#21
|
|||
|
|||
SIR, YOU WROTE
"Darwinian evolution, is it justified completely PROVED, or is it just a consensus among the scientists?" MY REPONSE This statement shows a complete lack of understanding of science and the scientific process of methodological naturalism. Science does not "prove" anything, proof is a mathematical term not scientific. All scientific hypotheses and theories must be falsifiable to qualify as a scientific hypothesis or theory. A theory such as the theory of evolution is simply an explanatory platform which explains "all" of the hundreds of thousands of evolutionary facts observed. As new evidence is discovered, these are tested against the theory. These then either support the theory or the theory is falsified by the facts and needs to be modified to once again account for "all" of the observed facts. As such, it is clear to anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of science, how ridiculous the statement involving the word "proved" is when relating it to science. YOU WROTE "The amino acids of an average-sized protein molecule composed of 288 amino acids, which are made up of 12 different types, can be arranged in 10E300 (1 followed by 300 zeros) different ways. Of all of these possible sequences, only "one" forms the desired protein molecule. The other amino-acid chains are either completely useless or else potentially harmful to living things." MY RESPONSE This statement is completely wrong on many levels! If the "average" sized protein is 288 amino acids and only "one" is useful then the average protein is either useless or potentially harmful which we know is clearly not the case. In addition, the proteins which are used in biological systems are made up of combinations of 20 different amino acids not 12. Ultimately however, the fallacy of this and the subsequent argument involves the identifying a final state of a combination and stating how unlikely it would be to occur by chance. This demonstrates a lack of understanding of the evolution of biochemical systems which are not simply chance but a non-random process due to selection pressure. There is no "desired" protein molecule. If you build any random arrangement of 288 amino acids (every single one of each has the same mathematical probability no matter which one it is), the proteins formed are simply those proteins. If you change the amino acid sequence, you will simply get a different protein. In fact, if you were to string 288 amino acids together, there is a 100% chance you will get a protein. Some of these will be useful, some harmful and some of no effect. Those that are useful will be selected for, based on natural selection from the environment. Those that are harmful will be selected against. Your statement regarding Mycoplasma Hominis H 39 reveals your ignorance of microorganisms as well by implying that this organism simply formed randomly with no precursor organisms. You need to understand that "all" bacteria that are alive today are not representative of the first bacteria as even these have undergone at least 3.5 billion years of evolution. Cytochrome-C, like all other proteins are the result of selection pressure not simply random chance. Cytochrome-C is actually fantastic evidence for common descent by natural selection due to it's functional similarity across all organisms. To use the analogy of a monkey on a typewriter is erroneous as this is not a non-random process whilst evolution is. http://chemistry.umeche.maine.edu/CHY431/Evolve2.html Fred Hoyle was not a biologist. His statements regarding junkyards and 747s even resulted in him having a logical fallacy named after him due to it's error (Hoyle's fallacy) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle's_fallacy In addition, Hoyle was attempting to push his own hypothesis of "Panspermia" which involved bacteria evolving in interstellar clouds and being deposited on the early Earth. He was not an anti-evolutionist despite what many creationists will indicate. Finally, every single one of these arguments has been completely debunked by real science over and over. The proponents of STUPIDITY like you simply ignore the evidence and continue to repeat these mantras in the hope that if they repeat it enough it will magically make all of the actual evidence disappear. To me you seem to be a doctor, what are you a doctor of? you clearly have no understanding of modern biology or the scientific method. YOU ALSO WROTE RATIONALITY OF SCIENCE Also why we take science as a tool tool of proving any and everythings? What is the proof that science itself is rational? Consider the following: In order to cover 10m distance, first you have to cover 5m. But before covering 5m we have to cover 2.5m and before that we had to cover 1.25m and so on. What is the smallest distance that we will cover without further 'halving' it?? Between any two points, there are infinite number of points, but then how do we move around? How this series of infinite points in space are covered in a finite period of time? How is the universe expanded? How does the universe started in time as between any two points there are infinite number of points?? MY RESPONSE This is such a stupid proposition that giving an answer to it is an insult to human intelligence. my only pray is you come out of the silly world created by the dumb ass creationist haroon yahya to which even medical doctor like you become a mind prey out of many scientific fallacies and arrogance Mr perplexed, i think you are a genuine inquisitor not a stubborn puritanical dogmatic, so please watch these video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgOwejDLJjQ i do agree that on poetic verse and chepter illama iqbal is unsurpassable so far but on philosophical plane iqbal has nothing special but i would say he is an unmitigated disaster and is a tool in the hand of ruling elite. IQBAL himself wrote eulogies to different head of states to make some money and he underwent many phases and finally tilting to religious-fascism while swimming along the popular sentiments. its very complicated topic and this forum is not the right place to debate on it. Evolution IS a Blind Watchmaker http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9...c-HM-fresh+div |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Fisrt of all Saqib Ali Khan is correct.
