why would Allah use the same molecule in all organisms if he created every single organism individually?"

 

Lol.

 

"Note that as 2+2=5 is unremittingly confronted with the unassailable evidence for human evolution, she retreats further and further into denials and lame quibbles. The above is case in point. What exactly is she trying to say?"

 

Yes, ask.

 

"Most of our DNA is what is called Junk DNA." and bla bla the rest of... "2+2=5’s quibble above is complete red herring. No one is talking about functional and non-functional parts of human and ape genome. Instead, it is a comparison of the similarities/differences of human and chimp genome. Gene functionality is completely immaterial. The same functional/non-functional genes would still be present in the genome and is detectable. "

 

Lol.

 

You know what. I can't do this. This is too ******. It makes me realize I have been arguing with a fraud all this time. It makes me want to go and watch MTV because they're less likely to offend me with such id1ocy.

 

1. Junk DNA was coined by evolutionists who thought they had no function. Then they were embarrassed when it was discovered they did have use.

 

2. I was not talking about Junk DNA. So you are right I guess, no one was talking about "functional or non-functional parts of human and ape genome". I'll spoon feed you.

What I was talking about was that humans and chimps' "98%" claim is in fact BASED ON PROTEIN CODING REGIONS which compromise 1.5% OF THE TWO GENOMES. The more area will be covered in the future, the more the number will change (and possibly dramatically drop). Therefore 98% genome similarity is misleading, a half-truth, if you will.

 

"You need to look again. It is a fusion of two chromosomes as evidenced by the extra telomeres and centromeres."

 

This is a matter of opinion. Unless you were there to witness the fusion.

 

About Robertsonian translocation, you said:

 

"Yes, I do. What is your point? That chromosomal rearrangements occur? If so, you're wasting your time."

 

I did not ask you what causes Robertsonian translocation. I asked you, what the CONSEQUENCE ("Something that logically or naturally follows from an action or condition") of Robertsonian translocation is.

 

The answer is more miscarriages. Now how could this new, changed chromosome have taken over the entire population and become what is most common in people, when it's carriers were at disadvantage due to fertility problems?

 

"Your questions are getting more and more bizarre. Why would you expect human and chimp knee to be similar?"

 

Because you brought up "comparative anatomy". Knee is not part of the anatomy? And now my question are getting more and more bizarre? You are a clown.

 

And the circus goes on: "Do humans and chimps have the same gait? If not, and they obviously don’t, then why would you honestly expect their knees to be similar? I'm just trying to understand your reasoning."

 

You don't know what the words you used means? Now why is that not a surprise? Oh yeah, because you've done that before.

 

Comparative anatomy according to Princeton university: the study of anatomical features of animals of different species. Do you want me to spoon-feed you how the knee is part of that, and thus a very legitimate question?

 

"Ever since the ancestor of humans switched the tropical forests of Africa for the fast encroaching savannas, the body of our human ancestors adapted to upright walking. We inherited that modification"

 

Goes on to show how much you know, (yet) again. So according to you, there are known intermediate mechanisms between a simple pivot hinge and a four-bar mechanism?

 

‘Despite the overall similarity of the design of the knee in tetrapods, no ideal animal model of the human knee is available.’ - Dye, An Evolutionary perspective of the knee, Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery.

 

Most people would agree chimps and other apes look similar. Most people would also agree that humans and chimps do not look alike.

 

"It "proves" human evolution because the process of evolution is gradual one, taking place over millions of years. Thus, temporal relationships of the fossil record are important and should show up in our fossil data. If humans evolved from ape-like ancestors, then the fossil record should show it"

 

This is tiresome. Fossil findings show there have been other creatures roaming on Earth.

 

After your request for example of variation within a kind, this is what you had to say: "These are dog breeds not different species. Species have exact scientific definition(s)."

 

And you really wonder why I can't be bothered with you? You are incapable of keeping up with what's being talked about.

