In his book, Darwin never referred to the origin of life. The primitive
understanding of science in his time rested on the assumption that living
beings had a very simple structure. Since medieval times, spontaneous
generation, the theory asserting that non-living materials came together to
form living organisms, had been widely accepted. It was commonly believed
that insects came into being from food leftovers, and mice from wheat. Interesting experiments were conducted to prove this theory. Some wheat was placed on a dirty piece of cloth, and it was believed that mice
would originate from it after a while.
Similarly, worms developing in meat was assumed to be evidence of spontaneous generation. However, only some time later was it understood
that worms did not appear on meat spontaneously, but were carried there
by flies in the form of larvae, invisible to the naked eye.
Even in the period when Darwin wrote The Origin of Species, the belief
that bacteria could come into existence from non-living matter was widely accepted in the world of science.
However, five years after the publication of Darwin's book, Louis Pasteur announced his results after long studies and experiments, which disproved spontaneous generation, a cornerstone of Darwin's theory. In his triumphal lecture at the Sorbonne in 1864, Pasteur said, "Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment."
Advocates of the theory of evolution resisted the findings of Pasteur for a long time. However, as the development of science unraveled the complex structure of the cell of a living being, the idea that life could come into being coincidentally faced an even greater impasse.

Inconclusive Efforts in the Twentieth Century

The first evolutionist who took up the subject of the origin of life in the twentieth century was the renowned Russian biologist Alexander Oparin. With various theses he advanced in the 1930's, he tried to prove that the cell of a living being could originate by coincidence. These studies, however, were doomed to failure, and Oparin had to make the following confession: "Unfortunately, however,the problem of the origin of the cell is perhaps the most obscure point in the whole study of the evolution of
organisms."
Evolutionist followers of Oparin tried to carry out experiments to solve the problem of the origin of life.The best known of these experiments was carried out by American chemist Stanley Miller in 1953. Combining the gases he alleged to have existed in the primordial earth's atmosphere in an experiment set-up, and adding energy to the mixture, Miller synthesized several organic molecules (amino acids) present in the structure of proteins.
Barely a few years had passed before it was revealed that this experiment,
which was then presented as an important step in the name of evolution,was invalid, the atmosphere used in the experiment having been very different from real earth conditions.
After a long silence, Miller confessed that the atmosphere medium he used was unrealistic.All the evolutionist efforts put forth throughout the twentieth century to explain the origin of life ended with failure.
The geochemist Jeffrey Bada from San Diego Scripps Institute
accepts this fact in an article published in Earth Magazine in 1998:

@ Nosheen

Good effort i must say please. Now i beg to differ.

First thing is what is evolution. The simplest definition given in our text books is:

"life changes its form and this is organic evolution".

Now the question is does life changes its form, means its morphology, and physiology???

Answer is yes. Because that is what we find every where around us. Old species get extinct and new species emerge. And this is a continuous process. Recall height and age of Adam and Noh as given in religious records. Compare it with your height and age. Did you notice any difference? So, life changes its form. This is organic evolution.

Changing the form of life is no difficult. We can do it. In fact we are doing this. You know from where we get insulin for diabetic patients? From bacteria (there are animal sources as well). What we do is to implant a human insulin producing genes in DNA or RNA of bacteria so that to change the Bacterial Form. Now you tell me what is genetically engineered bt cotton seed which is being harvested in Pakistan.

Thus Life changes its form. Agreed or not????

Now the second question is how life changes its form. The answer lies in theory of evolution. Now Let me have a break before i go on.

One more thing. It is very easy to deny the theory of evolution (natural selection). But how can we deny that humans are now able to conduct evolution by themselves (artificial selection).

__________________
He who has a why to live can bear almost any how.

continuation of my earlier post

How a species is changed? Two steps:
1- change in indiviual
2- transfer of this change to next generation

An organism changes a lot during its life time. But these changes are not transfered to the next generation. Cut the tail of mouse for as many generations as you want, but every time mouse will be born with a tail. Change not transfered.

