Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


Qur'anic studies today
Today at 10:07 AM

NayaPakistan...New Pakist...
Yesterday at 06:58 PM

Kashmir endgame
Yesterday at 02:15 PM

Blasphemy Case of Junaid...
Yesterday at 12:57 PM

The Cult of Social Justic...
September 18, 2019, 03:50 PM

The Battle for British Is...
September 17, 2019, 06:28 PM

Muslim heritage?
September 17, 2019, 06:04 PM

Scientists and .............
by akay
September 17, 2019, 06:22 AM

مدهش----- لماذا؟؟؟؟
by akay
September 16, 2019, 04:53 PM

Freely down loadable Boo...
September 16, 2019, 10:07 AM

Islamic Humanism
September 15, 2019, 12:01 PM

Beard outbreak in Uzbekis...
September 15, 2019, 09:22 AM

Theme Changer

 Topic: TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran

 (Read 42766 times)
  • 12 3 ... 12 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     OP - July 10, 2010, 07:52 AM

    I'd like to suggest that we both present what we feel is the strongest argument.  This way if our strongest argument is debunked then there is no point in bringing up another argument on account that it would be weaker.

    So, I shall start.

    1: Evolution is an observed fact - google it.
    2: Evolution through natural selection is the scientific theory that says how natural selection guides the fact of evolution to create different (but similar) species.

    The evidence I feel is strongest for evolution through natural selection (hereinafter written as "evolution+ns") is that of endogenous retroviruses.

    A retro virus invades a cell.  It then snips the DNA within the cell and inserts a copy of its own DNA.  When the cell is replicated its DNA is processed in order to create the relevant proteins, during this process the RV's DNA is processed and a copy of the RV made which then goes off and invades another cell.  This means that the DNA copy within that cell is permanently altered.  Each cell of our bodies contains a copy of our entire DNA.  The DNA within the single cell is altered, not our entire DNA.

    If the invaded cell is either an egg or a sperm then the life which results from a fertilisation of that egg or sperm will have their entire DNA based on the DNA with the RV DNA insertion.  Once the RV is passed on via DNA it becomes an endogenous retro virus (ERV.)  An RV inserts itself at a random place within the genome.  The human genome is approximately 3.4 billion in length.  Seeing two people with the same virus injected into the same part of their DNA shows that they inherited that DNA mutation from a common ancestor.

    When we examine the human genome and the genome of chimps (which have a DNA length of approx 3 billion base pairs) we see that there are 7 instances of ERVs in common with humans.  Not only are these the same virus in each case but they are also in exactly the same location within the genome.  The chances of two independent creatures (with a shortest genome of 3 billion base pairs) getting the same infection at the same place 7 times is 1 in (3 billion to the power of 7.)

    Then you have to factor in how many different RVs could have infected this location and account for the fact that in each of these 7 instances it is the same RV.

    Also, based on the length of a DNA and the average number of mutations observed per generation + the average life expectancy of the species it is possible to count the number of mutations within the virus DNA and get an approximate period of time at which the infection took place.  In each of the 7 instances the number of mutations corroborated that the infection took place at the same time in both chimps and humans.

    So, the probability of 2 different species getting infected in the same place is
    1 in 0.2187E+67 (2187 with 63 zeros after it)

    Which alone is a fantastically small probability.  Then factor in it being the same virus AND going endogenous AND happening at the same time and you end up with a number so unbelievably small that it just isn't going to happen.

    But that's not all!

    Not only are there 7 in common with chimps there are a number of ERVs which (chimps + humans) share with Apes.  Showing that a common ancestor with an ERV DNA mutation split into two species, which would later become Apes and the ancestor of Humans/Chimps.  In fact if we look at the genomes of the various species on Earth today we observe this ERV phenomenon all over the place.

    ERV in mammals also seen in
    Apes, which have additional ERVs also seen in
    Chimps, which have additional ERVs also seen in
    Humans

    It's the same for species of birds and reptiles too, with some ERVs being present in all reptiles for example, and then additional ones existing only in more closely related species of reptile.  The same in other mammals too, where cats will share the same ERVs as other mammals but not the same ones as Apes, but more amongst the various cat species.

    In short, the ERV observations corroborate the evolutionary tree of life (humans + chimps from a common ancestor, that ancestor from a common ancestor with apes.........from a common ancestor of mammals.)