 

"It is good that this time you provided all of what he said instead of misconstruing his words like you always do with other scientists"

 

Elaborate. Just because you cry "straw man" or "you misconstrue others" like a little girl everytime you're in trouble, does not make it true.

 

"What he said in the last part of your quote is perfectly consistent with Evolution because every time there is a new species, genetic information is reduced."

 

You are a troll. All this time you have been arguing mutations add information, just so you can retreat from your original point

.

"Until then you're just another believing History Denier."[/b]

 

Lol. Is there a club I can join?

 

"As I said already said, we both agree with each other."

 

"As my Ernst Mayr quote above demonstrates, Mayr didn’t agree with himself."

 

What quote? You mean the quote of which you said this: "These definitions are identical and convey the same thing."

 

"So the problem lies with him, not with science. "

 

That would mean the problem lies with Professor Diamond too, who in the preface calls the book the best book on evolution there has ever been and ever will be. But whatever, I don't need your comments for this.

 

"I think you’re lost or maybe mistaking me for someone else. I asked for you to provide evidence that attests to your unsubstantiated assertion that most mutations are deleterious. "

 

I never said so. I only said so of some of the errors that slip through the DNA repair mechanism; that they are detrimental. Now don't resort to such obvious lying, it's not nice. Here is what I wrote originally, originally posted November 14:

 

Yes, some errors slip through and it affects the information it encodes. They are mostly detrimental; mutations are responsible for thousands of inherited diseases and diseases such as cancer. There are some which are neutral, and some which are beneficial (as you noted), but the truly beneficial mutations (not talking about beneficial as in helps the bacteria resist antibiotics) are so rare that there are, quite frankly, none. On top of that, all examples of mutations are actually loss of information, even the beneficial ones. So if natural selection and mutation result in LOSS of information, then how can evolution of increasing complexity occur?

 

(to which btw you replied "there are single celled organisms" and after my response to that, you later ironically accused me of changing the subject, and yelled straw man fallacy - and even later ever-so true to your logical absurdity, accused me of not being able to distinguish Abiogenesis from evo theory)

 

And this is exactly why this whole discussion is frustrating and has the appeal of a banana for me. You have the attention span and the logical ability of a 3 year old child.

 

"To that end, you provided two completely unrelated quotes. The first merely describes, in general terms, about hereditary mutations (which I already acknowledged) "

 

Where did you acknowledge? I can't see it, please refer me to that post.

 

"Now, can we surmise why you CAN’T produce a single authoritative source that supports your claim?"

 

A claim you created only in your head.

 

"Each unique individual has about 100,000 new mutations that he/she didn’t inherit from parents. Otherwise we’d all be clones. These mutations are the source of NEW genetic diversity that adds to and replenish the gene pool."

 

If life started from single cell organism, and mutation is a decrease in "true information content" (although "making it genetically more diverse") how could this result in more... anything? Logically speaking.

 

Now lets go back to the discussion about our Creator.

 

"Stop lying to yourself. You're not interested in the truth, if you did you wouldn’t be Islamic apologist. Your entire agenda in this whole thread is defending your fragile superstitious believes. Sadly, you’re bound by Islamic dogma to believe in logical absurdities, shun reason and be hostile to the truth. Which pretty much establishes why you’re so oftentimes wrong."

 

 

"And Allah isn't competent enough to create a single, unambiguous book that could convince that vast majority of humanity of his instructions and existence"

 

It is not that God is incompetent to do that. It is that if He did it, there would be no need for faith.

 

"It didn’t take a millisecond before Allah was banishing his own “creation” from heaven to earth after they rebelled"

 

Again, free will. They were free to choose to obey God or not. But you have to remember that God had prepared Earth for them even before they did. It was predetermined that we would live on Earth.

 

"Islamic dogma tells that the Torah and some mythical book called Injeel was originally sent by Allah only to be "corrupted." Allah also sent countless “prophets” to deliver his message, all of them failing."