But a change in genes is transfered. For humans it is change in the genetic material of male sperm and female egg. These changes are brought about by two process: crossing over of homologous chromosomes during meiosis and gene mutation.
Thus human genetic make continuously change. That is why we are different from our parents. Our face is often more than a mere half of blend of two faces.

Genetic changes ka aik or proof Ajeeb ul Khalkat bacho ki paidaish hay. Two or three months back I watch a human baby on express news with four legs. Did you see that? Neither the mother nor father had four legs. How the baby came to acquire for legs? This is genetic variation which is transfered to next generation.

So two things clear by now.

1- Life changes its form
2- Only changes in genetic material are transferred to next generation.

Agreed or not?

__________________
He who has a why to live can bear almost any how.

I am totally agree the definition of Evolution:

"Life Changes its form"

But still I am not agree with the Theory of Evolution given by Darwin that

Man came into existence "by chance".

The purpose of my earlier posts was to throw light on the issue of EVOLUTION MISCONCEPTION.

According to Darwin Theory of Evolution,all living species evolved from a single cell of life which lived three million years ago i.e. all kind of living organisms that inhibit the world of today are the descendants of a single cell.

Do you agree with this?

If we supposedly belief this theory of evolution, the existence of God will remain a valid and logical belief.Because how a single cell came to existence
i.e whether we reject or accept this theory of revolution, the existence of God will remain a valid belief.

However, if on accepts the theory of evolution the controversy will arise on one issue;that million of kinds of living creatures around the world have been created by God as they are seen today or God has created first the single cell and the multiplied it into the millions of different kinds of living creatures.
Apparently it seem that all different kind of living species were created by Allah Taala as we find them today.

Life changes its form

Nevertheless,some useful variations and essential modifications might have been occurred in the living species in a period of time to meet the immediate
natural demand of their body and to fulfill the essential requirements of the prevailing time.

This the great mercy of God that He is the sustainer and the caretaker of the creatures He has created.Allah know the best, what a particular living specie needs and in finest body structure, it can comfortably survive.

The subject most often brought up by the advocates of the theory of
evolution is the subject of the origin of man. The Darwinist claim holds
that the modern men of today evolved from some kind of ape-like creatures.
During this alleged evolutionary process, which is supposed to
have started 4-5 million years ago, it is claimed that there existed some
"transitional forms" between modern man and his ancestors. According to
this completely imaginary scenario, four basic "categories" are listed:
1. Australopithecus
2. Homo habilis
3. Homo erectus
4. Homo sapiens
Evolutionists call the so-called first ape-like ancestors of men "Australopithecus"which means "South African ape." These living beings are actually nothing but an old ape species that has become extinct. Extensive research done on various Australopithecus specimens by two world famous anatomists from England and the USA, namely, Lord Solly Zuckerman and Prof. Charles Oxnard, has shown that these belonged to an ordinary ape species that became extinct and bore no resemblance to humans.

Evolutionists classify the next stage of human evolution as "homo,"that is "man." According to the evolutionist claim, the living beings in the Homo series are more developed than Australopithecus. Evolutionists devise a fanciful evolution scheme by arranging different fossils of these creatures in a particular order. This scheme is imaginary because it has never been proved that there is an evolutionary relation between these different classes. Ernst Mayr, one of the most important proponents of the theory of evolution in the twentieth century, contends in his book One Long Argument that "particularly historical [puzzles] such as the origin of life or of Homo sapiens, are extremely difficult and may even resist a final, satisfying explanation.

By outlining the link chain as "Australopithecus > Homo habilis > Homo
erectus > Homo sapiens," evolutionists imply that each of these species is
one another's ancestor. However, recent findings of paleoanthropologists
have revealed that Australopithecus, Homo habilis and Homo erectus lived at different parts of the world at the same time.

Moreover, a certain segment of humans classified as Homo erectus have lived up until very modern times. Homo sapiens neandarthalensis and Homo sapiens sapiens (modern man) co-existed in the same region.

This situation apparently indicates the invalidity of the claim that
they are ancestors of one another. A paleontologist from Harvard University,
Stephen Jay Gould, explains this deadlock of the theory of evolution
although he is an evolutionist himself:


Put briefly, the scenario of human evolution, which is sought to be
upheld with the help of various drawings of some "half ape, half human"
creatures appearing in the media and course books, that is, frankly, by
means of propaganda, is nothing but a tale with no scientific ground.

