Science accept GOD, YES OR NOT?
 

[SIZE="7"][FONT="Arial Black"][CENTER]
Science accept GOD, YES OR NOT?[/CENTER][/FONT][/SIZE]

Many people's thought shows that Science doesn't accept GOD, even also scientiest. Science only 80% knows about the knowledge of Universe.

I know that science only belive on physicaly observation or rational approch depends over logics, our presence and our Surrounding things shows that one thing is presence in whole universe which is diffrent from all over universe's things, which is hidden we cant see. this is perfect evidence, presence of GOD.

If science 100% working, though why science is deprived of, when a person died than why doesn't science give rebirth to him, it is a very hard even if science is failur to generate a piece of organ of a human body!

In the light of give statment science shold direct its approch towards the nature rather than narture.

i m waiting for u Commits from ur good knowledge.

Thanks Regards

JUNAID ALI RIND BALOCH
IT SP (SPO-SINDH)

@ Junaid
 

[B][I]Dear Junaid, it has not any doubt that God is present everywhere, but dear fellow, science stands at one definition that is "any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome, dear check this definition, science works by this definition. if we say that science is accepting God, then how science will prove it, because God is not seems by His physique, being a Muslim, i have faith on God, and i accept that God is available everywhere but if i quote accordingly science then it will not be acceptable because of its definition.

Make me correct fellow.
recommendations are welcome and mistakes are unavoidable.

Regards
Azhar Hussain Memon [/I][/B]

is it necessary to relate science to the existance of God?
science is to deal with scientific and logical consequence of anything on the basis of practical and experimentation......if something is not coming up to the criterion of science,it doesnot mean that it is wrong,not existing or anything.alot of our beliefs we maintain may not be adjusted in science...then what?
uptill now,majority of the discoveries or inventions that has been made is already been coded in the laws of Islam and Quran...science has just unveiled them,and still there is alot more to go
i believe,a very important link is missing between science and Islam(quran),when this obstacles will be overcome,,,Science itself would say
Yes there is God

being a zoologist when i study science,i believe whatever science says about evolution,and initiation of life,to most of its extent,is true and what ever Allah tells us about the origin of life on land is obviously a unanimous fact
but again science is a bit lagging behind,how,where and why...this is to be explored,a very imoprtant and missing link will solve the problem.
one day Allah will definitey make the scientists(physicists,astronomers or biological scientists) to unravel and reveal it with all its terms.
regards

[QUOTE=prissygirl;150606][B]being a zoologist when i study science,i believe whatever science says about evolution,and initiation of life,to most of its extent,is true and what ever Allah tells us about the origin of life on land is obviously a unanimous fact[/B]
but again science is a bit lagging behind,how,where and why...this is to be explored,a very imoprtant and missing link will solve the problem.
one day Allah will definitey make the scientists(physicists,astronomers or biological scientists) to unravel and reveal it with all its terms.
regards[/QUOTE]

There's a problem there with the emboldened part of your post, isn't there? We live in an age where whatever science tells us contradicts whatever we've been told in the Gita, the Vedas, the Bible and the Quran. Why else do you think everyone from Zakir Naik to Bilal Phillips vehemently opposes the theory of evolution, something almost all biologists, on the other hand, accept? At one point, some Islamic scholars say that science and modern religion are completely compatible while they ignore evolution, cosmology, anthropology and other sciences that completely contradict scripture.


@ Junaid Ali Rind Baloch,

What I can tell you with certainty is that modern scientists do not accept God. The smartest mind of the 20th century, that of Albert Einstein, was atheist. The leading biologist and cosmologists of the modern world are also atheist.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_%28science_and_technology%29[/url]

@Ahmed_2007_Cool
 

[B][I]Dear you have cleared the required point, because question was, "Science accepts God or not? so you cleared the point. i appreciate your way that you applied here.

Also i answered first, that if i answer here being a muslim then i accept God and power of supernatural, it is my faith and belief. but if i answer under the science and its definition then it is clear that science does not accept God.

Regards
Azhar Hussain Memon [/I][/B]

Miss Zoologist (prissgirl) I am really happy and I appreciate your reply, that you have trust, Science Accepted GOD, But unfortunately till many peoples doesn’t accept this statement:

Peoples are only studying & writing about science definition, Meaning: which gives result and by experiment is called science. They are also known that science have many branches, for example: Astronomy, Biology, Physics, Chemistry,…etc. As my consideration as my opinion says one branch is not included in science subject which is called Hidden Science.

My dear brother Azhar and Ahmed are both understand that it is depend only Faith, that GOD is present, But I here clear many symbols are present in our universe, which shows acceptance of GOD and presence, but hidden for example: a nice perfume in flowers, we can’t see the smile but only feel.

My brothers, you are not going any doubt that as I am being a Muslim therefore I accept GOD, No…no..No…no….NO, if I atheist, none Muslim or communist than I obviously accept this statement that Science accept GOD, & GOD is present everywhere.

And one thing I mention here if atheist scientist instead Muslim scientist working than this branch of science Hidden Science must be include in subject of science.