 

Well, you are denying God right now. Why shouldn't other people be just as free to corrupt what they see fit? The prophets are by God's mercy, as He will not reveal Himself to the inhabitants of Earth, but people need protection from the likes of you, who will want to corrupt them. Of course they will fail to win over EVERY single human. But that was not their purpose, their purpose was to be of guide to those who seek guidance. So they did not fail, they succeeded.

 

"If the world ends today most of humanity (>80%), as per Islamic eschatology, will end up in hell."

 

If you look around, how many of humanity are kind-hearted, polite, well-meaning and loving? Very few. Heaven is for those rare people who execute these characteristic in this world, by themselves (with the will and guidance of God). Hell is for those who did not care for such things. You must remember that everybody's real home and destination is ultimately Heaven. Some just need to be purified first, because they were not able to do it by themselves, therefore they are forced to purify in Hell. There will be even Muslims in Hell.

Allah Almighty says: "They will find all that they did, placed before them: And not one will thy Lord treat with injustice." - Al Kahf 18:49)

 

Think of it this way. In Paradise, people are granted "whatever their heart desires". With human free will, a person has to be in full control of themselves and their desires. Otherwise if people with pride, jealousy, hate, greed, anger etc were allowed into Paradise where all their wishes come true, there would be chaos and misery.

 

"If I were you I'd keep Allah out of this discussion."

 

You just simply don't know Him.

[Sherban Shabeel]

My question for this debate is one I have asked on multiple occasions on this board, only to have it ignored time and time again.

 

Why is evolution automatically associated with atheism? Why the refusal to reconcile belief in a Higher Being with the mechanism of life?

 

My personal opinion as a God-fearing man is that God (and I don't mean some guy with a beard) created the mechanism to life (evolution) and - given that He (or It if you prefer) is omniscient and knows the results beforehand - it's as if He had created all the species himself.

 

I believe that many of the things said in our Holy Texts are metaphors and should not necessarily be taken literally.

[Napoleon]

^ Agreed. I certainly believe there has been a lot of cultural embellishments in all religions, and religious people take things way too literal. We should be taking the good in religion and throwing away the bizarre and irrelevant, and like everything the degree to which one worships should be up to them, instead of trying to have everyone as extremist and literalists.

 

Evolution, natural selection etc are a fact, there is nothing to disprove here. It doesn't however mean that there is no creator.

[guerilla]

Originally posted by Sherban Shabeel:

My question for this debate is one I have asked on multiple occasions on this board, only to have it ignored time and time again.

 

Why is evolution automatically associated with atheism? Why the refusal to reconcile belief in a Higher Being with the mechanism of life?

Because dear boy, God created Adam from clay and Eve from Adams ribs. This I'm assured by many, is only to be taken literally and if you've an ounce of common sense you would throw god and his stooges to the dogs and say 'I will not equate rational, reasoned, scientific argument to magical thinking, they're not as valid as each other, they're not as valid as each other, they're not as valid as each other, they're simply NOT as valid as each other' after which you'll take a healthy swig of whiskey (any will do) for even further clarity and smack yourself for ever thinking religion was a necessary precursor to you leading a happy existence.

[Raamsade]

Originally posted by 2+2=5:

1. You did not understand my reference to saltation, and instead mocked me that my knowledge is gleamed from cartoons.

Well, saltation IS cartoonish idea no wonder you’re so attracted to it. So far we’ve established that you’re enamored with old dead men and their old dead ideas that are no longer part of Evolution Theory. Saltation is not part of modern science curriculum nor is it accepted by the scientific community. For those that don’t know what saltation means, it was an idea that postulated the sudden appearance of species from other species. By sudden, I mean, for instance, a horse giving birth to a snake. It was never taken seriously by scientists and relegated to the dustpan of false ideas along with phrenology, luminiferous ether and geocentricism.

 

This demonstrates two things: (1) you’re perusing one too many creationist sites since no one else peddles these arguments than creationists and (2) you’re unable to address the multitude and independent lines of evidence supporting evolution theory, hence your ploy of attacking imaginary positions modern biologists don’t hold as a diversion.

