Wonderful video detailing macroevolution

[Jujuman]

 

[Burhan]

Ironic how one sets conditions for experiments in the lab to see results and to study them. By contrast, cells forming unions to become larger organs and then humans/animals need not require someone else to set them up and design how these complex creatures come into formation. They speak as if these cells guide themselves and tweak their chemistry along the way. And that absurd time gaps in the millions or billions of years where these processes come to fruition.

Pseudoscience at its best.

 

[Jujuman]

Ironic how one sets conditions for experiments in the lab to see results and to study them. By contrast, cells forming unions to become larger organs and then humans/animals need not require someone else to set them up and design how these complex creatures come into formation. They speak as if these cells guide themselves and tweak their chemistry along the way. And that absurd time gaps in the millions or billions of years where these processes come to fruition.

Pseudoscience at its best.

Highly ignorant for you to make that claim. If anything your claim of all mankind descending from 30m giants is absurd (when we know that we're not even the only species of human that existed.)

If anything your claim is pseudoscience, not theories which have supported by almost 150 years of peer reviewed evidence.

 

[The_Cosmos]

Ironic how one sets conditions for experiments in the lab to see results and to study them. By contrast, cells forming unions to become larger organs and then humans/animals need not require someone else to set them up and design how these complex creatures come into formation. They speak as if these cells guide themselves and tweak their chemistry along the way. And that absurd time gaps in the millions or billions of years where these processes come to fruition.

Pseudoscience at its best.

Evolution is a scientific fact, accepted by around 99% of scientists accept evolution and thus essentially you're claiming that they've accepted "pseudoscience" which is a massive claim for a non scientist to make. I'm not saying you should accept the consensus but it's just more to ponder when you already consider the thousands of evidence for evolution.

You're an ape, I'm an ape, my mothers an ape, your family and my family, every human family are apes! Accept the science instead of hogging onto 30 feet giants giving giving birth to the whole world because... magic!

 

[Burhan]

Highly ignorant for you to make that claim. If anything your claim of all mankind descending from 30m giants is absurd (when we know that we're not even the only species of human that existed.)

If anything your claim is pseudoscience, not theories which have supported by almost 150 years of peer reviewed evidence.

Claims can be made and touted as evidence when there is nothing to look at. And in real science that is not of monkey business, sometimes what is considered correct turns out to be wrong. Sometimes someone with genius level intelligence refuses to accept a working theory proven mathematically(in the case of Einstein who refused to consider quantum mechanics legitimate by saying God may be subtle but not malicious and God doesn't play dice). Such greats like him were proven wrong eventually with experiments that led to tangible results. So, I have read a little about science, peer reviews, disagreements over theories. Peer reviews and publishing a paper does not make a theory correct in of itself. Especially when Darwinian Evolution is concerned. It is so defunct only a bankrupt person buys into it. In watching the clip you posted, I saw deception and imaginary tale of how things ought to be in line with the theory of "design without designer" . I always spot half truths and omissions in these kind of videos.

If one were to go back to the start of all things - the formation of the universe they would see how its formation is more complex than anything living inside of it, they will understand that this random monkey business is so corrupt that it deserves contempt.

Many intelligent human beings struggled with what they found in their studies of nature. Many were honest in their thoughts and even though some of these people didn't believe in God, They made clear what they found out requires a thought and intellect. Among these is Sir Fred Hoyle who in his paper titled "The Universe: Past and Present Reflections" stated: "A common sense interpretations of the facts(in his field of study) suggests that a super intellect monkeyed with physics".

There are things in science that are counter intuitive that those who are working on the experiments sometimes can not see what they are watching directly but only the outcome of the experiment. This science is more credible and believable than Darwinian Evolution.

Evolutionists are very dishonest and dogmatic. The fact that Science is the study of nature by definition, and that nature is perfect in how it works, that this nature requires a thought, a process eludes them.


I find Evolutionists malicious and liars.

​

 

[Burhan]

You've dismissed the explanations and the implied evidences (which you could easily look up) on the net. So tell me, what's the evidence for humans having lived for a thousand years and being 30m tall?

In Islam, there is no mention of how old human beings are. That humans descended from one source is shown in genetic testing, that we all have common ancestry and our genetics are similar as human beings is already proven.