    As you can see the evidence from ERVs in humans/chimps alone is incredible.  Then add in all the other species and it is fantastically incredible.  Also take into account that this is not DNA that was "put in from the start as part of some clever design" these are viral infections which mutated the species' DNA at various points after life had started.

    How do we know these are retroviruses?

    DNA is made of the nucleotides A,T,G, and C.  The other side of the helix is predictable because they always pair up like so

    A to T
    G to C
    (and complimentary to above)
    T to A
    C to G

    So let's take some imaginary DNA

    ATG CAT GCA TGC AAA ATG CAT GCA TGC
    TAC GTA CGT ACG TTT TAC GTA CGT ACG

    One side of the helix is at the top, the other complimentary side is beneath it.  I have separated them into 3's to make it easier to read.

    When an RV cuts the host DNA is does not cut a straight line, what it does is to cut one side of the helix at position X, and the opposite side at X+Y.  So in a case where Y=3 what you'd get after a cut is this

    ATG CAT GCA TGC AAA snip ATG CAT GCA TGC
    TAC GTA CGT ACG snip TTT TAC GTA CGT ACG

    And then with the RV's DNA inserted...

    ATG CAT GCA TGC AAA --- --- --- --- --- ??? ATG CAT GCA TGC
    TAC GTA CGT ACG ???  --- --- --- --- --- TTT TAC GTA CGT ACG

    The "???" denotes a gap in one side of the helix due to the cut  and "---" the virus DNA.  The virus then inserts its own DNA at the staggered cut position.  Now when the body processes this DNA to duplicate the cell look what happens.  The ??? gaps in the DNA are filled in by the body with their complimentary nucleotide

    In the top cut position the TTT below is complimented by AAA at the top.
    In the bottom cut position the AAA above is complimented by TTT at the bottom.

    (Note that I only used AAA TTT to make it easier to spot, the RV injects its DNA at a random place and could therefore work on any combination of ATGC.)

    So you see we end up with a duplicate sequence of 3 nucleotides.  If I exclude the virus DNA from the pattern you will see this

    Before
    ATG CAT GCA TGC AAA ATG CAT GCA TGC
    TAC GTA CGT ACG TTT TAC GTA CGT ACG

    After
    ATG CAT GCA TGC AAA AAA ATG CAT GCA TGC
    TAC GTA CGT ACG TTT  TTT TAC GTA CGT ACG

    Note the duplicate AAA and complementary TTT.

    So to identify an ERV we first look for duplicate base pairs and then compare the DNA between them with the DNA of known retroviruses.

    So we know
    1: The mutation is due to an RV infection.
    2: The mutation went endogenous.
    3: Approximately when the RV went endogenous.
    4: The mutation was passed onto descendants.
    5: The descendants diverged into separate and distinct species.


    So either all species evolved from other ancestor species (including humans) or a divine creator first created all life, reused DNA patterns (because they worked?), and then for some unknown reason came back multiple times over a span of millions of years and altered the DNA of groups of species with retro virus DNA at the same time in order to make it look as though they had all inherited an ERV DNA mutation from a common ancestor.

    This is just ONE piece of evidence supporting evolution+ns.  I look forward to seeing your rebuttal of these independently observed facts (which ANYONE in the world can assess for themselves), and to see an argument for the origin of the Quran with equally compelling facts...


    TR

    I don't come here any more due to unfair moderation.
    http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=30785
  • Re: TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #1 - July 10, 2010, 12:40 PM

    Comments thread.

    German ex-Muslim forumMy YouTubeList of Ex-Muslims
    Wikis: en de fr ar tr
    CEMB-Chat
    I'm on an indefinite break...
  • Re: TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #2 - July 12, 2010, 11:33 PM

    4 He Who taught (the use of) the pen,-   
    5 Taught man that which he knew not.
    ~The Holy Qur'an 96:4-5

    Quote from:  
    All human languages have a very strange and most unexpected secret in common.  It is called Zipf’s Law, after the linguist George Zipf, who discovered it in 1939.  He studied texts in many different languages and ranked the words in order of frequency.  What he found, which has since proved true whether the language is English or Inuit, Japanese or Xhosa, Arabic or Urdu, is that a direct, exact, unvarying and utterly counter-intuitive mathematical relationship exists between the rank of a word and the actual frequency of occurrence of that word.  No matter which text he selected, when Zipf created a histogram that plotted word frequency against word rank, the surprising result was a straight line “with a slope of -1 for every human language.”