And it is totally propaganda of atheist scientist or communist … INSHALLAH after 15, 20yrs it will be bold proof in front of our eyes. That science accepts GOD.


YOU DO OR DO NOT DO BUT DON'T TRY.

Thanks Regards

JUNAID ALI RIND BALOCH
IT SP (SPO-SINDH)

I will try to prove the existence of God with the help of a very simple example. This will be simple logic that i will use here. We know that Science believes in organization and systematic processes. The simple postulate of science is that nothing can exist without proper organization and systemetized processes. Now, look at obvious examples in our daily lives. 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. A person in a leadership role is always required to run these organizations in a proper and successful manner. Now how can we ignore the fact that this universe in working without a supreme being Who is running its affairs. Especially, when we see that this universe is much more complex than our human made organizations. This is the supreme being whom we call God. The only way that i would deny this is when someone will come out with the proof to deny the above mentioned facts.

[B][I]I would like to try to convey my message to fellows, dear we have to accept that Faith, Science, and literature are too different from each other.

Regards
Azhar Hussain Memon [/I][/B]

one thing more which i would like to add here is the very fact that is just skipped from our minds while discussing this topic......
we have talked about atheists and other non muslims scientists but we have forgotten that once Mulims also underwent the glorious scientific era...how can one forget Ibn ul Haitham,Abu Ali sina,Al khawarzimi,Al kindi,Jaber bin Hayan and there is a long list
Mashallah they were the scientists that opened new horizons for the rest of the world and they were muslims too.
Atheist of today is not the one to define science but the concept of science was given by the muslims to the western world of today........
i think this fact needs no elaboration
regards

Science is at infancy, and its maturity will be start of religion.

W A Khan.

science so far has attached more and more credibility to the theory of evolution which has only substantiated that so called master design is the making of evolution, there is no supreme being who created the marvelous master designs , Rather the living organism once having come into being ( protoplasm ) is eternally evolving and dissolving itself. Apart from it nitrogen cycle, carbon cycle, water cycle and so on are also pointer in this direction. we deride and scuff the metaphysics of hindus ( karma ) but i believe there must be some truth in it because there is no grater religion than mother nature. Creationism has died its scientific death. proof is in following videos.

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePDkUVH3MXQ[/url]
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOtP7HEuDYA[/url]
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w57_P9DZJ4[/url]
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63LRfLyR-JU[/url]
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_LaAx7bSm0[/url]
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKGtcVoBhBQ[/url]
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuKDLyOkEEk[/url]
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCX0JJ16dFM[/url]
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1tkM_f5B9s[/url]

In my opinion science neither ACCEPT GOD NOR REJECT IT. It is becuase of main principle of scientific research where scientist has to observe a phenomena and has to test it through their scientific tools, and his results are open to other scientists to test and verify.

My logic regarding acceptance or rejection of GOD by science is simple, it will remain impossible till the LAST HOUR. It is because if HIS existence is proved, then what will be the need for testing of humans by GOD. So this will remain mystery till Qiyammah.

I do believe in evolution, because it is a scientific fact. With great respect to Dr. Zakir Nayik who has greatly influenced our educated class. He states that evolution is just a theory. I think he should be told that evolution is a fact, while the theory of natural selection and theory of genetic mutation are two theories that try to explain the fact of evolution. In my little understanding, Quran has also hinted towards evolution. I dont exactly remeber the ayat but its meaning is that " kya insaan wo wakt bool gaya jab us ki hesayit kuch bi nahi ti". In this ayat, in my opinion ALLAH is referring to the humans, where they were not in the present fully developed state and were in the stage where we could call them humonoids.

However I personally believe in ALLAH as the CREATOR, OMNIPOTENT, EVERPRESENT, ALL POWERFUL. For my belief, I have my own experiences, as logically or scientifically I cant prove existence or non-existense of ALLAH. But ALLAH stated to humans that
"We will show them our signs in themselves and the universe".

Regards

@God exits
 

Hello All :)

Well, There is no scientific theory which could disapprove the existence of GOD.In fact there is scientific evidence that proves that the universe or life is not the result of a mere accident or by chance production.We find a definite and perfectly calculated plan behind the great handiwork of nature.This planning is telling us about the existance of a Most Intelligent Governer of the universe.

Science is not a perfect knowledge ,it is changing accordingly with time and proves its own theories wrong .we know that some time ago atom was unbreakable.Later on science broke it,thus proving its former theory as wrong.

what are these scientific discoveries and inventions ? Scientists just observe and try to discover the facts that already exist.Science can not create LAWS ,only try to define the LAWS of NATURE.Space still unable to know the mysteries of this known universe.

Science is dependent on the Five sense to get the knowledge of things.But we know that there are many things beyond the reach and limit of these Five senses.These Mata-physical facts can not be proved with physical means any way.

GOD is not a physical entity .we could never be able to prove GOD through our little knowledge .How come a definite thing can understand indefinite.IT IS SIMPLY IMPOSSIBLE.GOD can only be felt through HIS manifestation.and HIS best manifestation is this Universe.....I think it is too much :)


Best regards

Religion and science must not be compared really. The Christians have learned it through the hard way. Science is not biased and doesn't favor anything. It keeps on changing. For example during Aristotle's time the figure "60" was taken as the base and it worked then. Now the base is "10". Hence science is ever evolving.