Lord Solly Zuckerman, one of the most famous and respected scientists
in the U.K., who carried out research on this subject for years, and particularly studied Australopithecus fossils for 15 years, finally concluded,
despite being an evolutionist himself, that there is, in fact, no such
family tree branching out from ape-like creatures to man.
Zuckerman also made an interesting "spectrum of science." He formed
a spectrum of sciences ranging from those he considered scientific to those
he considered unscientific. According to Zuckerman's spectrum, the most
"scientific"—that is, depending on concrete data—fields of science are
chemistry and physics. After them come the biological sciences and then
the social sciences. At the far end of the spectrum, which is the part considered to be most "unscientific," are "extra-sensory perception"—concepts such as telepathy and sixth sense—and finally "human evolution." Zuckerman explains his reasoning:

The tale of human evolution boils down to nothing but the prejudiced
interpretations of some fossils unearthed by certain people, who blindly adhere to their theory.

YouTube - Confessions from Evolutionists.Science VS Darwinism.

YouTube - MATH SAYS : EVOLUTION IS IMPOSSIBLE TIMES IMPOSSIBLE .SCIENCE VS DARWINISM. (www.harunyahya.com)

There are two approaches which describe to us about how we came into being; religious and scientific. Almost all of the religious scripts tell us nearly the same story, i.e. first human beings were Adam and Eve and all humanity eventually evolved from them. Those religious anectodes have been pervasive among humans for thousands of years of their history, and so far there is no concrete scientific basis to disprove or falsify them; however some of those people who are inspired by deism or agnosticism doubt the authenticity of such concepts. Modern theories based on scientific approach, of which theory of evolution is the most accepted, are relatively newer concepts whose origin can be traced back to only a few hundred years back. Despite being hypothesized by renowned scientists of their time, they also dont have strong scientific evidence supporting or approving them.

Regardless of that, it is nearly impossible todate to scientifically prove anything pertaining the subject of our being here. The main thing is religions have played a vital role in evolution of human societies. In other words, religion placed Homo sapiens on path of humanity and distinguished them from other members of the animal kingdom. Allah says He sent numerous messengers, prophets and apostles to human beings on numerous occassions who taught human beings how to live morally, and Allah says evidence to His claims is present everywhere, you just have to look at it with believing eyes. Here is a fact, Hinduism is one religion which espouses Vegetarianism, and we all know that hinduism was originated in India, and it is proven that Indus Valley and Ganges Valley civilizations were the first agrarian societies in human history and hinduism can also be traced back to that time. Allah says all religions were sent by Him, but people under influence of Shaitan later distorted them.

The facts and evidences are all before you, its upon you which ones you accept to be true. As far as matter of proves is concerned, nothing needs to be said further .

__________________
The precondition for existence of a higher humanity is not the state, but the nation possessing the necessary ability.

Lafzo ka pahaar bhi ho tou wo haqeet ki aik chunti ko nahi kuchal sakta. Bachpan say religious literature main aisay articles parhay. Laikin medical sciences kay jitnay bhi nisaab hain un main Darwin theory hi parhi. And this theory is the single most plausible scientific explanation of origin of species.

Darwin theory pay aitraaz karna bhut aasaan hay. Laikin un objections ko weigtage tab hi dya ja sakta hay if they propose an alternative hypothesis about how life was evolved with some evidence.

Nuqta e aitraaz uthana so called Islamic scholars ki second nature hay. They even cannot agree which foot is to be placed first while entering in a toilet. Recently Imam e Kaaba gave a fatwa kay Hello kahna haraam hay. Look at the mentality. Ab tou aisi batain parh kar hansnay ko dil karta hay.