    In order to grasp the general principle here, imagine a book of any given number of words, 60,000, or 114,000, or any number, it doesn’t matter.  If the most common word in the book – i.e. the word with the rank of one – appears 10,000 times, then you can be certain that the tenth most common word (i.e. ranked ten) will appear 1,000 times and the one hundredth most common word will appear just 100 times.  The numbers will vary, obviously, from text to text dependent on overall length, but the exact mathematical proportions between rank and frequency will always turn out to be the same in any human language at any time.  This, in a nutshell, is Zipf’s Law.

    Now here is the even stranger thing.  In the mid-1990s, researchers from Boston University and Harvard Medical School examined 37 DNA sequences containing at least 50,000 base pairs each, as well as two shorter sequences and one with 2.2 million base pairs.  Where possible, they evaluated both coding and non-coding regions.  They noticed that distinct patterns of three, four, five, six, seven, and eight base pairs – comparable to individual “words” – existed in all the sequences.  This led them to apply two standard linguistic tests to the material.  One of these was Zipf’s test, and following Zipf’s own method, the DNA “words’ were ranked in order of frequency, and a histogram plotting the rank of each word against the actual number of times that it appeared in each “text” was drawn up.

    In every case where coding regions were evaluated, they turned out not to obey Zipf’s law.  This is precisely as one would expect, since the coding regions are just codes, not languages – and are better thought of as templates for the construction of particular proteins.  “The coding part has no grammar,” explains lead researcher Eugene Stanley.  “Each triplet [of bases] corresponds to an amino acid [in a protein].  There’s no higher structure to it.”

    So far so predictable, and so reassuring.  Of course our DNA doesn’t contain intelligent messages and isn’t trying to communicate them to us in a language!  If it did, all the basic principles of modern evolutionary science would be turned head over heels!  Still, what happened next was most unexpected – “really remarkable,” in Eugene Stanley’s appraisal: “There’s no rhyme or reason why that should be true.”  This really remarkable and totally unexpected discovery was that in every case where non-coding regions of DNA had been evaluated, they turned out to demonstrate a perfect Zipf Law linear plot.  If these DNA sequences had been books filled with pages of indecipherable printed letters, then this result would oblige us to conclude that the letters were not random alphabet soup but words in an organized language.  Stanley didn’t shy away from the implications of this.  In his opinion, the non-coding DNA sequences do contain “a structured language fundamentally unlike the coding in genes.”  Even though it doesn’t code for proteins, we therefore need to consider the possibility that “the ‘junk’ DNA may carry some kind of message.”

    Such a daring proposition receives further support from the second linguistic test that the team also applied to the DNA sequences.  Developed in the 1950s by information theorist Claude Shannon, this test distinguishes texts written in true languages from texts written in alphabet soup by quantifying the “redundancy” of any string of characters.  The test works, and is universal, because “languages are redundant sequences… You can fill in a typographical error by noting nearby characters.  A random sequence, in contrast, has no redundancy.”

    Again, when the test was applied to coding regions of the DNA, these were shown not to have the properties of a human language – as we would predict.  The genetic code is not, and cannot be, a redundant sequence in which errors can be corrected with reference to the general context; on the contrary, geneticists are well aware that even a single mistake involving a single base pair on a single gene can scramble the code and produce catastrophic abnormalities.  By contrast, the researchers found that the non-coding sections of DNA “revealed a surprising amount of redundancy – another sign that something was written in these mysterious stretches.”

    In short, these completely unexpected discoveries allow us to contemplate something astonishing.  The chemical “writing” on so-called junk DNA may not only possess “all the features of a language,” but in fact may be a language like any human language; “some kind of message” might be written on these ultra-conserved sequences of code that occupy up to 97 per cent of our DNA but have no known function.  When contacted in June 2005 to ask if he still stood by his electrifying 1994 findings, or if they had subsequently been refuted, Professor Eugene Stanley at Boston University said, “You bet I stand by them!  Nothing has been refuted.”   It is difficult to see how the accidental processes of chemistry alone could have produced the intense language-like organization embedded in the so-called junk sequences.  But if it really is some kind of message, rather than a freak of chance and nature that just looks like a message, then who, or what, might have written it?