Science may or may not contradict what the religion preaches. Hence, it should not be used to prove anything religious. It must not be used to measure or validate the religious teachings or revelations.

Iman is blind faith. Religion and particularly our religion is final and complete. The Quran is word of Allah and carry his commands. It is not a book of science. And it should never be taken as such.

cheers,
floydian

Everything cannot be understood in light of logic. Logic is a useful phenomena and man is designed to search for it. But Reality or divinity is best understood without the aid of logic or books. Its like the taste of water- you can describe it as flavourless- but cannot give a name to its taste. And that is how some individuals understand God- by transcending the limits of logic and into a realm of souls.

I havent ever felt it,nor do I really understand it, but they say you have to recognize your soul first in order to realize Allah. Thus the Quran rightly points out,

"....And we are nearer to you than your jugular vein" (50:16)


[B][COLOR="Red"]@ prissygirl[/COLOR][/B]
So if you think the evolution is quite correct, and so is Allah's statement of the origins of man, isnt there a dissention in your claims? How can you cope with both at the same time? I think I have concluded that theory of evolution is a hoax or a flawed theory at best.

More videos worth watching
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg&feature=related[/url]
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV4_lVTVa6k&feature=related[/url]
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRsMfnPCceI[/url]
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0wwhSlo1NI[/url]
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Q55z6EsL8M[/url]
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eblrphIwoJQ[/url]
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GEh1u5fF4M&feature=fvw[/url]
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsSOcwY79ig&feature=related[/url]
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9q2ABS7wSxU[/url]
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KR8SigWQuY[/url]

Those who want to be remain perpetually deluded by the scientific goof haroon yahya who is financed with millions of dollars by certain lobbies, only to keep many indoctrinated so that the light of reason never liberate humanity from these shackles. because there is no answer to the beliefs born out by gut-feelings

My Turn!`
 

[B][I]i again don't want to poke my nose into this controversial topic but i already answered this query, but again i want to mention here that all are moving around to the topic, but i and someone else have mentioned that if we will find God by science then we will not be able to find Him, but by faith and emaan then He is here and everywhere.

God Bless You All

Recommendations are welcomed

Regards
Azhar Hussain Memon
[/I][/B]

@Saqib Ali Khan
[QUOTE]The simple postulate of science is that nothing can exist without proper organization and systemetized 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.[/QUOTE]
If it’s a simple postulate of science that nothing exists without proper organization and headed by a leader. But how that is possible?? 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 then you have taken for granted what you need to prove and as such your argument is petito-in-principi fallacious. Moreover, even if it is granted that there is a head or leader then according to our postulate: Nothing exists without proper organization. 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? And who is the leader of him and so on ad infinitum….. If you say that we have to assume god as a leader then why not assume his leader and so on?? Why don't we consider nature as a self-directing principle?
@ Blossomberry
[QUOTE]Rather the living organism once having come into being ( protoplasm ) is eternally evolving and dissolving itself.[/QUOTE]
If I am not wrong then that "once having come into being" means Creation.
Regarding Darwinian evolution, is it justified completely – PROVED, or is it just a consensus among the scientists? The following may be illuminative in this regard:
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. In other words, the probability of the coincidental formation of only one protein molecule cited above is "1 in 10E300". The probability of this "1" occurring out of an "astronomical" number consisting of 1 followed by 300 zeros is for all practical purposes zero; it is impossible. Furthermore, a protein molecule of 288 amino acids is rather a modest one compared with some giant protein molecules consisting of thousands of amino acids. When we apply similar probability calculations to these giant protein molecules, we see that even the word "impossible" becomes inadequate.
When we proceed one step further in the development scheme of life, we observe that one protein alone means nothing by itself. One of the smallest bacteria ever discovered, "Mycoplasma Hominis H 39", contains 600 types of proteins. In this case, we would have to repeat the probability calculations we have made above for one protein for each of these 600 different types of proteins. The result beggars even the concept of impossibility.
1. Prof. Dr. Ali Demirsoy, one of the foremost advocates of evolutionist thought in Turkey, in his book Kalitim ve Evrim (Inheritance and Evolution), discusses the probability of the accidental formation of Cytochrome-C, one of the essential enzymes for life:
The probability of providing the particular amino acid sequence of Cytochrome-C is as unlikely as the possibility of a monkey writing the history of humanity on a typewriter and taking it for granted that the monkey pushes the keys at random.
2. The renowned British mathematician and astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle confesses this fact in one of his statements published in Nature magazine dated November 12, 1981:
The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.