Quote: The simple postulate of science is that nothing can exist without proper organization and systematized processes….. You will observe that the homes in which we live and the organizations in which we work, nothing can exist without a head or a leader. @ perplexed: Who is the head who control the revolving electrons in a nucleus. Exactly, who is the head/leader? Who is the head among the various photons who "organize" the light wave?? And If the answer is God, as a leader of all these organizations. That means god also has proper organization. But then what about the absolute unity of god?? Moreover, if our second postulate that each is headed by a leader is taken, then who is the leader of god? My dear perplexed: you asked these questions, I am trying to conway my message. Dear please don’t mind, you should to write GOD with capital alphabet. All natural phenomenon things are working under and concern with superior power. And the definition of GOD in our Holy Quran “GOD says: Allah ek ha or naa he os ka khoi sani ha or naa he osay peda kya gaya ha, naa wo kis c ka baap ha or naa beta”. Its mean no supervisor of GOD, and Unit of GOD I would like to share, In our surrounding things which shows they are naturally its mean they are symbol or unit of GOD, For example: rising sun, 27 days revolving of moon, rotating of our earth, soul in human body,. . . etc Unit it also mean symbol, for example Acceleration unity is m/s, when you see this unit or symbol u think it is related to acceleration, thus all above symbol or unit showed to GOD. And science is no powerful and till yet it not create any kind of matter, this is weakness of science. It is perfect evidence. YOU DO OR DO NOT DO BUT DON'T TRY Junaid Ali Rind Baloch I.T SP (SPO-Sindh) |
#23
|
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
@ Blossomberrry
Quote:
Quote:
Further, evolutionists argue that there must have been the "simplest cell". But the scientists observe a phenomena and explain them on the basis of a theory. Where have they observed these simplest cells? If they haven't why should we "assume" that there are any such cells which are proposed by evolution in order to confirm evolution? Moreover, why should we assume that there are or "will be" missing links. The linkages scientists have produced as evidence for evolution are extremely less as compared to the definite diversified life forms. Why should then we "assume" that these are missing links and not the "demutated" species as there number is so low as compared to the definitive species and are not present for every specie. Isn't it a scientific consensus or taking sides with the lies? Lastly, even IF all the evidences against evolution be put under the carpet and evolution granted, it will at best 'describe' how life MIGHT HAVE formed on this earth but it may not BE how life has actually started and progressed. Between our explanation of how the events have occurred and how these events have actually occurred, there is a leap of faith that can't be bridged by the scientific method. Hence, The "Animal faith of science"... Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Further why the fossil of a humanoid is considered a transitive form? It may be that it is a fossil of a person with a congenital anomaly (like dysmorphomegaly with hirsutism - a kind of syndrome which gave the appearance similar to an ape). Why?? In contrast to this transitive form, why shouldn't I assume that God has created these definite species (with variations and similarities yet definite) and the few fossils that are actually found are just "Anomalous species". Further, the modern science didn't deny but complement the creationists' argument that all creation occurred at an instant. According to the string theory, we perceive the higher dimensions in cross-sections. Now the time (4th dimension) as we perceive is actually a cross-section of the whole (a duration) that is what the 4th dimension actually is. It means that everything has been laid down in advanced in the fourth dimension which we as the 3d beings experience as cross-sectional instants of serial time. Now if that is true and a "duration" from the "big bang" to the possible ending of our universe is already laid down, does it not mean that the God created the universe and its creatures in the fourth dimension at an instant which we, as 3d beings, are experiencing as instants of serial time slowly "progressing", although it all has been laid down before? Here I would like to Quote Allama Iqbal again, who according to you have "nothing interesting in the philosophic plane", to honour his foresight and show your ignorance of his significance. "In its deeper movement, however, thought is capable of reaching an imminent Infinite in whose self-unfolding movement the various finite concepts are merely moments. In its essential nature, then, thought is not static; it is dynamic and unfolds its internal infinitude in time like the seed which, from the very beginning, carries within itself the organic unity of the tree as a present fact. Thought is, therefore, the whole in its dynamic self-expression, appearing to the temporal vision as a series of definite specifications which cannot be understood except by a reciprocal reference. Their meaning lies not in their self-identity, but in the larger whole of which they are the specific aspects. This larger whole is to use a Qur’anic metaphor, a kind of ‘Preserved Tablet’,17 which holds up the entire undetermined possibilities of knowledge as a present reality, revealing itself in serial time as a succession of finite concepts appearing to reach a unity which is already present in them.". Is destiny not real then? Is God really behind 7 curtains as is mentioned in one of the Hadith of Prophet (PBUH)? As according to String theory, there are 11 dimensions and we being the 3d beings know the three dimensions and are partially seeing thru the fourth. That leaves exactly 7 dimensions from 5th to 1oth and after crossing all these it’s the Ultimate REALM, the realm of all the possibilities of all the universes including what is beyond the Planck's length – the quantum indeterminacy. The mystic experience is also evidence for that particular kind of experience also suggests that a whole is felt. So is it true that when we pass the tenth dimension we reach the Ultimate Realm of every possibility whatsoever of every possible universe and the Quantum indeterminacy. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Until then I will be Praying to my Allah for that time to come. REGARDS!