    Science, vol. 266, November 25, 1994, p. 1320

    “’Junk’ throws up precious secret,” BBC News Online Science Staff, May 12, 2004: http://news.bbc.co.uk./2/hi/science/nature/3703935.stm

    Supernatural by G. Hancock


  • Re: TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #3 - July 13, 2010, 05:46 AM

    I originally had a long post about coding/non protein coding DNA here but on the way to dropping my son off at school I thought of a far more simple argument.

    Considering evolution is based on information duplication why would you expect to NOT find patterns?  And my second question, if this pattern were a secret message from God as the original post implies then why not put the message only in humans, why put it in all other life (such as cabbages) and make it look as though it is simply a naturally occurring process of information duplication?

    If you wish to disprove evolution go and dig up the fossil of a human in the pre-Cambrian era.  Or a bunny, or some other mammal - that would disprove evolution outright.  Funny how there are so many well funded creationists in the world and yet so few (if any) are digging for pre-Cambrian bunny rabbits isn't it?  Do you not wonder why they are not looking for such fossils?  It's because they know it is a waste of time, rabbits had not yet evolved!




    As for language it is possible to trace languages just like it is DNA.  I don't recall the name of the study but I read about it in a book called "The Language of the Genes".  It was possible to identify derivatives of languages such as accents, an extension of that being some regions using different/new words, all the way up to completely different languages.  The study examined languages for similarities and by analysing the closest related and mapping them to geographic locations guess what it showed?  It showed a pattern of human movement throughout the world over time, as if we had spread out to populate the planet, so it proves neither evolution or the Quran which both suggest human migration.  What it does show however is that it is not the case that some God one day at the tower of Babel suddenly made us all speak different languages (or whatever it is you are suggesting - you didn't actually make a point.)

    These languages influenced each other over time (such as in English speaking countries where they use the odd French word such as "Restaurant").  So overall one would expect languages to have similarities in them and also most common words such as

    One, Happy, Sad, Sun, etc.


    So, now that I have dispelled the "Too coincidental to be true" approach of your copy/paste reply how about you word a reply of your own and address the point I actually raised about endogenous retro viruses?

    How is it that we observe so many retro virus DNA mutations in our DNA which share the same locus (gene location) and the same viral infection as chimps.  How come there is a subset which we both share with apes?

    I look forward to your reply.

    I don't come here any more due to unfair moderation.
    http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=30785
  • Re: TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #4 - August 13, 2010, 03:12 PM

    I'd like to suggest that we both present what we feel is the strongest argument.  This way if our strongest argument is debunked...


    lol

    I'll play but this feels very subjective.

    ...then there is no point in bringing up another argument on account that it would be weaker.


    We can never talk about anything ever again?  Or just in THIS thread?

    1: Evolution is an observed fact - google it.


    Well, it's certainly an observed argument about the facts.

    2: Evolution through natural selection is the scientific theory that says how natural selection guides the fact of evolution to create different (but similar) species.


    You are arguing for "natural selection as an aspect of Evolution" and not for Evolution itself?  So the strength of your argument is that, because children (of whatever species) inherent certain traits from their parents, and their environment may favor those particular traits, that proves that Evolution is what it claims to be?

    The evidence I feel is strongest for evolution through natural selection (hereinafter written as "evolution+ns") is that of endogenous retroviruses.


    Wikipedia - "ERVs are activated and produced in high quantities during the implantation of the embryo. They are currently known to possess immunosuppressive properties, suggesting a role in gestational immune tolerance, protecting the embryo from its mother's immune system."

    Because of this concept I'm inclined to think that the presence of the retroviruses has little to do with the Evolutionary origins of life on earth, and is more of simply an aspect of Life as we know it... still mysterious as scientists attempt to crack the code using their horse blinders/one-trick-pony method of believing evolution is true and therefore refusing to look in any other direction for the origins of life.  I've been disinclined to take it seriously once I discovered that Darwin's grandfather first cobbled together the theory from Masonic mysticsm that the scientific community latched onto, apparently because most of them were Freemasons.   Natural selection results in things like diiferent breeds of cat, or even the psychic trait that enabled the line of prophets to communicate with God,  but it seems a ridiculous leap to think it means that it resulted in the darwinian concept of evolution of life.