@ Aphrodite
[QUOTE]So if you think the evolution is quite correct, and so is Allah's statement of the origins of man, isnt there a dissention in your claims? How can you cope with both at the same time? [/QUOTE]
Why it is supposed that evolution can't be "coped" with creation? First of all, Darwin's evolution is not the only 'model'. There are many other types of evolution e.g; Bergson's, Iqbal's, etc. And many of these models are included in the concept of process-theology or process-philosophy. Secondly, why evolution is just limited to living things? Iqbal, e.g; considers evolution as a vital process going on at every moment. His description is quite technical and will be understood better if read directly from the reconstruction. Suffice it would be to say that he not only gives evolution of man, but of everything, even of our concept 'space-time' (not space and time). And this concept of evolution is closely related to our concept of God, because as Iqbal says:
"It is a growing universe and not an already completed product which left the hand of its maker ages ago, and is now lying stretched in space as a dead mass of matter to which time does nothing, and consequently is nothing.
We are now, I hope, in a position to see the meaning of the verse - ‘And it is He Who hath ordained the night and the day to succeed one another for those who desire to think on God or desire to be thankful.’ A critical interpretation of the sequence of time as revealed in ourselves has led us to a notion of the Ultimate Reality as pure duration in which thought, life, and purpose interpenetrate to form an organic unity. We cannot conceive this unity except as the unity of a self - an all-embracing concrete self - the ultimate source of all individual life and thought."
"Nature, as we have seen, is not a mass of pure materiality occupying a void. It is a structure of events, a systematic mode of behaviour, and as such organic to the Ultimate Self. Nature is to the Divine Self as character is to the human self. In the picturesque phrase of the Qur’an it is the habit of Allah. From the human point of view it is an interpretation which, in our present situation, we put on the creative activity of the Absolute Ego. At a particular moment in its forward movement it is finite; but since the self to which it is organic is creative, it is liable to increase, and is consequently boundless in the sense that no limit to its extension is final. Its boundlessness is potential, not actual. Nature, then, must be understood as a living, ever-growing organism whose growth has no final external limits. Its only limit is internal, i.e. the immanent self which animates and sustains the whole. As the Qur’an says: ‘And verily unto thy Lord is the limit’ (53:42). Thus the view that we have taken gives a fresh spiritual meaning to physical science. The knowledge of Nature is the knowledge of God’s behaviour. In our observation of Nature we are virtually seeking a kind of intimacy with the Absolute Ego; and this is only another form of worship."

[B]RATIONALITY OF SCIENCE[/B]
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??

[B]MY QUESTION[/B]
And finally do you think that our test in this life, as it is upheld by major religions, would be easy if the existence of God was not an issue and we could somehow know that god exists? I mean many of us know that if we don't study well we will fail in our college exams no matter how many teachers and head-masters are there??

a dense jargoon, but telling what have already been refuted
 

sir i read your whole post very carefully but so far i am very glad that all your scientific-cum-philosophical indictment against evolution and science as a mean to reach god carry no weight whatsoever, though a lay man may be very impressed by it.i am back from somewhere and gone sleep and tomorrow there is a long engagement. so pardon me if i reply late. but i would form a response so that it could be clear what is the difference between scientific jugglery and scientific judgement. Most of your fact themselves are not right in first place. prove it soon

Sure sure sir, take your time..... take as much as you wanted and please let me enlighten and correct my "dense jaragon".

But let me clear this point. I have not criticized evolution, I have criticized the darwinian concept of "mutation by chance evolving newer species".

And I have not criticized science to reach God. Hope you will go again through my post as there are many arguments against the theistic arguments.

Waiting for ur response sir....... especially on "scientific jugglery and scientific 'judgment' ".

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.

[URL]http://chemistry.umeche.maine.edu/CHY431/Evolve2.html[/URL]

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) [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle's_fallacy[/URL] 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.

[URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgOwejDLJjQ[/URL]

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

[URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0&feature=rec-HM-fresh+div[/URL]

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)

@ Blossomberrry
 

[QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]Sir I totally agree with you that the word "proof" is not a scientific term and that is just what I wanted to say. The word proof is even more foundational than mathematics - its a term of logic. Now if we show that nothing is "provable" at the logical level, then nothing is provable at the mathematical level and also at the scientific level. It has been shown by the works of Godel's (Incompleteness theorem) and Turing (founder of computer and Artificial intelligence) that nothing is "provable" even at the logical level. But if this is true then in one of your previous post you wrote: "Creationism has died its scientific death. [B][SIZE="5"][SIZE="3"]PROOF[/SIZE][/SIZE][/B] is in following videos." Here your use of the word proof shows how ludicrous and outlandish your statement was and that you don't have any understanding of science, mathematics or logic whatsoever. Just like the bigoted obstinate dumb ass advocates of evolution who keep hammering that they have "proved" the death of creationism.