 

 

Originally posted by 2+2=5:

2. You lied that according to fossil evidence, the floreansis looked more human to you. When I gave you drawings as proof, you mocked them and called me 'an ignorant child'. Then when you saw the fossils, you tried to back down by saying there is a possibility they were dwarfs.

First, Homo florensies is not a human ancestor, so comparing it to humans is meaningless exercise. I’ve explained this to you and of course, true to form, you’ve completely failed to acknowledge your error.

 

Second, Homo florensies does look like human to me and many other practicing scientists. In fact, the fossil specimens of Homo florensies was so human like when first discovered that many scientists thought it was dwarf human or Homo sapien sapien. So, how exactly did I lie?

 

More importantly, I provided a detailed elucidation of why your assertions that scientific approach of using fossils to establish descent is incorrect. I showed, in great detail and with plenty of evidence, how modern humans gradually evolved from Australopithecines using exactly the approach I first introduced. Any substantive response?

 

 

Originally posted by 2+2=5:

3. About evolutionary scientists who believe birds didn't evolve from dinosaurs. You initially said: "Rubbish. The consensus in the scientific community regarding birds is that they evolved from theropod dinosaurs." Later on you went on to say: "I meant what the overwhelming majority of scientists accept today. There will always be dissenting voices. That's given." And then accused me of name-dropping when I gave you the evidence.

You’re being redundant. I’ve already addressed this argument. I asked you: how does this argument help your case? How does it disprove Evolution Theory? You’re a creationist who believes God created everything but you keep providing scientists who disagree with you and believe in evolution. I also note the conspicuous absence of ANY refutation of the fossil evidence that demonstrates the evolution of birds from dinosaurs. How do you expect to be taken serious when you REFUSE to discuss the evidence?

 

The scientists you claim disagree with origin of birds all accept evolution of all living things from other living things. Science is open and tentative process. It is normal for scientists to debate the mode and tempo of evolution. That is within the purview of scientific discourse. Just because a minority of scientists believe birds didn’t descend from Dinosaurs (but from archasaurs) doesn’t mean Evolution Theory is false.

 

 

Originally posted by 2+2=5:

4. I asked you for the definition of evolution (to prove my point evolutionary theory isn't even in accordance with itself) and you gave me a description that completely conflicted Ernst Mayer's. Finding it hard to stomach, you accused me of "misconstruing others" and asked for proof. I gave you a quote from the book, you concluded Mayr is wrong. Then you said both of you were right because you agreed.

What an utter nonsense. Evolution Theory is completely in “accordance with itself,” whatever that means. Not only is it internally consistent but it is also absolutely consistent with the evidence of the natural world. This thread is 16 pages long and you still haven’t presented a SINGLE piece of evidence that discredits Evolution Theory. Not one! That speaks for itself.

 

Scientists’ debate over the mode and tempo of evolution is not evidence that Evolution Theory is false. You can only disprove Evolution Theory by providing contradictory evidence that is inconsistent with the theory’s core predictions and explanations. Can you do that?

 

And we both agree with each other. Ernst Mayr believes in Evolution Theory just like I and you don’t.

 

 

Originally posted by 2+2=5:

I had previously quoted Mayr: "[Evolution…] may lead to the production of a new species-individual in a single step." –‘What Evolution is’ 2001 page 174

Here is the actual quote in full: “"Evolution, being on the whole a population turnover, is ordinarily a gradual process, except for certain chromosomal processes that may lead to the production of a new species-individual in a single step." – Ernst Mayr ‘What Evolution is’ 2001 page 174”

 

 

Now, what do you think the above quote actually means? It surely can’t be a horse giving birth to a dog as per saltation theory and Mayr didn’t believe that. I like to hear from you first because I doubt whether you even understand half the quotes you furnished in this thread.