  • Re: TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #5 - August 13, 2010, 03:27 PM

    Considering evolution is based on information duplication why would you expect to NOT find patterns?


    It's not me, dude.  It's the scientists of a major university.  And it is very specific type of patterns that is what is causing the amazement.

    And my second question, if this pattern were a secret message from God as the original post implies then why not put the message only in humans, why put it in all other life (such as cabbages) and make it look as though it is simply a naturally occurring process of information duplication?


    Aren't you jumping the gun with this question?  Let's wait to see what it says first.

    If you wish to disprove evolution go and dig up the fossil of a human in the pre-Cambrian era.  Or a bunny, or some other mammal - that would disprove evolution outright.  Funny how there are so many well funded creationists in the world and yet so few (if any) are digging for pre-Cambrian bunny rabbits isn't it?  Do you not wonder why they are not looking for such fossils?  It's because they know it is a waste of time, rabbits had not yet evolved!


    The book Forbidden Archeology is full of EXACTLY those kinds of anomalies that mainstream, pro-Evolution scientists hate to think about.  But, of course, instead of forcing themselves to confront the anomalies, they instead attack the author.

    (or whatever it is you are suggesting - you didn't actually make a point.)


    Oh, sorry.  My point is that 1.) God said He taught us the use of the pen and 2.) there is a "language" hidden in our cells.  

    It's possible that this is the means that God communicates "inspiration" to us.

    These languages influenced each other over time (such as in English speaking countries where they use the odd French word such as "Restaurant").  So overall one would expect languages to have similarities in them and also most common words such as

    One, Happy, Sad, Sun, etc.


    So, now that I have dispelled the "Too coincidental to be true" approach of your copy/paste reply...


    Wait.  That's not what the article was about.  It didn't mean that we should be amazed at what patterns are in our languages, but that we should be amazed that the so-called junk DNA is actually a hidden message coded into our cells.  THAT'S the awesome part.  That kicks Carl Sagan's fictional "message hidden in pi" concept in the @ss as far as scientific proof from God.

    How is it that we observe so many retro virus DNA mutations in our DNA which share the same locus (gene location) and the same viral infection as chimps.  How come there is a subset which we both share with apes?


    That means very little considering the is also a limited pallet of minerals and elements that make up all life (and non-life) in the universe too.  It points only to the the Supreme Creator using His prefered materials in making His creation.

  • Re: TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #6 - August 13, 2010, 04:24 PM

    lol

    I'll play but this feels very subjective.


    The purpose of this constraint is to avoid an argument like this

    You: This is my argument, how could Muhammad have known xyz.
    Me: This is how....
    You: (Completely ignore that I disproved your point) So how did we all get here then?

    That kind of discussion would just be annoying.


    We can never talk about anything ever again?  Or just in THIS thread?


    We should at least agree to change before changing.


    Well, it's certainly an observed argument about the facts.


    Evolution itself is an observed phenomenon.  Animals developing a new section in their digestive system when introduced to a new island with less meat and more vegetation.  Nylonase developing the ability to consume Nylon, and many observed instances of speciation too.   Not only do we observe it, but in an e-coli experiment scientists observed not only e-coli evolving a new ability to consume citrus but it was a multi-step evolutionary process; and because the scientists froze all of their samples each day we can revive older generations and repeatedly observe this mutation occur.

    So not only is it observed, it is reproducible.  Evolution is a fact.



    You are arguing for "natural selection as an aspect of Evolution" and not for Evolution itself?


    I am arguing that humans share a common ancestor with chimps, bonobos, and apes; something most Muslims won't accept because it is contrary to the Quran.  It's funny how it's only people who believe in divine creation that struggle to accept the facts of evolution, people of religions without a story about a god that created humans in their current form don't seem to share the same inability en masse.



    So the strength of your argument is that, because children (of whatever species) inherent certain traits from their parents, and their environment may favor those particular traits, that proves that Evolution is what it claims to be?


    No, I thought I made the strength of my argument clear.  Maybe you need to re-read it to refresh your memory?  Specific ERVs in the genomes of humans/chimps etc in the same position show that we inherited them from common ancestors.  I am not trying to explain to you how evolution works, I am showing you the proof that it has already worked and that humans and chimps are the result of a divergence of two species from a single common ancestor species.