[QUOTE]"the living organism once having come into being ( protoplasm ) is eternally evolving and dissolving itself."[/QUOTE]First it is not clear how the first coming into being occurred. Abiogenesis might be true, in the laboratories, but what is the evidence that it 'was' the method thru which the simplest-of-all-life formed? Even [SIZE="3"][B]IF[/B][/SIZE] granted that it "was" the method, how it became possible that the simplest life developed a process of reproduction?
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 [B][SIZE="3"]IF[/SIZE][/B] all the evidences against evolution be put under the carpet and evolution granted, it will at best 'describe' how life [B][SIZE="3"]MIGHT HAVE[/SIZE][/B] formed on this earth but it may not [B][SIZE="3"]BE[/SIZE][/B] 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]The evolution of biochemical systems which are not simply chance but a non-random process due to selection pressure.[/QUOTE]Is it the selection pressure that has caused the biological systems to evolve or is it that the biological systems are as such, so we [B]ATTRIBUTED[/B] selection pressure to it in the retrospect. Assumptions and opinions rule again. However, even [B][SIZE="3"]IF[/SIZE][/B] granted that there is a selection pressure, then why do the vestigial organs (that are not beneficial to the organism) get dropped out. It simply means there is no such "selection pressure", for if it were, humans would have dropped out the coccyx, appendix etc from the population pool. But as it hasn't, non-random selection is just an imagination in the retrospect, a figment of the hollow-minds of the evolutionists. Moreover, let I point to another fallacy in this argument. In assuming that there had been selection among different kinds of species and amino acids, it [B]PRE-SUPPOSES[/B] that there actually were such lethal and useless AA alongwith the useful amino-acids. But what is the evidence that such a LARGE CHUNK of lethal and useless AA actually was and only the useful AA got selected. The moment you assume that there were, you have to accept the necessary conclusion of random selection. But it’s a pity that such evidence (CHUNKS AND CHUNKS of useless and harmless AA) did not exist. So in short, the natural selection as an evidence of evolution pre-supposes evolution and is petitio-in-principi fallacious. Even then [B][SIZE="3"]IF[/SIZE][/B] assumed that it was so, it is definitely against Entropy, which is a LAW in nature (and not a theory as evolution is). How is it possible that life gets organized and organized further by non-random selection while entropy kept on increasing? Its plainly contradictory.

[QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]Again assuming evolution to prove evolution. Lol! Why should I assume that the bacteria today are(or aren't) representative of some primitive bacteria? Why should I assume that they are representative or linked to primitive bacteria that are not like them? The moment I assume this representation (linking), what is there to examine and debunk in the concept of evolution? Evolution argument goes like this: There are primitive (transitive) forms because evolution suggests so. Evolution is true because there are transitive forms. Lol, how much more absurd an argument can be!!

[QUOTE]You clearly have no understanding of modern biology or the scientific method.[/QUOTE]So far as my knowledge about scientific method is concerned, may I tell you that I have a "little" Masters in philosophy. Therefore, if I am to start the criticism against the scientific method (ie not just methodological naturalism but also about critical rationalism and instrumentalism, etc) and their relations with various theories of truth and knowledge, the validity of the scientific method will fall to the ground like a house of cards. Science at best is inductive and what is inductive can't be valid.

[QUOTE]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. [/QUOTE]Ah that hit me! the "actual evidence"! can you give me the "actual evidence" of evolution? All the hoax of evolution has never been witnessed or experienced by anyone. All the "real evidence" is the transitive form, most (almost all) of which is "the missing link" (or hypothetical imaginative deception). Before saying that creationists wish that the actual evidence will magically be disappeared, first make that appear in the real world. LOL!
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.

[I]"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.". [/I]

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]This is such a stupid proposition that giving an answer to it is an insult to human intelligence.[/QUOTE]Your "stupid proposition" is still an unsolvable paradox for the rest of humanity. Since its inception into the human knowledge approximately 2500yrs ago, the greatest minds have been tried their best to solve it but all in vain. It has in fact forced many of the greatest mathematicians and physicists of the 20th century to either become insane or to commit suicide e.g; Cantor, Godel, Turing, Boltzman, etc. It still terrifies the human race. So if you please can answer this "stupid proposition" you will solve one of the greatest problems the human mind has ever thought of. However, I can understand your difficulties behind "the stupid proposition", so please don't disturb that tiny pre-frontal cortex in this matter coz for modern science it falls in the indeterminacy.

[QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]I can only pray that you come out of the dogmatic propaganda that pig-headed evolutionists have created to indoctrinate the layman with a particular set of ideologies.

[QUOTE]i think you are a genuine inquisitor not a stubborn puritanical dogmatic,[/QUOTE]I also think that you are a genuine inquistor and can understand the various "stubborn puritanical dogmas" and can think "critically" for yourself and have an ability to understand the underlying assumptions and dogmas which are arrogantly and constantly being hammered down.

[QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]I have shown above a glimpse of Iqbal's significance for the modern era so your assumption that he has nothing significant has been debunked. Secondly, it was Darwin whose grave is in the prestigious cemetery of the royal society (an elite group) and was thus a tool in the hand of the ruling elites of the Europe. So, In reality, he is nothing more than "an unmitigated disaster" and all the equivalent superlatives I can think off.

[QUOTE]To me you seem to be a doctor, what are you a doctor of? [/QUOTE]Well that was the most hilarious and idiotic part of your post. I am an MBBS doctor and not a biologist. I study disease patterns and their cures. You may have seen doctors who have treated people with "evolution" but I haven't seen even a veterinary doing that. I study how human body works, how it gets diseased and the effects of various 'drugs' on it. So get an understanding of what a 'doctor' is before passing your idiotic "judgments". I think you even don't have a basic understanding of what is the difference between a biologist and a doctor. So first start with simple concepts and study them and later, provided you are able to, discuss complicated "issues" like evolution or "scientific method". I hope that time will come soon....

Until then I will be Praying to my Allah for that time to come.
REGARDS!

Hi All,

I hope I can add some input to this interesting discussion.

@Saqib Ali Khan

[quote]
I will try to prove the existence of God with the help of a very simple example. This will be simple logic that i will use here. We know that Science believes in organization and systematic processes. The simple postulate of science is that nothing can exist without proper organization and systemetized processes. Now, look at obvious examples in our daily lives. 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.[/quote]

This is inaccurate. Firstly, science does not "believe" in anything. Science is a process and examples such as the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and chaos theory demonstrate that the initial premise is wrong in some cases. This is then followed by a non sequitur to build a straw man argument. In addition, this can be simply falsified by a single example of a household which is run democratically without a head or leader.

@newstudent

[quote]In my opinion science neither ACCEPT GOD NOR REJECT IT.[/quote]

This is correct. Science is agnostic, not atheistic or theistic. It cannot comment on the existence or non-existence of God as it is bound by the scientific method (methodological naturalism). The scientific method can however test and provide evidence to falsify specific fact claims made by various religions. e.g. the universe is approximately 6,000 years old.

@oriental

[quote] Well, There is no scientific theory which could disapprove the existence of GOD.[/quote]

Correct. A scientific theory is explanatory and therefore does not disprove anything. Evidence not theories falsify hypotheses. See above response.

[quote]
In fact there is scientific evidence that proves that the universe or life is not the result of a mere accident or by chance production.We find a definite and perfectly calculated plan behind the great handiwork of nature.This planning is telling us about the existance of a Most Intelligent Governer of the universe.[/quote]

This is incorrect. The straw man argument of "mere accident or by chance production" is not descriptive of scientific explanations for the diversity of life. Science has not found a "definite and perfectly calculated plan behind the great handiwork of nature".

@Junaid Ali Rind Baloch

[quote]Fisrt of all Saqib Ali Khan is correct.[/quote]

Incorrect. See above response.

[quote]And science is no powerful and till yet it not create any kind of matter, this is weakness of science. It is perfect evidence.[/quote]

Incorrect. Science has given us the technology to create matter. Particle accelerators regularly create matter such as electron positron pairs, neutrons etc.

[url]http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRA/v39/i8/p4076_1[/url]
[url]http://www.springerlink.com/content/h248r5268u005m41/[/url]
[url]http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0954-3899/25/1/003[/url]

@Perplexed

[quote]
Sir I totally agree with you that the word "proof" is not a scientific term and that is just what I wanted to say.[/quote]

This is interesting. You state that this is what you wanted to say, however your original context of use indicates the opposite in setting up a false dichotomy. This would indicate that you were potentially being intellectually dishonest either then or now.

@Perplexed
[quote]It has been shown by the works of Godel's (Incompleteness theorem) and Turing (founder of computer and Artificial intelligence) that nothing is "provable" even at the logical level.[/quote]

"Your" use of Godel and Turing to "prove" that nothing is provable sets up a paradox. If you accept that Godel and Turing have "proved" that nothing is provable, you have in fact "proved" that Godel and Turing were wrong. The act of proving the position (nothing is provable) is self contradictory (when used in your context) and thus "proves" the original premise is logical incorrect.

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]
Even IF granted that it "was" the method, how it became possible that the simplest life developed a process of reproduction? [/quote]

This statement demonstrates a lack of understanding of life itself. One of the key criteria which defines life is it's ability to reproduce. Therefore the ability to replicate or reproduce was required "before" something could even be called life. Whilst the life that exists today has diversified into many different processes of reproduction e.g. asexual, parthenogenetic and binary fission, sexual, allogamy, autogamy or hermaphroditic, as well as basic mitosis and meiosis. We see self replication itself in many non-life or proto-life components, either through the formation of crystalline structures, the pseudo-parasitism of viral replication or most notably in long chained polymers such as the nucleic acids of which DNA is but one.

@Perplexed
[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?[/quote]

This statement reveals your lack of understanding regarding the scientific theory and it's evidence. A scientific theory is predictive as well as explanatory. Something does not have to be observed for it to be predicted. As all of the evidence (that's correct, "all" of the evidence) indicates that life has diversified on this planet due to evolution by natural selection, it predicts a succession of organisms. What are some examples of it's other predictions of common descent?

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.

[url]http://www.pnas.org/content/88/20/9051.abstract[/url]

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.

[url]http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0001026[/url]
[url]http://www.springerlink.com/content/n97237q568637551/[/url]
[url]http://www.pnas.org/content/96/18/10254.full[/url]
[url]http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/101525512/abstract[/url]

@Perplexed
[quote]
Moreover, why should we assume that there are or "will be" missing links.[/quote]

Whilst the 19th century concept of "missing links" is somewhat of a deliberate misrepresentation of paleontology of today, another great example of the predictive power of evolution is the search for tetrapod fossils with transitional features. Not that long ago, our tetrapod fossil record had Panderichthys (380 mya) and Acanthostega (365 mya). Paleontologists had not at this point found any species with transitional features between these two organisms. The prediction of evolution is that we should find a species of sarcopterygian fish which lived somewhere between 380 and 365 million years ago which exhibited transitional features between these two other fossils. Neil Shubin and his team went out in search for it. They identified which geological formations were (according to geologists) layed down in a shallow sea environment approximately 375 million years ago and confined their search to these formations. In 2004, the predictions of evolution were once again confirmed. Shubin and his team unearthed Tiktaalik. This specimen was precisely what was expected to be found and where it was expected to be found in the geological column. It doesn't appear to matter to creationists how many fossils we find with transitional features. They continue to simply put their hands over their eyes and repeat the mantra, "I see no evidence". Meanwhile, the march of progress moves forward and the list of extinct organisms which exhibit transitional features found in precisely the geological column position predicted by the theory, continues to grow. Here is a list of the organisms which show the transition from fish to amphibian tetrapod. It continues to grow each year and new discoveries continue to reveal the richness of how the diversity of life occurred.

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

[url]http://www.devoniantimes.org/Order/re-tiktaalik.html[/url]
[url]http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7085/abs/nature04637.html[/url]
[url]http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7085/abs/nature04639.html[/url]

@Perplexed (quoting blossomberrry)
[quote][quote]The evolution of biochemical systems which are not simply chance but a non-random process due to selection pressure.[/quote]

Is it the selection pressure that has caused the biological systems to evolve or is it that the biological systems are as such[/quote]

It is selection pressure. This has been confirmed in the lab via direct observation and experimentation.

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.

[url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC345072/[/url]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria[/url]

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.

[url]http://aem.asm.org/cgi/reprint/61/5/2020.pdf[/url]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment[/url]

@Perplexed
[quote]
It simply means there is no such "selection pressure", for if it were, humans would have dropped out the coccyx, appendix etc from the population pool.[/quote]

Unless vestigial structures are exapted for another purpose they are eventually dropped. The question is timeline. We are in the process of dropping them if they are functionless. If however, the structures are exapted for something other than their original function, they may remain in a vestigial state. Whilst the appendix is a vestigial form of the cecum, it may now still provide some beneficial function to assist in the culturing of symbiotic bacteria which aids digestion. The coccyx is the remnant of a tail (which is still present during stages 14 to 22 of human embryogenesis). Whilst the primary function of assisting mobility, balance or even a prehensile function no longer exists, it still possesses secondary functionality of muscle attachment which may limit (provide selection pressure) for retaining it.

@Perplexed
[quote]
Even then IF assumed that it was so, it is definitely against Entropy, which is a LAW in nature (and not a theory as evolution is). How is it possible that life gets organized and organized further by non-random selection while entropy kept on increasing? Its plainly contradictory.[/quote]

This is an all too common response from people who either do not understand science, scientific laws and specifically entropy or are dishonestly misrepresenting them. I won't make a determination as to whether you are simply ignorant or dishonest in this particular group of posts. A scientific law is a categorised series of observations. A scientific law can be broken by an observation. If a law says X, and you can observe "not X", it is the law that is falsified not the observation. Someone with even a basic understanding of science knows this. In discussing entropy, I will make the assumption that you are attempting to refer to the second law of thermodynamics. Thermodynamics refers to heat (thermo) and movement (dynamics) i.e. the movement of heat. For decades, creationists have been sprouting out crap that evolution violates the second law when they simply do not understand what it actually is. This is most disappointing that you have used this one, as up to now, I had given you more credibility than to pull out possible the most repeatedly debunked crap of all the creationist arguments against evolution. To do it one more time. The second law deals with heat transfer in a "closed" system. Entropy can decrease in a local area of this closed system whilst the system overall exhibits an increase in entropy. The planet Earth is not a closed system. We have a huge ball of gas out there called "The Sun" (you may have heard of this) which bathes the Earth in an incredible amount of new energy every day. As such, the Earth and all the planets individually experience a decrease in entropy whilst the entire solar system experiences an increase in entropy. I'm still shaking my head at the thought that you would use this argument either through ignorance or dishonesty.

@Perplexed
[quote]
Why should I assume that the bacteria today are(or aren't) representative of some primitive bacteria? Why should I assume that they are representative or linked to primitive bacteria that are not like them?[/quote]

As with the above examples of flavobacteria, pseudomonas and E.coli which show that bacteria can and do evolve new and greater complexity which can include an increase in the length of the genome, the question needs to be "what mechanism could possibly stop extant bacteria from being different from primitive bacteria?". Even in eukaryote cells we see the remnants of an ancient endosymbiotic relationship with mitochondria or chloroplasts. We can even look to more recent studies regarding much smaller self replicating systems such as nanobacteria to indicate potential forms only a more primitive self replicator, but one that may not even be accepted as a life form due to it's size.

[url]http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/cg0255725[/url]
[url]http://www.springerlink.com/content/2015x5r6081236x4/[/url]

@Perplexed
[quote]
There are primitive (transitive) forms because evolution suggests so. Evolution is true because there are transitive forms.
[/quote]

Incorrect. Evolution predicted that we would find fossil evidence of organisms which possess transitional features. It also predicted that we would find these in a logical sequence which conforms to the geological column. That is exactly what we find.This sequence of organisms also provides a falsification point for evolution. Find a modern rabbit fossil in undisturbed and unintruded Cambrian strata and you would falsify evolution. Find a modern antelope bone in a therapod copralite and you would falsify evolution. Find a modern whale skeleton in the Silurian. Find a hominoid fossil in the Carboniferous. All these would falsify evolution. Instead, we find none of these, we find an amazingly diverse series of fossils in progressive strata which demonstrate transitional features between those organisms from older strata and those from younger. The predictions of evolutionary theory are confirmed again and again each year, with every new discovery.

@Perplexed
[quote]
So far as my knowledge about scientific method is concerned, may I tell you that I have a "little" Masters in philosophy.[/quote]

I guess this explains all the errors you appear to be making whilst you regurgitate your misunderstandings and misrepresentations.


@Perplexed
[quote]can you give me the "actual evidence" of evolution? All the hoax of evolution has never been witnessed or experienced by anyone. All the "real evidence" is the transitive form, most (almost all) of which is "the missing link"[/quote]

Once again you are displaying your ignorance for all to see. You need to open your eyes and look at the evidence instead of simply cloistering yourself inside your wall of denial. What would you consider to be "actual" evidence of evolution?

@Perplexed
[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??[/quote]

This is laughable. In what is now becoming a typical start to my answers, you appear to also be ignorant of phylogenetics and cladistics. All humans are apes. We along with chimps, bonobos, gorillas, orangutans and gibbons are classified in the superfamily Hominoidea. Any hominoid will have an appearance similar to an ape due to one reason, it IS an ape. In addition, "dysmorphomegaly" is not a word (do you mean dysmorphology) and hirsutism is irrelevant to this discussion as our hominid fossils do not include hair. Even our most recent phylogenetic extinct relative (not ancestral) species, "Neanderthal" has now been shown to be a distinct and separate species via mitochondral DNA analysis.

[url]http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0020057[/url]

@Perplexed
[quote]
In contrast to this transitive form, why shouldn't I assume that God has created these definite species (with variations and similarities yet definite)[/quote]

Simple. The overwhelming evidence indicates otherwise. If God created, it is clear that He created using a process. The process He decided to utilise to generate the diversity of life was evolution. This reality gives us a greater insight into the power of God. A much more powerful God than one who can only create distinct species. This insight into God posits a God who can create via the development of an amazing dynamic process. Don't put God in a box in terms of what He can and cannot do.


@Perplexed
[quote]Further, the modern science didn't deny but complement the creationists' argument that all creation occurred at an instant........followed by 3 paragraphs of rambling.[/quote]

No it doesn't. String theory (which should be rightly termed "The string hypothesis" until a Higgs Boson is discovered) does not dictate that the universe has already been played out and that we are simply traveling along in serial time. In addition, space time geometry only emerges in the theory at weak coupling or large distance scales but is not fundamental in string theory.

@Perplexed (quoting blossomberrry)
[quote][quote]
This is such a stupid proposition that giving an answer to it is an insult to human intelligence.[/quote]

Your "stupid proposition" is still an unsolvable paradox for the rest of humanity.....So if you please can answer this "stupid proposition" you will solve one of the greatest problems the human mind has ever thought of.[/quote]

Not really. The smallest distance would be 1 over infinity. Do you seriously that one of the greatest problems the human mind has ever thought of? Should I buy a Coke or a Pepsi is a more difficult problem.

@Perplexed
[quote]
So first start with simple concepts and study them and later, provided you are able to, discuss complicated "issues" like evolution or "scientific method". I hope that time will come soon....[/quote]

So first start with simple concepts and study them and later, provided you are able to, discuss complicated "issues" like evolution or "scientific method". I hope that time will come soon....

@ Perplexed
 

Oh dear, I guess I was late to reply, because while I was away, you had to face plenty of thrashing ….kidding ;) But yeah I guess I need not say more, except that firstly, I dont quite understand what point are you trying to drive home, I mean, are you primarily for science or for God? See when this discussion first came up, by evolution, we generally mean theory of evolution as given by Darwin. Iqbal’s theory of evolution of course has to subscribe to the Islamic ideology and so isn’t even questioned. Moreover, if you have mentioned his paper, Reconstruction of religious thought in islam, you also have to bear in mind that it is a very cumbersome read, and let alone most of us on this forum, but many intellectuals cant even claim to understand it fully. Nevertheless, if you do, then its your task to break it up for a layman too- and that you’ve done a bad job of :shy. Even inside the theory of evolution, we were specifically talking about the origins of man. I really haven’t read up on Iqbal’s theory of origins of man, if has proposed one that is.

The arguments which you have pointed out are mostly from the realm of Metaphysics- which mind you isn’t even classified as pure science. Metaphysics is again highly inspired by religion or theology- and not just Islam as we would like to believe. Mainstream science hasn’t been able to ‘cope’ with God’s existence because of many fundamental flaws in its postulates. My point is, friend, that not everything is understood in light of our senses. There are realms out there, that are very much Real yet if contained within these scientific postulates, will become impossible to attain. Yeah, we are talking mysticism and Sufism.