 

 

Originally posted by 2+2=5:

7. You made a claim that evolution does not proceed from less complex to more complex and as a proof said there are single celled organisms. When I asked you where single celled oranisms of today came from, you yelled straw man fallacy & now you claim I don't know the meaning of Abiogenesis.

Asking about how the first living organism came about in a debate regarding Evolution Theory is a dead give-away that you don’t know the first thing about the theory or you’re being mendacious. So asking about the origin of the living organism is a straw man argument.

 

 

Originally posted by 2+2=5:

This is a ****** answer. Guinea pigs can't synthesize vitamin C, we share a common ancestor with them too?

I have clearly overestimated both your intellect and your erudition. That you can’t even see how the inability of Guinea pigs to synthesize vitamin C substantiates Evolution Theory speaks volumes. Let me try this one more time but this time I’ll explain it very very slowly.

 

We know from Evolution Theory that humans and other higher primates are closely related. We also know that all higher primates including humans can’t synthesize vitamin C because they lack the enzyme that converts glucose into vitamin C. Any good scientific theory must be able to make testable (falsifiable) predictions.

 

Using Evolution Theory we make a testable prediction. If humans and other primates descended from a common ancestor and their ancestors had the capacity to produce vitamin C but they themselves have subsequently lost it, then we should find vestigial evidence in their DNA. This would indicate a common ancestor since the probability of the independent appearance of the non-functional gene in ALL primates is virtually zero.

 

Scientists tested this prediction and have found the gene that coded for the enzyme that converted glucose into vitamin C has become inactive; in other words, it is a pseudogene now. When the gene was mapped – the entire nucleotide sequence was determined – it was compared to same gene in other animals (cows, mouse, dogs etc). Doing this comparison allowed scientists to determine the exact location of the mutation. But scientists have also discovered another confirmation of the descent of man from ape-like ancestors; the gene sequences of humans and chimp resembled each other the most followed by orangutans and other primates as required by primate phylogenetic tree.

 

What about the Guinea pig? Guinea pigs are not closely related to humans. Given this and in line with what has been discussed above, we should be able to find two things. One, the location of the mutation should be different which will demonstrate the mutation was inherited from two different ancestors. Two, the gene sequence should show distant relationship between guinea pigs and humans. When scientists tried to test these predictions they found that mutation occurred at a different location on the guinea pig pseudogene than primates. Moreover, the psuedogene sequence of guinea pig showed distant relationship to primates but close relationship to other rodents.

 

This illustrates the explanatory power of Evolution Theory. It is able to explain facts and mysteries of the living world to a degree that no other theory can. Quranic theory of Special Creation has absolutely no explanation for these findings.

 

If what I've written isn't helpful, watch this short video:

 

 

Originally posted by 2+2=5:

Again, back to my point (which, if you knew anything about, you would understand), have you or have you not heard of pseudogenes? Do you understand the reason for my asking this question? Of course you don't.

Go ahead and tell me what you think psudogenes are. And I don’t understand your reason at all.

 

 

Originally posted by 2+2=5:

What I was talking about was that humans and chimps' "98%" claim is in fact BASED ON PROTEIN CODING REGIONS which compromise 1.5% OF THE TWO GENOMES. The more area will be covered in the future, the more the number will change (and possibly dramatically drop). Therefore 98% genome similarity is misleading, a half-truth, if you will.

If this is what you actually believe than you’re terrible way off base. The 98% figure comes from a comparison of the whole genome. That is a letter-for-letter (AGCT…) of the whole chimp and human genome… all 3.2 or so billion base pairs of it. And the actual figure is over 98%. Here is a study that goes into detail about the whole topic and more:

 

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7055/full/nature04072.html

 

Main finding of the paper: “Single-nucleotide substitutions occur at a mean rate of 1.23% between copies of the human and chimpanzee genome, with 1.06% or less corresponding to fixed divergence between the species.”

 

In other words, their DNA is 98.94% identical.