    Wikipedia - "ERVs are activated and produced in high quantities during the implantation of the embryo. They are currently known to possess immunosuppressive properties, suggesting a role in gestational immune tolerance, protecting the embryo from its mother's immune system."


    You didn't read the whole page.  This is for Viviparous mammals only (mammals that have their young develop inside their body).  Reptiles and birds lay eggs and are neither viviparous or mammals.  These too show the same trait of commonly held ERVs which corroborate the evolutionary tree of life.

    You are also only quoting the observed behaviour of SOME ERVs and ignoring the opening sentence on the page

    "Endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) are retroviruses derived from ancient viral infections of germ cells in humans, mammals and other vertebrates; as such their proviruses are passed on to the next generation and now remain in the genome."

    The origin of the ERV is unquestionable, they originated as an infection in our ancestors.  I'm afraid you have simply quote mined that page and taken something out of its intended context - it doesn't mean what you want it to mean.


    Because of this concept I'm inclined to think that the presence of the retroviruses has little to do with the Evolutionary origins of life on earth, and is more of simply an aspect of Life as we know it... still mysterious as scientists attempt to crack the code using their horse blinders/one-trick-pony method of believing evolution is true and therefore refusing to look in any other direction for the origins of life.


    Here is some news for you.  There is no worldwide conspiracy amongst scientists to pretend god does not exist!

    These are all individual people, all with the ability to independently verify the findings and conclusions of others.  Any scientist who presented proof that evolution was untrue would win the Nobel prize and go down in history as the first person to disprove the world's most solid scientific theory ever that no scientist before them was able to disprove.  Does that sound like a conspiracy to you?


    I've been disinclined to take it seriously once I discovered that Darwin's grandfather first cobbled together the theory from Masonic mysticsm


    Even if that is true it has nothing to do with it.  The *scientific* theory is based on observed facts.  Whether Darwin's father was a Mason or a Satanist it would make no difference to the observed facts, his personal traits cannot affect reality.  Darwin was merely the first person to publish the idea.  The scientific theory of evolution through natural selection is FAR more than Darwin's initial findings, Darwin couldn't have dreamt of the evidence we now have!  So personal attacks on Darwin are futile, let's have some objective evidence instead please!




    Natural selection results in things like diiferent breeds of cat


    Yes, it results in cats which look different or might not even be able to breed.  Did you know that a lion and a tiger can produce fertile offspring even though they are found on different continents?

    Humans have bred pedigrees dog into all the different breeds you now see.  This period of time is NOTHING compared to how long life has existed on this planet. The variation that you see in dogs from over only the past 200 years fits into 3,600,000,000 years over 18 million times.  That's a LOT more evolution.

    Importantly though it not only makes the animals look different, they look different because their DNA has diverged.  Once two groups of the same species have their DNA diverge too much they can no longer mate with each other
    See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ensatina

    Once they cannot mate then they are on different evolutionary paths, because their individual mutations are not fed into each other's DNA pools.  They mutate separately, and become different things.  Over time they look different.




    or even the psychic trait that enabled the line of prophets to communicate with God,


    I don't think you really thought through the implications of your statement.  You are saying that these people could communicate with god because they had evolved brains, rather than because god spoke to them.  You are implying that god needed man to reach god, rather than god having the ability to reach anyone.

    You think that a human can evolve the ability to talk to god telepathically but a chimp can't grow a bigger brain and lose its hair?  Strange how you accept the more complicated case of evolution for which there is zero evidence whilst at the same time rejecting the more simple cases of evolution for which there is mountains of evidence.

    Don't you think you started to look at the evidence without caring what it points to, rather than being selective in what you look at because it contradicts something you WANT to be true?

    So, next steps:

    1: You still need to explain why humans + chimps have the same *inherited* ERV infections in our DNA.
    2: You are yet to present your best objective argument for why Islam is correct.

    I don't come here any more due to unfair moderation.
    http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=30785
  • Re: TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #7 - August 13, 2010, 04:42 PM

    It's not me, dude.  It's the scientists of a major university.  And it is very specific type of patterns that is what is causing the amazement.


    I didn't say you were making the claim.  I asked why you would expect to NOT see patterns in a system based on duplication and variation?  Please don't present someone else's argument if you don't understand it, because if you do when I tell you why it is a false claim the best you can do is an appeal to authority "It's not me..it's scientists at a major university".