__________________
Man is something to be surpassed!! |
The Following User Says Thank You to Perplexed For This Useful Post: | ||
jadoon khan (Monday, November 16, 2009) |
#24
|
||||||
|
||||||
Hi All,
I hope I can add some input to this interesting discussion. @Saqib Ali Khan Quote:
@newstudent Quote:
@oriental Quote:
Quote:
@Junaid Ali Rind Baloch Quote:
Quote:
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRA/v39/i8/p4076_1 http://www.springerlink.com/content/h248r5268u005m41/ http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0954-3899/25/1/003 |
The Following User Says Thank You to djarm67 For This Useful Post: | ||
Blossomberrry (Saturday, November 28, 2009) |
#25
|
||||
|
||||
@Perplexed
Quote:
@Perplexed Quote:
What Godel said was that a set of axioms is "inconsistent" if it is possible to prove a statement AND its negation. A set of axioms is "incomplete" if there exist some statement such that neither it nor its negation can be proved from those axioms. Any set of axioms, large enough to encompass the natural numbers, must be either incomplete or inconsistent. He also said that it is impossible to prove that a set of axioms was consistent using only those axioms. That says nothing about the ability to prove a specific theorem. If a set of axioms is inconsistent, then it is possible to prove that using only those axioms! Nice diversion, but let's get back to science. @Perplexed Quote:
|
The Following User Says Thank You to djarm67 For This Useful Post: | ||
Blossomberrry (Saturday, November 28, 2009) |
#26
|
||||
|
||||
@Perplexed
Quote:
One example would be a prediction regarding chromosome pair numbers in apes. Humans have 46 chromosomes (23 pairs) but other great apes (chimps, bonobos, gorillas, orangutans and gibbons) have 48 (24 pairs). This sets up a problem for the concept of common descent via evolution. For common descent by evolution to be true, either humans have lost a chromosome pair, 2 chromosome pairs were fused, other apes gained a chromosome pair through duplication or one of their chromosome pairs divided. This is a prediction of evolution. As we have now mapped the genomes of the great apes we can now test this prediction. If these tests cannot confirm this prediction, this would falsify the notion that humans share a common ancestor with the other great apes. We now know too much about the genome to view the proposal that any mammal can lose an entire chromosome pair and survive as a viable, reproducing organism. Such a mutation would be fatal to that mammal. This option can be excluded. We can find no directly duplicated chromosome in other apes so this option can be excluded. How can we test the others (fusion or division)? Simple. Chromosomes have sections or sequences of DNA which are clearly identifiable called telomeres and centromeres. If, a chromosome was divided into two chromosomes, you would find 2 chromosomes which are missing a telomere at one end. We do not find this, so this option can be excluded. This leaves the only option (and the only remaining prediction left to evolution) that 2 human chromosomes fused at some point. If geneticists cannot find this fusion point, human evolution and common descent by natural selection is falsified. What do we find when we look at the human genome? We find that chromosome 2 on the human genome, has two centomere sequences not one, we also find a dual sequence of telomeres in the middle (where they should not be) and precisely where evolution predicted they would be. If we are to line up human chromosome 2 with chimp chromosomes 12 and 13 (now renamed 2a and 2b since this discovery), we find an exact match on the order of genes between these two species. We now know the exact fusion site down to the DNA base pair. The predictive power of the theory of evolution was confirmed. http://www.pnas.org/content/88/20/9051.abstract Another great example would be the presence of endogenous retroviral (ERV) fragments in identical insertion point in the genomes of different species. A retrovirus has an RNA genome not a DNA genome. When it invades a cell, it uses reverse transcriptase to convert it's RNA genome to DNA and then inserts itself randomly into the host DNA genome. Unfortunately for the retrovirus, it is not always successful at making a viable copy of itself. When this inactive retrovirus happens to have inserted itself into a hosts germ cell (egg or sperm), the offspring have this relic of a viral attack embedded permanently in it's genome. In this way, an examination of a genome can tell us much in terms of the "fossil" viruses which our ancestors contended with. The human, chimp, bonobo and gorilla genomes for example are all approx 3.1 billion base pairs in length. What are the chances of an ERV insertion point being at any specific point on one of these genomes? 3.1 billion to one. What are the chances of 2 completely independent species have the same ERV (complete with precisely the same inactivation error) being inserted in exactly the same insertion point? 3.1B X 3.1B. What about all four of these species of Hominoidea? 3.1B X 3.1B X 3.1B X 3.1B or approx 9.24 with 35 zeros after it, to one. This of course is just for 1 ERV. Our genome contains thousands of ERV fragments. When the relationships are mapped across an even larger group of species as to which ERV, where the ERV is inserted, what inactivation or other mutations have occurred, the pattern which emerges is identical to what evolution predicts. http://www.plosone.org/article/info:...l.pone.0001026 http://www.springerlink.com/content/n97237q568637551/ http://www.pnas.org/content/96/18/10254.full http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/j...25512/abstract |
The Following User Says Thank You to djarm67 For This Useful Post: | ||
Blossomberrry (Saturday, November 28, 2009) |
#27
|
||||
|
||||
@Perplexed
Quote:
Osteolepis Eusthenopteron Sterropterygion livoniana Panderichthys Elpistostega Tiktaalik Elginerpeton Densignathus Ventastega Metaxygnathus Obruchevichthys Hynerpeton Acanthostega Ichthyostega Whatcheeria Tulerpeton Pederpes Greerepton Crassigyrinus Pholidogaster Pteroplax Baphetes Balnerpeton Dendrepton Silvanerpeton Proteogryinus Eoherpeton http://www.devoniantimes.org/Order/re-tiktaalik.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture04637.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture04639.html |
The Following User Says Thank You to djarm67 For This Useful Post: | ||
Blossomberrry (Saturday, November 28, 2009) |
#28
|
||||
|
||||
@Perplexed (quoting blossomberrry)
Quote:
A great example to show this is the evolution of nylonase in flavobacteria. Nylon is a completely synthetic product which did not exist in the environment until it was first created in 1935. In 1975, researcher discovered that one strain of flavobacterium was able to metabolise this completely synthetic product. Further investigations found that a gene duplication and frame shift mutation had occurred to one of it's genes which resulted in a completely new enzyme, now named nylonase. As a further test to the power of evolution via natural selection, another group of scientists grew a culture of Pseudomonas bacteria in an environment high in nylon. These bacteria were unable to metabolise nylon at the beginning of the experiment. Nothing occurred for many generations and then a completely different mutation occurred which resulted in a new and different nylonase enzyme. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC345072/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria Another fantastic example is the Lenski experiment (LTEE) using the bacteria E.coli. One of the key attributes of E.coli is it's inability to transfer citrate across the cell membrane. 12 samples of this bacteria have been cultured over 20 years in isolation to see how evolution and selection acts on these independent cultures. Lenskis team would take a sample of each culture and freeze them every 500 generations so as to be able to look back in time at any of the 12 cultures to see any key mutational changes to their genome. A mutation occurred somewhere between generations 31,000 and 31,500 in one of the populations which resulted in the ability for the organism to transfer citrate across the cell membrane and therefore include this in it's citric acid cycle. This is another great example of evolution by natural selection adding new information to a genome and therefore a brand new biochemical pathway which provide an advantage to the organism. http://aem.asm.org/cgi/reprint/61/5/2020.pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli...ion_experiment @Perplexed Quote:
|
The Following User Says Thank You to djarm67 For This Useful Post: | ||
Blossomberrry (Saturday, November 28, 2009) |
#29
|
||||
|
||||
@Perplexed
Quote:
@Perplexed Quote:
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/cg0255725 http://www.springerlink.com/content/2015x5r6081236x4/ |
The Following User Says Thank You to djarm67 For This Useful Post: | ||
Blossomberrry (Saturday, November 28, 2009) |
#30
|
||||
|
||||
@Perplexed
Quote:
@Perplexed Quote:
@Perplexed Quote:
@Perplexed Quote:
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/i...l.pbio.0020057 |
The Following User Says Thank You to djarm67 For This Useful Post: | ||
Blossomberrry (Saturday, November 28, 2009) |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Principles of Political Science | Xeric | Political Science | 8 | Friday, December 02, 2011 12:19 AM |
Science and Muslim Scientists | Wounded Healer | Islamic History & Culture | 0 | Wednesday, May 09, 2007 06:21 PM |
Philosophy of Science | A Rehman Pal | Philosophy | 0 | Sunday, March 18, 2007 03:42 PM |
Science Terminology | ummera | General Knowledge, Quizzes, IQ Tests | 0 | Sunday, October 22, 2006 09:57 PM |
Barriers to Science Journalism in Pakistan | Qurratulain | Journalism & Mass Communication | 0 | Saturday, April 22, 2006 01:44 AM |