 

[Burhan]

btw, jujuman, there is no implied evidence but an attempt to explain how we have in our bodies the tiniest form of bacteria to the more advanced, all put together to form a human. What is missing is how did these come together? from the tiniest cell seeking other cells until all morphed into a human. Cute theory. If not "who" at least "how" they came together should be offered.

You apply logic to everything else, why not here? To me, the more someone digs deep into science, the more they come away with the idea that nature is brilliantly put. "Who did this" is always there.

It is counter intuitive to accept things came together and turned into what we see without explaining how that happened. Claims can be made anyways, but they do not address the curiosity in here which they should.

Anyone willing to take a leap of faith should look towards religion. If science claims to have evidence of something since it is not in the business of asking people to take a leap of faith, then it should live up to the claims. Evolution fails in that big time. It asks the same leap of faith religion requires but pretends it doesn't

 

[Jujuman]

In Islam, there is no mention of how old human beings are. That humans descended from one source is shown in genetic testing, that we all have common ancestry and our genetics are similar as human beings is already proven.

"We did indeed send Noah to his people and he lived among them a thousand years save fifty."

Qur'an (29:14)

Islam has stated it but it doesn't explain let alone provide evidence for it as it fails with so many other of it's claims.

We've seen evolution throughout the fossil record, comparative anatomy and later on DNA analysis. We use our knowledge of evolution to develop new antibiotics, we rely on evolution in artificial selection to grow optimal meat and vegetables. This topic isn't even up for debate to be fair saaxib, the evidences are abundant and new research is revealing that which only confirms the Scientific consensus that life on Earth has evolved through natural selection.

 

[The_Cosmos]

Claims can be made and touted as evidence when there is nothing to look at. And in real science that is not of monkey business, sometimes what is considered correct turns out to be wrong. Sometimes someone with genius level intelligence refuses to accept a working theory proven mathematically(in the case of Einstein who refused to consider quantum mechanics legitimate by saying God may be subtle but not malicious and God doesn't play dice). Such greats like him were proven wrong eventually with experiments that led to tangible results. So, I have read a little about science, peer reviews, disagreements over theories. Peer reviews and publishing a paper does not make a theory correct in of itself. Especially when Darwinian Evolution is concerned. It is so defunct only a bankrupt person buys into it. In watching the clip you posted, I saw deception and imaginary tale of how things ought to be in line with the theory of "design without designer" . I always spot half truths and omissions in these kind of videos.

If one were to go back to the start of all things - the formation of the universe they would see how its formation is more complex than anything living inside of it, they will understand that this random monkey business is so corrupt that it deserves contempt.

Many intelligent human beings struggled with what they found in their studies of nature. Many were honest in their thoughts and even though some of these people didn't believe in God, They made clear what they found out requires a thought and intellect. Among these is Sir Fred Hoyle who in his paper titled "The Universe: Past and Present Reflections" stated: "A common sense interpretations of the facts(in his field of study) suggests that a super intellect monkeyed with physics".

There are things in science that are counter intuitive that those who are working on the experiments sometimes can not see what they are watching directly but only the outcome of the experiment. This science is more credible and believable than Darwinian Evolution.

Evolutionists are very dishonest and dogmatic. The fact that Science is the study of nature by definition, and that nature is perfect in how it works, that this nature requires a thought, a process eludes them.


I find Evolutionists malicious and liars.

​

Well then 99% of scientists are malicious and liars to you.

 

[supz]

btw, jujuman, there is no implied evidence but an attempt to explain how we have in our bodies the tiniest form of bacteria to the more advanced, all put together to form a human. What is missing is how did these come together? from the tiniest cell seeking other cells until all morphed into a human. Cute theory. If not "who" at least "how" they came together should be offered.

You apply logic to everything else, why not here? To me, the more someone digs deep into science, the more they come away with the idea that nature is brilliantly put. "Who did this" is always there.

It is counter intuitive to accept things came together and turned into what we see without explaining how that happened. Claims can be made anyways, but they do not address the curiosity in here which they should.