    So if you respect the opinions of scientists at major universities how about you write to the biology department at every major university and ask a simple question "Do humans and chimps share a common ancestor?"

    The important thing is not who's opinion it is (Einstein didn't accept plate tectonics), the important thing is....What do the facts suggest is more probable?



    The book Forbidden Archeology is full of EXACTLY those kinds of anomalies that mainstream, pro-Evolution scientists hate to think about.  But, of course, instead of forcing themselves to confront the anomalies, they instead attack the author.


    They have fossil evidence of mammals in the pre-cambrian era?  I'll bet they don't!

    Scientists attack authors when they do not show due diligence, or when they are deliberately dishonest.  Show me this fossil evidence....Oh, and PLEASE don't tell me it's on HarunYahya.com Cheesy



    Oh, sorry.  My point is that 1.) God said He taught us the use of the pen and 2.) there is a "language" hidden in our cells.  


    So your claim is "there is a language hidden in our cells, but nobody actually knows what it is, so I can't demonstrate that it is a language".  DNA is a naturally occurring pattern, the pattern comes from duplication.  Evolution is based on duplication, you will see duplicates, you will see patterns.  That's the whole point!



    Wait.  That's not what the article was about.  It didn't mean that we should be amazed at what patterns are in our languages, but that we should be amazed that the so-called junk DNA is actually a hidden message coded into our cells.  THAT'S the awesome part.  That kicks Carl Sagan's fictional "message hidden in pi" concept in the @ss as far as scientific proof from God.


    The article was about how all languages are too similar for it to be a coincidence, which is not a surprise considering they all have a root.  It was also about how patterns in DNA occur so often that it looks like it was put there; it was, but by a natural phenomenon called duplication (as I keep harping on about.)

    There might be a microscopic giraffe in my bed.

    There might be a lot of things, but without proof that they are real, or at least sufficient evidence to make them very probable there is no basis to claim they are there, and certainly no reason to live your life as if they were proven facts.


    That means very little considering the is also a limited pallet of minerals and elements that make up all life (and non-life) in the universe too.  It points only to the the Supreme Creator using His prefered materials in making His creation.


    No, please re-read my initial post.  These are infections.  They arrived in the genome of a shared ancestor at some point in the past.  For your argument to be true god would have either have had to

    1: Create all life, let it exist for a long time, and then go back and insert a retrovirus DNA into the same position of different species' genomes; making it look like we had inherited it from a common ancestor...or
    2: Create all life from the beginning where different species have the same chunk of DNA in the same position, and then from that subset of DNA made viruses which infect people and may become endogenous; again making it look as though we inherited it.

    The facts are
    1: This DNA is from a retro virus infection.
    2: It is prevalent due to inheritance from ancestors.

    So now you have to ask which is most likely?
    A: It is there because what we observe in nature today has been going on for a very long time.
    B: Some supernatural being created us all and fabricated all this evidence to make it look like option "A" is true.

    What do you think?

    I don't come here any more due to unfair moderation.
    http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=30785
  • Re: TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #8 - October 07, 2010, 03:42 PM

    I suspect this rather one sided discussion has come to an end Smiley

    I don't come here any more due to unfair moderation.
    http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=30785
  • Re: TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #9 - October 07, 2010, 05:34 PM

    I declare Mr Rasheed the Victor  parrot

    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #10 - October 07, 2010, 09:00 PM

    I declare Mr Rasheed the Victor  parrot


    one-on-one....piss off out of it Smiley

    I don't come here any more due to unfair moderation.
    http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=30785
  • Re: TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #11 - October 08, 2010, 03:09 PM

    They are both lunatics. I call no-contest.
  • Re: TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #12 - September 15, 2011, 07:04 PM

    where has this rasheed bloked dissapeared ?
  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #13 - November 09, 2013, 02:18 PM

    I suspect this rather one sided discussion has come to an end Smiley


    Did you debunk my strongest argument?  God said He taught man the use of the pen + DNA having a language coded within it?

    Did you debunk that or talk around it?

  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #14 - November 09, 2013, 02:41 PM

    you are responding to a 3 year old comment.
    TheRationalizer was convinced by your brilliant arguments, and you will now find him on ummah.com.
  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #15 - November 22, 2013, 06:33 PM

    The Qur'aan talks about DNA now?  Cheesy  Cheesy
  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #16 - January 15, 2015, 09:52 AM

    I'd like to suggest that we both present what we feel is the strongest argument.