Yaro jo bhi kaho. F Sc pre medical text book xii, punjab text book board, kay chapter number 24 ki head line "EVOLUTION" say bhi opper likhi gai Quran ki yeah ayat "WE CREATED YOU FROM A SINGLE BEING" saaf bata rahi hay kay hamaray Islamized (by Zia ul Haq) text books writers ki bhi majbori hay kay wo evolution kay context main takhleeq insani ki tamaam Ayaat ko neglect kartay hoye us ayat ko refernce banain jo Darwin Theory say mutabaqat rakhti ho.

__________________
He who has a why to live can bear almost any how.

Today in Pharmacology class one of my student said: Sir Quran main her cheez ka ilam maujood hay.

I said: "very fine, then pick up from there a medication for treatment of AIDS and an effective antitumor drug"

My fellows problem does not lie in Quran. Problem lies in our mind set. Quran nay kabhi aisa dawa nahi kya. Yeah dawa hay hamaray Mullah ka.

Jo 5 namazain hum janat main janay kay liye parhtay hain, Molvi Sb un 5 namazo say 3 waqat ki roti kamatay hain. It is very important for them to market their product and broaden their sale and service spectrum. So we find Mullah practicing religious worships, practicing Hikmat in the name of Tibb e Nabwi, writing Taweez, doing dam darood, taking out Jin from inside human body, arranging Uras to gather Mureedain and many more other things.

And in doing all this they have to tell you kay har ilam Quran say nikla hay. Since they are master of this holy book so they are master of every trade. This is sales and marketing and we wrongly think that it is religion. We must think why these people are making us fool.

Kissi Darwin theory pay aitraaz karnay walay Mullah say koi yeah tou poochay janab Darwin theory hay kya. Origin of man is not even a part of this 4 point theory. It is just one of several thousand applications of this theory. Abhi Haroon Yahya kay article main you found a pictorial comparison of different vertebral embryos and he said that this was removed from syllabus in 1950s. Now an almost same diagram you may find in our Biology Text Book XII. Yaar we seriously must think over this why these people are making us fool.

__________________
He who has a why to live can bear almost any how.

plz dear jazibroomi, dont talk about holy books and their power and essence in this way when you know nothing about what it all really stands for.

pehli baat yeh ke na main nimazi parhezi banda hoon, na main deendar banda hoon, aur bad naseebi se mere ghar main sab hee aise hain, magar hamain quran kee taqat pe poora yaqeen hai. mere ghar main aik nahin 3 apne shaher ke very well reputed doctors hain, us ke illawa main saari zindagi is medical science aur pharmacology waghera ko dekhta aa raha hoon aur bare bare MRCP, FRCS aur pharmacist waghera ko dekhta raha hoon, magar mere apne saath aise personal expriences hue jin main karachi shaher ke bare bare specialists bhi kuch diagnose na kar sake aur beemari aur in ke tests ke liye maheenoon tak khoon nikalwa nikalwa ke aur in kee high power antibiotics use kar kar ke main anemic aur taqreeban khatam ho chuka tha, magar aik din Allah kaa aik nek banda hamare pass aaya aur us ne kalam e pak kaa wird kar ke pani pilaya aur sirf aik ghante main beemari ke saare symptoms jaate rahe aur main bilkul theek ho gaya..

main jaanta hoon ke aap jaise logoon ko in baatoon pe kabhi bhi yaqeen nahin aaye gaa. main aap kee isi darwinist theory se aik simple saa sawal poochta hoon, sirf usi kaa answer is main mil jaye to bhi buhut hai. is darwinist evolution se guzar ke sirf homo sapien species hee kiyoon aaj civilized hui hai aur taraqi kee intiha pe hai, zameen pe lakhoon karoroon doosri species mojood hain, woh bhi wohi khaate hain jo homo sapiens khaate hain, woh bhi usi environment main rehti hain, un main se koi aik bhi doosri kiyoon nahin civilized hui???

yaad rakhen, agar duniya main kabhi koi bhi religion na aata to aap aaj yahan computer pe beth ke fazool baaten karne ke bajaye jungle main ghoomte hunter gatherer hote.

baqi mullah log to pata nahin kiya hain

I call these evolutionary synthesises "fazool" because they dont prove or show anything, except wild implausible imagination of some intellectuals.

__________________
The precondition for existence of a higher humanity is not the state, but the nation possessing the necessary ability.