Anyone willing to take a leap of faith should look towards religion. If science claims to have evidence of something since it is not in the business of asking people to take a leap of faith, then it should live up to the claims. Evolution fails in that big time. It asks the same leap of faith religion requires but pretends it doesn't

You are so funny. why take a leap towards religion or God. If something is inexplainable, why does god have to be put into the equation? I'LL HAVE YOU KNOW THAT YES SCIENCE IS COUNTER INTUITIVE, THAT'STHE WHOLE POINT. Creationists always follow a nonsensical approach to finding out the truth, always incorporating annotations and details to gaps in knowledge. I'll admit that scientists have no idea that how the inception of life came to be, nor do they have actual recordings of macroevolution. however, we do have evidence for microevolution. Since you believe in microevolution, what are the chances of two species having a converging evolutionary pathways, taking into account that we share 95% of our genes with mountain gorillas? Do we descend from the same ancestor, or did a higher being make us humans and mountain gorillas so similar whilst having a separate ancestor?

 

[The_Cosmos]

You are so funny. why take a leap towards religion or God. If something is inexplainable, why does god have to be put into the equation? I'LL HAVE YOU KNOW THAT YES SCIENCE IS COUNTER INTUITIVE, THAT'STHE WHOLE POINT. Creationists always follow a nonsensical approach to finding out the truth, always incorporating annotations and details to gaps in knowledge. I'll admit that scientists have no idea that how the inception of life came to be, nor do they have actual recordings of macroevolution. however, we do have evidence for microevolution. Since you believe in microevolution, what are the chances of two species having a converging evolutionary pathways, taking into account that we share 95% of our genes with mountain gorillas? Do we descend from the same ancestor, or did a higher being make us humans and mountain gorillas so similar whilst having a separate ancestor?

Great answer but I'll add one point, scientists do have recording of macro evolution. The difference between micro and macro evolution isn't really a fundamental one. The difference arises from th timescale. Micro evolution tends to occur much quicker than macro evolution which usually takes thousands of years to occur. Nonetheless, there are cases where humans have observed macro evolution within their own lifetimes, as recent as 30 years.

Great answer by the way.

 

[Burhan]

Well then 99% of scientists are malicious and liars to you.

I know about science, and natural selection to me is absurd and pseudoscience. Darwinian theories to me is not a science I can bank on. To me an evolutionary biologist is a scum artist nothing less. I have zero scientific respect for such people. Hiding behind science doesn't make one a scientist.

 

[Burhan]

"We did indeed send Noah to his people and he lived among them a thousand years save fifty."

Qur'an (29:14)

Islam has stated it but it doesn't explain let alone provide evidence for it as it fails with so many other of it's claims.

We've seen evolution throughout the fossil record, comparative anatomy and later on DNA analysis. We use our knowledge of evolution to develop new antibiotics, we rely on evolution in artificial selection to grow optimal meat and vegetables. This topic isn't even up for debate to be fair saaxib, the evidences are abundant and new research is revealing that which only confirms the Scientific consensus that life on Earth has evolved through natural selection.

I answered your earlier question regarding Islam correctly in that it does not date how long human beings were on earth. I assumed that is what you were asking. It doesn't tell us how many thousands of years ago or how many millions of years ago was Adam's creation. Also, nothing about Earth's age or that of the Universe. The Quran is not a science book nor does it claim to be one. It mentions some things found in nature to drive a point home for reflection. It is concerned with who God is and what we should expect, morality and how we should live our lives during the short period we spend on this earth. It explains the purpose of life and gives mankind direction that is meaningful. It is wisdom, law, justice and brotherhood. It is love, it is community. All of these have nothing to do with science. To me, science is complementary to Religion and the two do not contradict. At least as far as Islam is concerned knowledge is valued. We are supposed to reflect on our surroundings and on ourselves to gain an insight. The Quran is the only religious book that appeals to man's intellect and never undermines the human spirit of curiosity. For that, Muslims in their history never persecuted the pursuit of science and scholars. Because the two are mutually inclusive. One of Galileo's teacher was of Muslim Descent and they honor him along with Galileo in Europe with a painting of some sort to this day. I am sure you are aware the role Islam played in advancing Science in Europe.

The verse you quoted has no relations to how long humans were on earth. There are few occasions in the Quran where days are quantified differently according to different dimensions and events. Ours vs God's., the length of the day of judgement, how Long Noah preached to his people etc.

As for the fossil record, you can always point to a bone you found somewhere and tell us your interpretations of the finding and how it magically shows it is your ancestor. Or that fish with the legs evidence of how we came out of the sea. What you call science, I call it speculations driven by atheistic beliefs and to dissociate God from Nature even though consistently your like speaks of nature as if it has a mind and intelligence of its own. Nature does this, nature did this. You take people for fools. It is disgusting.

 

[The_Cosmos]

I know about science, and natural selection to me is absurd and pseudoscience. Darwinian theories to me is not a science I can bank on. To me an evolutionary biologist is a scum artist nothing less. I have zero scientific respect for such people. Hiding behind science doesn't make one a scientist.

Evolutionary biologists are scam artists???


99% scientists of all fields accept evolution to be a fact based on evidence. You have not provided anything against evolution, all you've done is reduce scientists who do their jobs via evidence as scam artists because they came to the conclusion that evolution is true via all the evidence.

There isn't even a debate among the science community about the validity of evolution. All living things have a common ancestor and that's a fact. Humans are apes, someone who follows the evidence will accept the harsh truth because the evidence is unanimously in agreement.

 

[simulacrum]

The theory of evolution doesn't purport to tell us something about how life is created from non-material, though Darwin did speculate that life evolved from a warm little pond. Nevertheless,it's a common misconception. It tell us rather how life could possibly have evolved on earth and that's through natural selection and mutation. Darwin called this process ''Descent with modification' and there is abundant and overwhelming evidence of this mechanism even in fields outside of biology. Yet, creationists don't want to except this elegant theory.

They cling on to the idea that an intelligent designer is behind the vast complexities of life, not knowing that if there was such a deity, he could have at least prevented the reckless mass extinctions of approximately 99% of the species..Not to mention, the fact that the biosphere we live in. is not pleasant at all for us. Wouldn't a benevolent creator make it more easier for us? I don't even know how my ancestors survived the savage conditions, thousands of years ago.

 

[Burhan]

Evolutionary biologists are scam artists???


99% scientists of all fields accept evolution to be a fact based on evidence. You have not provided anything against evolution, all you've done is reduce scientists who do their jobs via evidence as scam artists because they came to the conclusion that evolution is true via all the evidence.

There isn't even a debate among the science community about the validity of evolution. All living things have a common ancestor and that's a fact. Humans are apes, someone who follows the evidence will accept the harsh truth because the evidence is unanimously in agreement.

The scientists you speak of are the ones who are atheists, so it is normal for them to view Darwinian theories as replacement to religion. And Of course,, this is not a debate, it is a matter of where you align yourself in terms of beliefs. And in the history of Science, the brightest minds believed in God from Isaac newton to Einstein, Galileo to Maxwell, and many others I can not mention or recall, and finally to those Islamic scientists responsible for the progress of Science in Europe. Without religion, and without Islam valuing science, we would not be debating anything online.


What evidence do I need to present that I am not a monkey? Like I pointed out, use of good vocabulary, claims you make, associations to what you call science don't give any credibility whatsoever to all of these claims. It is your claim. A theory that requires a leap of faith with nothing to have faith in.

Any knowledgeable student in how the Universe operates will point to you what is called cosmological constants, several of them where if one of them was changed at the inception of the Universe, life would not be possible. And you folks are running around with dinosaur bone to tell us we are monkeys. That you believe there are several human species seals my case.

 

[supz]

The scientists you speak of are the ones who are atheists, so it is normal for them to view Darwinian theories as replacement to religion. And Of course,, this is not a debate, it is a matter of where you align yourself in terms of beliefs. And in the history of Science, the brightest minds believed in God from Isaac newton to Einstein, Galileo to Maxwell, and many others I can not mention or recall, and finally to those Islamic scientists responsible for the progress of Science in Europe. Without religion, and without Islam valuing science, we would not be debating anything online.


What evidence do I need to present that I am not a monkey? Like I pointed out, use of good vocabulary, claims you make, associations to what you call science don't give any credibility whatsoever to all these claims. It is your claim.

An knowledgeable student in how the Universe operates will point to you what is called cosmological constants, several of them where if one of them was changed at the inception of the Universe, life would not be possible. And you folks are running around with dinosaur bone to tell us we are monkeys. That you believe there are several human species seals my case.

sxb, your arguments are starting to sound convoluted. These respected scientists did indeed believe in God, point taken. However, their scientific feats have nothing to do with their religious orientation or affiliations. "What evidence do I need to present that I am not a monkey?" We share 98% of our DNA with bonobo chimpanzees, do you wholeheartedly believe that we are not related in any way? There is a plethora of evidence available from gene expression to embryology... I am not trying to take you away from your faith, but I am trying to take you away from ignorance. You say that only god can have created and sustained these cosmological constants, I would like to think so aswell, but there is no evidence. Its the same as claiming that a ghost must have stolen a missing donut...

 

[Burhan]

You are so funny. why take a leap towards religion or God. If something is inexplainable, why does god have to be put into the equation? I'LL HAVE YOU KNOW THAT YES SCIENCE IS COUNTER INTUITIVE, THAT'STHE WHOLE POINT. Creationists always follow a nonsensical approach to finding out the truth, always incorporating annotations and details to gaps in knowledge. I'll admit that scientists have no idea that how the inception of life came to be, nor do they have actual recordings of macroevolution. however, we do have evidence for microevolution. Since you believe in microevolution, what are the chances of two species having a converging evolutionary pathways, taking into account that we share 95% of our genes with mountain gorillas? Do we descend from the same ancestor, or did a higher being make us humans and mountain gorillas so similar whilst having a separate ancestor?

The differences between human and ape genome is what is important. You may already know these genetic similarities in high percentage also do exist between humans and

rats/mice 90%
dog 84%
chickens 65%

And so on. Considering the mice has nearly 90% similar human genome, can we say we are also mice? and why not? 90% similarity is high. The differences are what matters the most. from an engineering perspective, if you design something and write the code for it, and this thing you made depends on water for its functionality, you can simply modify the code and tweak it in such a manner that the next product shares the basis of the code but looks drastically different due to the changes yet relies on the same thing(water) for its functionality as the original piece you made. Since all life originates in water or depends on water, these beings including humans have that design which requires water as sustenance among other things in common.

Anyways, Allah points out the creation of the Universe is more complex than our creation by comparison. Quantum Mechanics alone proves that point. I really have no respect for people whose motivation in life is to fabricate and twist facts to achieve their goal of anti religious sentiments. No science teaches or can show there is no God. And to work towards that end using half truths, omissions, and outright lies won't accomplish that.

 

[The_Cosmos]

The scientists you speak of are the ones who are atheists, so it is normal for them to view Darwinian theories as replacement to religion. And Of course,, this is not a debate, it is a matter of where you align yourself in terms of beliefs. And in the history of Science, the brightest minds believed in God from Isaac newton to Einstein, Galileo to Maxwell, and many others I can not mention or recall, and finally to those Islamic scientists responsible for the progress of Science in Europe. Without religion, and without Islam valuing science, we would not be debating anything online.


What evidence do I need to present that I am not a monkey? Like I pointed out, use of good vocabulary, claims you make, associations to what you call science don't give any credibility whatsoever to all of these claims. It is your claim. A theory that requires a leap of faith with nothing to have faith in.

Any knowledgeable student in how the Universe operates will point to you what is called cosmological constants, several of them where if one of them was changed at the inception of the Universe, life would not be possible. And you folks are running around with dinosaur bone to tell us we are monkeys. That you believe there are several human species seals my case.

The scientists I have who accepted evolution, 99% of them, are made up of all backgrounds. Some are atheists and some are religious but all are united in science. They came to that conclusion based on evidence and nothing more. The scientists in whom you have mentioned are some of the most respected minds that ever lived but their religious beliefs had nothing to do with their scientific advances. That's just a hyperbolic claim. You address Muslim scientists but use them in vain because if you knew anything about them you'd know that it was they who first presented the idea of what today came to be known as evolution, they even addressed human evolution. In fact, Darwin's origin of life was mockingly called the "Muhammadian origin of life" as the idea was first presented by Muslim scientists. You speak of pseudo science but have no clue what you're even talking about.

What evidence is there, there's far too many to mention so I'll just link a video that can explain it better then me:


The fact you keep repudiating the same old nonsense that we came from monkeys, is evidence that you have little to no understanding of evolution. Man has a common ancestor with monkeys but we haven't evolved from them. We're apart of the primate family.

 

[Burhan]

btw, if I sound convoluted, it is because it is late hour for me and I should be sleeping. It is hard to formulate ideas in that state and write well, so whether that is proof of my inferiority to the class of atheists, the know-alls-ape-theory pushers it is all fine with me.


May be you lot will find a more educated member to slag through the arguments with you. I am happy where I stand.