    Obviously my argument still stands, while your strongest argument consisted of "Google it." 

    I win.

  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #17 - January 15, 2015, 09:59 AM

    2: Evolution through natural selection is the scientific theory that says how natural selection guides the fact of evolution to create different (but similar) species.


    Let the record show that at no point ever has a new species been observed to form from the concept of natural selection.  After millions of fruit fruit breeding, after thousands of years of barnyard artificial selection, a brand new species has never been produced from a previous species.  The whole idea is upheld solely by blind faith in the hopes that one day a fact might emerge to support it in some way.   Your strongest argument is composed of blind faith.

    My argument (since this thread was created I actually have an even stronger argument, but we can ride this one out) in which God said He was the one that taught man that which he knew not, and we find that the so-called "junk DNA" has some kind of actual message hidden within it, is a potent one that you can only talk around, but are unable to actually shoot down or prove wrong.

  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #18 - January 15, 2015, 10:00 AM

    Hey MRasheed,  nice to see you. Hope you are keeping well  Smiley
  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #19 - January 15, 2015, 10:03 AM

    I'm well, I hope you are.  Smiley

  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #20 - January 15, 2015, 11:00 AM

    Some people can't think outside of the box. They will never understand that the "pattern/information" they see in nature is a characteristic of their mind or their perception of nature rather than nature itself.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhdUp4JOHwg

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hu3HqSB4Its
  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #21 - January 15, 2015, 11:04 AM

    My argument (since this thread was created I actually have an even stronger argument, but we can ride this one out) in which God said He was the one that taught man that which he knew not, and we find that the so-called "junk DNA" has some kind of actual message hidden within it, is a potent one that you can only talk around, but are unable to actually shoot down or prove wrong.


    Can you reference your claim please?


    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #22 - January 15, 2015, 11:29 AM

    I mean, it's not the maturest thing when you assert that we will only be able to "talk around" your argument, but you don't actually provide us with a source for your claim(s)?

    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #23 - January 15, 2015, 12:17 PM




    Thank you for your comment MRasheed. Please allow up to 1500 working days for a response.
  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #24 - January 15, 2015, 01:09 PM

    I look forward to resuming this discussion in 2020.

    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #25 - January 15, 2015, 01:47 PM

    I'm well, I hope you are.  Smiley


    I'm Good thanks  Afro  (btw in case you didn't know I am the poster that was formerly known here as Hassan  grin12  )
  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #26 - January 15, 2015, 01:59 PM

    Let the record show that at no point ever has a new species been observed to form from the concept of natural selection.  

     a brand new species has never been produced from an previous species.  

    There's quite a lot of debate among taxonomists as to what actually constitutes a species, as opposed to a sub-species or a variant.

    But do you really believe that all species are of equal age? Cycads are little changed since the Jurassic era; most other plants have evolved considerably and given birth to new species (plus sub-species and variants). Do you deny the fossil record?
  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #27 - January 15, 2015, 02:20 PM

    Obviously my argument still stands, while your strongest argument consisted of "Google it." 

    I win.

    Welcome back MRasheed,  Smiley
    We don't have many muslims active on the forum lately so it's good to see you around.
  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #28 - January 15, 2015, 03:14 PM

    Answer me a question because I'm interested in what you're saying. If speciation is observed (ie someone manages to breed animals until they have an undisputed new species), will your belief in god then end? Or will you move on to another argument?
  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #29 - January 15, 2015, 06:07 PM

    Speciation has been observed, Dogs are the best example. Speciation without human interference. It happened with flowers in Washington, called goatsbeard. It happening with Rhagoletis pomonella which started 150 years ago.

    Forbidden Archeology is not peer-reviewed nor did the writers submit any of the research. Beside the authors are not even archaeologist. One is a mathematician and the other is a nobody writer. Thus the books is not evidence of anything but wishful thinking and confirmation bias.

    The point about DNA has no merit since you are fitting a vast amount of science into a tiny verse. Post hoc rationalization only works for the believer and one lacking an education in biology.

    In reality MRasheed produced no arguments nor credible rebuttals.
  • 12 3 ... 12 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »