Is Evolution Intellectually Viable?

This article might interest you:
Qur'an and Human Evolution
by Ahmed Afzaal
No webpage found at provided URL: www.fortunecity.com/boozers/cheshire/170/SURVIVAL%20(1).htmlAs for no direct mention of humans being descendants of hominids (sorry, I had to correct you, the term 'hominid' is a vernacular for the members of family Hominidae. The hominids which is alive today include humans, chimps, and gorillas), I could have stated that the Qur'an also does not mention some other scientific facts. My main argument is that the Qur'an is not intended to be a scientific/technical textbook.{Fixed URL - Adminnemooseus}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 11-08-2002]

So the evolutionist explains only HOW evolution tooks place but does not delve to the root cause of the the HOW. Am I right?Regards,
Ahmad

Walaikum salam Delshad,I take your advise and will try to do likewise. Thanks. And yes, Ramadan Mubarak to you too Salam,
Ahmad

Hi Ahmad,If I understand your post correctly, I think you've hit it on the head. Most of those who study biology - and especially biological evolution - aren't concerned about where the first replicator came from. Only about what happens after. Before life arose, everything was chemistry. (And many of the biologists I know literally loathed organic chemistry courses - although not a biologist, I include myself in that number). So in essence, you're right. Evolutionary biologists aren't that interested in abiogenesis - and it really doesn't matter for their understanding of the rest of natural history.

AhmadIt is simply a matter of definition.However one of the other phrases for abiogenesis is 'chemical evolution' so it is primarily in E vs C debates that abiogenesis is not considered 'evolution'. It is simply a sophisticaed choice to not call it evolution.Of course abiogenesis is part of evolutionary theory!

AndyaEvery time you think that homology proves common descent or that peppered moths or Galapogas finches prove macroevolution it means that you, as others before you, have interpreted the data to a place you want it to go.

QuetzalOf course the orgin of all of the genes that arose in between bacteria and multicelluar organisms and between them and mammals or higher plants are part of even your definiton of evolution. But all you guys ever talk about is gene duplication and allelic variation! Nothing to do with novel protein families.We agree on all the fundamental aspects of evoltuion. It's just the critical aspects realted to the origin of genuine novelty which distinguish C vs E in which you have jumped the gun.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Of course the orgin of all of the genes that arose in between bacteria and multicelluar organisms and between them and mammals or higher plants are part of even your definiton of evolution.

---

Are you arguing that genetic material which arises in living animals, due to mutation/duplications/whatever, constitutes abiogenesis?------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Andya

​

Every time you think that homology proves common descent or that peppered moths or Galapogas finches prove macroevolution it means that you, as others before you, have interpreted the data to a place you want it to go.

---

What is the barrier to macroevolution?

John,

quote:

---

Good question, but THAT it turns up heads every time does not imply the intervention of a God, which is how you seem to using the argument.

---

Who's speaking of God here? I am not impying any element of luck here but its an example to point out the conscious intervention of the tosser. Nothing more .. nothing less.

quote:

---

That was a typo. I meant 'conscious' not 'conscience.' oops. And you have been implying the intervention of a conscious but unseen entity.

---

Once again, I have not used the word unseen in my argument... yet. Its a simple analogy to demonstrate the conscious interference of the tosser.

quote:

---

Are you talking about the magician's trick? If someone practices enough you can learn to control the rotation of a coin. And yes, it could be a trick of the tosser. But 'could be' is proof of anything. Gee, everytime I throw a rock up, it comes back down. That COULD BE a trick of invisible aliens who push stuff down all the time.

---

What I intend to illustrate through my analogy that something highly improbable (almost impossible) such as the coincidental formation of proteins or the tossing of a coin that always turns out to be heads, is the conscious intervention of God and the tosser respectively. Do you agree?

quote:

---

I can see where this is going. If you wish to infer that proteins, or any other element, are tricks of the tosser, you have to provide evidence of the tosser.

---

Don't you think that the high improbability as the modern human minds have evaluated regarding the coincidental formation of proteins, enough evidence for the existence of the tosser a.k.a God??

quote:

---

And this is relevant why? You are essentially talking about an UNSEEN entity-- Allah in your case.

---

Lets go step-by-step.

quote:

---

Probability calculations cannot answer this question. That is the whole point of this debate with you. If proteins were created, that evidence with show up in the hard data.

---

C'mon.. you don't expect every proteins to have the name of its creator like "Made by Allah", do you?

quote:

---

hmm.... and chemicals are not inanimate? Strike that objection. We are talking about inanimate objects.

---

Since chemicals like proteins do have protoplasm, which is the basic source of life, do you consider them to be inanimate? (Correct me if I am wrong)

quote:

---

But your example is a misuse of probability.

---

How?

quote:

---

March your butt over the math department of a major university.

---

quote:

---

Yup, and make the same mistake you do, which is why the scientific world is not quaking in fear.

---

Who are you? A scholar, a scientist?? Do you have Ph.D? What are your credentials to undermine the scientists I have mentioned?

quote:

---

You have given the conditions in which modern proteins exist and are viable. What were the conditions on Earth 4 billion years ago? And what happen in the next two billion years? Have you carefully analyzed every possible option for precursor proteins, chemical environments, radiation? Think carefully.

---

I am not sure about this but are you suggesting that there is a difference between modern proteins and primitive ones? Elaborate plz.

quote:

---

And this is the most simple POSSIBLE protein, or just the most simple existing protein? What about protein precursors?

---

Any protein for that matter. One of the smallest bacteria ever discovered, Mycoplasma Hominis H39, contains 600 "types" of proteins. In this case, I would have to repeat the probability calculations I have made before for one protein for each of these 600 different types of proteins. The result beggars even the concept of impossibility.

quote:

---

Can it? How did you come to this conclusion? Chemical bonds are not completely random. It isn't like shuffling a deck of cards.

---

Am I wrong in this assumption of a simple protein which can be arrange in 10^300 ways? And besides, 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, even the word "impossible" becomes inadequate.Regards,
Ahmad

"The likelihood of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it... It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence."(Fred Hoyle, Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space, New York, Simon & Schuster, 1984, p. 148.)Regards,
Ahmad

[QUOTE][B]And besides, 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, even the word "impossible" becomes inadequate.[/QUOTE][/B]With oceans full of organic compounds and millions of reactions occuring in each drop, how long do you really think it would take to generate a replicating polypeptide? A week perhaps?Autocatalysis occurs in the lab, after all.

Are you endorsing the opinions of Sir Fred Hoyle? After all, you are quoting him...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ahmad:
"The likelihood of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it... It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution.

---

No, it isn't. The origins of life, & the subsequent variation (evolution) are different things entirely. Secondly, 10^40,000 : 1 is the odds of what occurring, EXACTLY? I predict a strawman!Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ahmad:
What I intend to illustrate through my analogy that something highly improbable (almost impossible) such as the coincidental formation of proteins or the tossing of a coin that always turns out to be heads, is the conscious intervention of God and the tosser respectively. Do you agree?

---

No, and I have explained why several time now. You don't appear to be listening. Once again, that the coin turns up heads every time no matter how improbable it is, does not tell you anything about WHY it turns up heads. Now, in the event of the coin tos you describe, it would be wise to investigate. So lets run through it. The tosser could be very good at 'trick' coin tossing. So we give the coin to a random selection of people. If the strange run of heads ceases, we know the answer. If not, we carefully determine the coin's center of gravity. If that coin is weighted then we know the answer. If not, then we have to look elsewhere for an answer. One of those other answers is that Goddidit. How do we test that? We have no evidence for God or for any of god's works, leaving out those proofs that require the proposition we are examining. So, with no evidence for the agent, it is idiotic to claim that the agent is responsible.

quote:

---

Don't you think that the high improbability as the modern human minds have evaluated regarding the coincidental formation of proteins, enough evidence for the existence of the tosser a.k.a God??

---

This is circular. See above.

quote:

---

C'mon.. you don't expect every proteins to have the name of its creator like "Made by Allah", do you?

---

It would have been very considerate for him to have done so, but no, I do expect it. However, if the universe was created at sometime in the recent past why does the evidence-- all of the evidence-- point toward a much different conclusion?

quote:

---

Since chemicals like proteins do have protoplasm, which is the basic source of life, do you consider them to be inanimate? (Correct me if I am wrong)

---

I'm sorry, what? Proteins have cytoplasm? Cytoplasm is the basic source of life? Have you taken a single biology or chemistry course in your life? [QUOTE][b]But your example is a misuse of probability.[/QUOTE]How?[/b][/quote]Good grief!!!!! I have been over this three or four times. Andya has explained it as well.

quote:

---

---

That is a damning retort. Why don't you go ask a mathematician? What is funny about that suggestion?

quote:

---

Who are you? A scholar, a scientist?? Do you have Ph.D? What are your credentials to undermine the scientists I have mentioned?

---

Who are you? A scholar, a scientist? Do you have a Ph.D? What are your credentials to evaluate the works of the scientists you mention?You are making an appeal to authority. It is a fallacy. Credentials don't matter, the argument does. Besides which, the scientic world is not quaking, this should let you know that your few authorities are not impressive to the vast majority of the total number of authorities/scientists.

quote:

---

I am not sure about this but are you suggesting that there is a difference between modern proteins and primitive ones? Elaborate plz.

---

Yup. After 3 billion years, give or take, why do you think they would be the same?Abiogenesis does not propose that a modern protein popped out of the ocean, but that some tiny precursor molecule formed that happened to be able to replicate. The initial replicating molecules were not likely anything like modern proteins since modern proteins, as you have pointed out, depend upon a lot of other biochemical structures. You are attacking a straw man.{quoteAm I wrong in this assumption of a simple protein which can be arrange in 10^300 ways?][/quote]Are you? I ask again, what are your sources for this figure?

quote:

---

And besides, a protein molecule of 288 amino acids is rather a modest one compared with some giant protein molecules consisting of thousands of amino acids.

---

Please stop beating on that straw man.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com