 

This result is based on: “We explored changes at the level of single nucleotides, small insertions and deletions, interspersed repeats and chromosomal rearrangements…. We calculate the genome-wide nucleotide divergence between human and chimpanzee to be 1.23%, confirming recent results from more limited studies12, 33, 34. The differences between one copy of the human genome and one copy of the chimpanzee genome include both the sites of fixed divergence between the species and some polymorphic sites within each species. By correcting for the estimated coalescence times in the human and chimpanzee populations (see Supplementary Information 'Genome evolution'), we estimate that polymorphism accounts for 14–22% of the observed divergence rate and thus that the fixed divergence is 1.06% or less.”

 

 

Originally posted by 2+2=5:

This is a matter of opinion. Unless you were there to witness the fusion

Sorry to burst your bubble but facts are facts, not opinions. Other primates have chromosomes 2 A and B. Our chromosome 2 is the fusion of those two.

 

 

Originally posted by 2+2=5:

The answer is more miscarriages. Now how could this new, changed chromosome have taken over the entire population and become what is most common in people, when it's carriers were at disadvantage due to fertility problems?

This is a complete waste of my time. None of this has anything to do with the human chromosome 2. It is a telomere-telomere fusion as evidenced by the inactive telomeres in the middle of chromosome 2. Robertsonian translocation is centromere-centromere fusion. Had you actually bothered to consider the evidence – by the renowned biologist Ken Miller, who also happens to be the author of a lot of HS/University Biology textbooks – you wouldn’t be wasting your time or mine. Every time I present evidence for evolution your first reaction is to change the topic or ask inane questions as opposed to actually addressing the evidence.

 

 

 

 

Originally posted by 2+2=5:

Because you brought up "comparative anatomy". Knee is not part of the anatomy? And now my question are getting more and more bizarre? You are a clown.

Of course the knee can be part of any comparative anatomy between chimps and humans. But you were asking me why chimps and humans don’t have similar knees, weren’t you? If that is the case, then your question is a weird one. Humans are bipedal and chimps are quadrupedal. Why would you expect their knees to be similar?

 

 

Originally posted by 2+2=5:

Goes on to show how much you know, (yet) again. So according to you, there are known intermediate mechanisms between a simple pivot hinge and a four-bar mechanism?

The evolution of human knee (and other body parts) was gradual, incremental process… this evolution is observed both in the fossil evidence as well as modern animals starting with amphibians with their simple knee joints all the way to humans.

 

 

Originally posted by 2+2=5:

This is tiresome. Fossil findings show there have been other creatures roaming on Earth.

They say ignorance is bliss. Fossils tell us more than whether creatures once roamed the earth. They tell us whether Quranic global flood ever occurred and whether the Quranic creation story is true at all; fossils provide evidence for the evolution of living things and more importantly, the fossil record allows us to test predictions made by Evolution Theory AND Theory of Special Creation.

 

It is self-serving for you to belittle the significance of fossils because you’ve been unable to refute the plethora of fossil evidences provided for the evolution of bird from dinosaurs and humans from ape-like ancestors.

 

 

Originally posted by 2+2=5:

After your request for

example of variation within a kind

, this is what you had to say: "These are dog breeds not different species. Species have exact scientific definition(s)."

 

And you really wonder why I can't be bothered with you? You are incapable of keeping up with what's being talked about.

Excuse me? What are you babbling about? I initially wrote this: “In labs we've observed evolution -- under controlled conditions (therefore, reproducible!) -- taking place with yeasts, bacteria and drosophila flies. In fact, scientists have repeatedly tested the core postulates of Evolution Theory in labs. In nature, we've observed evolution taking place with peppered English moth and other species.”

 

To which you replied: “You're confusing terms here. Those claimed examples of ‘evolution-in-action’ are actually examples of variation within a kind; antibiotic resistance, insecticide resistance, even the peppered moths you mentioned…”

 

I then asked you to explain what you mean by “variation within kind” and your reply was dog breeds. And you accuse me of not knowing what I’m talking about? I let the readers be the judge.

 

In science, there is no such thing as “variation within kind.” It is not a scientific classification system. Species have scientific definition(s) and binomial or trinomial naming system (genus species or genus species subspecies). That definition subsume breeds.

 

All domesticated dogs are subspecies of the gray wolf (Canis lupis) and belong to Canis lupis familiaris. And the irony is that dogs EVOLVED from wolfs after human domestication some 12-15k years ago. You adduced dog breeds as evidence against evolution when in fact they're demonstration of evolution at work. Quite ironic!

 

My earlier suggestion that you start reading real science books and stop reading creationist sites still stands.

 

 

Originally posted by 2+2=5:

"What he said in the last part of your quote is perfectly consistent with Evolution because every time there is a new species, genetic information is reduced."

 

You are a troll. All this time you have been arguing mutations add information, just so you can retreat from your original point

Speciation reduces genetic diversity but mutation replenishes the gene pool. That is exactly what I’ve been saying all along.

 

Any time speciation occurs where a part of the larger population becomes reproductively isolated from the main group, the newly speciated group takes away (reduces) the genetic diversity of the main group. But overtime mutations restore genetic diversity in the main group.

 

Do you have substantive response to this?

 

 

Originally posted by 2+2=5:

I never said so. I only said so of some of the errors that slip through the DNA repair mechanism; that they are detrimental.

You don’t know what you said because you don’t know most of what you write. You regurgitate creationists’ talking points with tenuous grasp of what they’re actually saying. The quote you provided shows that you did say most mutations are harmful.

 

Here is the first two sentences “Yes, some errors slip through and it affects the information it encodes. They are mostly detrimental; mutations are responsible for thousands of inherited diseases and diseases such as cancer.”

 

Since errors=mutations, what does “they are mostly detrimental” mean?

 

 

Originally posted by 2+2=5:

You have the attention span and the logical ability of a 3 year old child.

You’re projecting.

 

 

Originally posted by 2+2=5:

If life started from single cell organism, and mutation is a decrease in "true information content" (although "making it genetically more diverse") how could this result in more... anything? Logically speaking.

Mutation is increase in genetic diversity. Each one of us has over 100 new mutations that we didn’t inherit from our parents. Most of these are neutral and only add to genetic diversity.

 

 

Originally posted by 2+2=5:

"And Allah isn't competent enough to create a single, unambiguous book that could convince that vast majority of humanity of his instructions and existence"

 

It is not that God is incompetent to do that. It is that if He did it, there would be no need for faith.

But God did send countless revelations and over 100,000 prophets. He even restarted the creation project by wiping the slate clean with the global flood. But if the world ends today and Islam is true, most people would end up in hell. It seems the whole purpose behind God’s creation was to populate hell with as many people as possible.

 

 

Originally posted by 2+2=5:

Again, free will. They were free to choose to obey God or not. But you have to remember that God had prepared Earth for them even before they did. It was predetermined that we would live on Earth.

There is no such thing as free will in Islam. Free will doesn’t exist in a world presided over by omniscient creator.

 

Both the Quran and Ahadith affirm this. Before God created you He knew of your ultimate destiny (hell or heaven). When you grow up, nothing you do will change God’s foreknowledge because that would violate God’s omniscient attribute. Thus, there is no free will in Islam. Mohamed says as much in a couple of hadiths. I can post them if you like.

 

 

Originally posted by 2+2=5:

Why shouldn't other people be just as free to corrupt what they see fit?

Nothing happens without Allah’s will. So if His books were corrupted it is because he willed it. That rigs the salvation test for every body that had to rely on corrupted revelations.

 

 

Originally posted by 2+2=5:

If you look around, how many of humanity are kind-hearted, polite, well-meaning and loving? Very few.

Actually most humans are empathetic. It is the source of human morality.

[Castro]

I love this thread. Not for all the back and forth or the "scientific" balderdash it contains but for its elegant demonstration that without our egos, we could never take a severe and unambiguous licking yet keep coming back for more.

 

LOL.

[Raamsade]

^Exactly! Muslim creationists have been given a resounding trashing in this thread. And yet they keep coming back for more which leads me to believe that there is more at play than mere ego. There is clear signs of masochism. I know religious people are into pain and suffering as atonement for sins or what have you but this is something else.

 

While still on the topic of Evolution, there is another (what a surprise again!) fossil discovery.

 

 

Footprints show tetrapods walked on land 18m years earlier than thought

 

Fossil footprints in an old quarry lead to a radical rethink of the evolution of the first four-legged animals or 'tetrapods'

 

The oldest footprints ever made by four-legged creatures have been discovered by scientists, forcing them to reconsider a critical period in evolution: the point at which fish crawled out of the water onto land to evolve into reptiles, mammals and eventually humans.

 

The "hand" and "foot" prints are 18m years older than the earliest, previously confirmed fossil remains of "tetrapods" or four-legged vertebrates and were left by lizard-like creatures up to 2.5 metres long.

 

The discovery, reported in tomorrow's issue of the journal Nature, was made in a former quarry in the Holy Cross Mountains in south-eastern Poland. The fossil footprints can be reliably dated to the early Middle Devonian period, around 395 million years ago.

 

Philippe Janvier of the Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle in Paris said the finding was as significant as "the first footprint of Neil Armstrong on the moon" and described its effect as akin to "lobbing a grenade" into the previous consensus of when the shift from water to land occurred.

 

Until now, experts had believed that the earliest tetrapod fossils, traced to about 375 million years ago, had split from their fishy ancestors a few million years earlier and then gone on to conquer the land.

 

"These prints push back the divergence of fish and four-legged vertebrates by almost 20 million years," said Janvier. "The evolutionary tree as we consider it now remains the same, but the timing of the tree changes."

 

Tetrapods are thought to have evolved from a family of fish known as elpistostegids, which had a similar body and head shape to tetrapods, but paired fins rather than four feet.

 

However, the footprint tracks are 10 million years older than the oldest elpistostegid body fossils. They suggest that the fossil elpistostegids were late-surviving relics rather than transitional forms.

 

Janvier, who said he is convinced that no animal other than an "elusive tetrapod" could have left such imprints, said: "It's really the first evidence we have of an animal with legs and digits walking on land at that time."

 

The paper's co-author, Professor Per Ahlberg from Uppsala University in Sweden, describes several tracks of different sizes and characteristics as well as a number of isolated prints around 15cm wide. There are distinct "hand" and "foot" prints, with no evidence of a dragging body or tail, because the animals' body weight would have been partly supported by water.

 

Ahlberg and his co-authors, mainly from the Polish Geological Institute in Warsaw, say their findings highlight how little we know of the earliest history of land vertebrates. They write that the prints "force a radical reassessment of the timing, ecology and environmental setting of the fish-tetrapod transition, as well as the completeness of the body fossil record".

 

The prints will further "shake up" scientific thinking over human origins, said Janvier, because they show tetrapods thrived in the sea, which is at odds with the long-held view that river deltas and lakes were the necessary environment for the transition from water to land during vertebrate evolution.

 

"The closest elpistostegids were probably contemporaneous with these tracks," he said. "We now have to invent a common ancestor to the tetrapods and elpistostegids."

 

Jenny Clark, a palaeontologist at Cambridge University, echoed Janvier's belief that the findings would force scientists to re-examine their beliefs about the timing of the transition to land. "It blows the whole story out of the water, so to speak," she said.

 

Clark added that it may also give pause for thought over what drove fish from water to land in the first place. Some theorised that tetrapods originally went ashore to lay their eggs out of reach of aquatic predators, or that their ancestors grew legs to scurry from pool to pool. She had favoured the notion that fish emerged from oxygen-deprived waters in order, quite literally, to catch their breath.

 

None of those theories was supported by the Polish find, she said.

 

source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/jan/06/footprints-tetrapods-walked