Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →
↑ ↓
CEMB → Forum → Life, The Universe & Everything → Science → Explaining evolution

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts

Islam and Science Fiction
Yesterday at 11:57 PM
New Britain
Yesterday at 09:32 PM
Muslim grooming gangs sti...
Yesterday at 02:57 PM
اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
February 08, 2025, 01:38 PM
German nationalist party ...
February 07, 2025, 01:11 PM
Do humans have needed kno...
February 06, 2025, 03:13 PM
Lights on the way
by akay
February 05, 2025, 10:04 PM
Gaza assault
February 05, 2025, 10:04 AM
AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
February 03, 2025, 09:25 AM
The origins of Judaism
by zeca
February 02, 2025, 04:29 PM
Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
February 01, 2025, 11:48 PM
Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
February 01, 2025, 07:29 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Explaining evolution

 (Read 10010 times)
  • 12 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Explaining evolution
     OP - February 27, 2013, 10:34 AM
    If you have ever tried to explain how evolution (speciation) actually works to a creationist, then you will already know that this is an uphill/vertical struggle.

    Next time I try it, I shall use the following analogy:

    In the same way that every species ever born is the same species as it's parents, let us simplify and assume that every child ever born has the same accent as it's parents. Nobody would deny that Australian and American accents evolved from (various) British accents.

    The creationist is likely to point out that although this is true, it is still the same language.  This is all 'microevolution'. Bird species X with a longer beak can still reproduce with the short beak variety and so they are still the same species. Americans can still communicate with British people, so its still the same language.

    But all we have to do is continue the chain of ancestry backwards until we reach a point where species X cannot interbreed with it's ancestor or cousins, and where English speakers cannot communicate with theirs.

    This doesn't mean that a Norse or German couple gave birth to the first child who spoke English, and with an Australian accent. Neither does it mean that a bird gave birth to a frog.
    _______

    The problem I envisage with the analogy is an objection to the oversimplification of the premise that 'every child has the same basic accent as it's parents'.
    They will rightly deny this, but in the process they will be entirely miss the point.

  • Explaining evolution
     Reply #1 - February 27, 2013, 10:44 AM
    It's a bit like those that argue against the homosexuality gradient. Time and time again I hear it is not natural cause they cannot reproduce. So freaking what, sex isn't for reproduction, it is a trait that has survived because it leads in some cases to new organisms being born, in doing so conferring an advantage cause of gene mixing and genetic diversity within a population. The brain is a separate organ that has a sexual part inferring likes and dislikes, surprise surprise, sometimes the genitals and the brain do not collide to produce a sexual persuasion that allows for reproduction from that individual.

    People muck it all up by saying that an organ is FOR something, no it does that thing cause it survives and has the capability of surviving to do that function.
  • Explaining evolution
     Reply #2 - November 08, 2013, 03:29 PM
    Quote from: dr_sloth on February 27, 2013, 10:34 AM
    If you have ever tried to explain how evolution (speciation) actually works to a creationist, then you will already know that this is an uphill/vertical struggle.

    Next time I try it, I shall use the following analogy:

    In the same way that every species ever born is the same species as it's parents, let us simplify and assume that every child ever born has the same accent as it's parents. Nobody would deny that Australian and American accents evolved from (various) British accents.

    The creationist is likely to point out that although this is true, it is still the same language.  This is all 'microevolution'. Bird species X with a longer beak can still reproduce with the short beak variety and so they are still the same species. Americans can still communicate with British people, so its still the same language.

    But all we have to do is continue the chain of ancestry backwards until we reach a point where species X cannot interbreed with it's ancestor or cousins, and where English speakers cannot communicate with theirs.

    This doesn't mean that a Norse or German couple gave birth to the first child who spoke English, and with an Australian accent. Neither does it mean that a bird gave birth to a frog.
    _______

    The problem I envisage with the analogy is an objection to the oversimplification of the premise that 'every child has the same basic accent as it's parents'.
    They will rightly deny this, but in the process they will be entirely miss the point.




    That is quite a good analogy.

    However I fear it won't be able to penetrate the sand around peoples heads.
  • Explaining evolution
     Reply #3 - November 09, 2013, 05:09 AM
    I like that analogy. Something similar I've come across in my internet travels is the following image:


    Some people complain that such analogies are an oversimplification, but I think that's the whole point--to take the core concept of evolution and explain it to people who aren't knowledgeable enough or willing enough to understand the intricacies.

    Another little analogy I like to bring up is primitive tribes/communities. I remember one time I got into a debate on evolution with my mother, and she said something like "if humans evolved from apes, then why are there still apes?" And I asked her, if most societies have become technologically advanced and have airplanes and computers, why are there still primitive tribes in Africa and the Amazon jungle?
  • Explaining evolution
     Reply #4 - November 12, 2013, 11:25 PM
    So my sister sent this to me as a way to convince me Islam and science are not incompatible.
    http://partytilfajr.tumblr.com/post/17183711814/what-does-islam-say-on-evolution-is-it-strictly

    I've been mulling over my response to her, but was hoping others here would have insight I do not have.
    She feels this tumblr account has some genuine authority on Islam - reading it at face value and thinking, "gee this sounds great and fits perfectly into my East-meets-West worldview. must be fact."

    His whole argument is just stretching truths so that he can sleep better at night, but I'm not proficient in Arabic so when he takes issue with the translation of the word “ayyamin" or its root, I feel a bit lost. Anyone proficient in Arabic help me out in this area of his argument?
    It's not hard to make decisions once you know what your values are.
  • Explaining evolution
     Reply #5 - November 13, 2013, 12:00 AM
    The suggestion that the quran is not necessarily describing a young earth is nice, but it hardly matters. It doesnt matter how many days, or billions of years allah took to create the universe. As long as Allah believes that there was a first human (and especially a first human with no parents), he will fail any exam on the topic of evolution.

    Quote
    the issue of evolution, for many people, hinges on whether one takes the story of Adam and Eve literally or not.

    I am of the personal opinion that this story is not literal,


    so he believes that the first prophet of islam did not exist.
    He makes a distinction between metaphorical prophets and literal ones. He is welcome to do so, but he cannot claim that this is Islam.

    In other words you can maintain beliefs in Islam and Evolution, as long as you don't really believe in Islam.

    4:150 "And those who believe in God and His messengers and do not make a distinction between any of them - God will grant them their rewards; and God is Forgiving, Merciful"
  • Explaining evolution
     Reply #6 - November 16, 2013, 01:33 AM
    dr_sloth,

    Thanks for your insight! So succinct in its brilliance.

    So because a verse like that, no muslim can get away with interpreting the Qur'an metaphorically? It's my understanding Christianity can get away with claiming the Old Testament is meant to be interpreted metaphorically.
    It's not hard to make decisions once you know what your values are.
  • Explaining evolution
     Reply #7 - November 16, 2013, 01:45 AM
    Some muslims do interpret parts of the quran metaphorically though, which is their right if they live in a country which recognises religious freedom. Whether or not you agree with their views doesn't change the fact they do it.
    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Explaining evolution
     Reply #8 - November 16, 2013, 02:47 AM
    they can believe what they like, but if they dont have some level of minimum islamic beliefs, then their religious identity is up for debate. I could even call myself muslim if i wanted to.
  • Explaining evolution
     Reply #9 - November 16, 2013, 10:23 AM
    Isnt that the case these days for most religions.

     
    Quote from: lerhodora on November 16, 2013, 01:33 AM
    dr_sloth,

    Thanks for your insight! So succinct in its brilliance.

    So because a verse like that, no muslim can get away with interpreting the Qur'an metaphorically? It's my understanding Christianity can get away with claiming the Old Testament is meant to be interpreted metaphorically.


    During the Reformation one of the conflicts was due to biblical literalism. The Catholic church would reinterpret verses if and when these verses contradicted reality. The old interpretation would be replaced with a new one. Adam and Eve with most of Genesis for example. For many it is a metaphor, for others it is literal. Many within the Protestant movement were against this as they saw it as man changing the word of God. The result of this conflict is seen today. The Catholic Church accepts evolution while in America, for example, you see many Protestant denominations are young earth creationist or anti-evolution. The view on literalism divided Western Christianity into what we see these days.

    Perhaps we are seeing the beginning of a Reformation of Islam between these two views. Of course to me such both views demolish the idea of a "true" faith. Once one either ignores reality in favour of their religion or their text in favour of reality the hammer is already beating the nail into the coffin of the religion.


    Quote from: lerhodora on November 12, 2013, 11:25 PM
    So my sister sent this to me as a way to convince me Islam and science are not incompatible.
    http://partytilfajr.tumblr.com/post/17183711814/what-does-islam-say-on-evolution-is-it-strictly


    This is called post hoc rationalization. It only works with the believer. It is an argument any religion can use. It doesn't work for those outside of the religion.
  • Explaining evolution
     Reply #10 - November 17, 2013, 03:16 PM
    are you saying it's religiously incoherent to believe in evolution and islam?

    for instance, say evolution applies to all creatures but Man is a special case and was instead inserted into creation. Does it make any sense to say that a creator is unable to perform such an act?
  • Explaining evolution
     Reply #11 - November 17, 2013, 03:23 PM
    Well if man is a special case then that obviously raises a number of questions. It does however clearly show that humans are somehow outside this process. As for if it's incoherent to believe in evolution and islam, I wouldn't say so. I've seen a few muslims say that the two are compatible.
    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Explaining evolution
     Reply #12 - November 17, 2013, 03:39 PM
    Quote from: someguy on November 17, 2013, 03:16 PM
    ... Man is a special case and was instead inserted into creation. Does it make any sense to say that a creator is unable to perform such an act?


    god is magic. what he can do isn't the question.
    the question is what science says happened, compared to what islam says happened, and they are not the same
  • Explaining evolution
     Reply #13 - November 17, 2013, 04:20 PM
    ok, I thought you were trying to use religion as proof against itself.

    about science, all I would say from a belief perspective is that the known laws of the physical world don't necessarily have to be thrown away just because of a few exemptions here and there.
  • Explaining evolution
     Reply #14 - November 17, 2013, 04:32 PM
    a person who claims to 'believe in' gravity, apart from when it comes to birds, does not really believe in gravity.

    and a person who's religion teaches that birds are not subject to gravity, but who happens to know that they are, does not really believe in his religion.
  • Explaining evolution
     Reply #15 - November 17, 2013, 04:35 PM
    Quote
    about science, all I would say from a belief perspective is that the known laws of the physical world don't necessarily have to be thrown away just because of a few exemptions here and there.


    Exemptions in religion or reality?
    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Explaining evolution
     Reply #16 - November 17, 2013, 04:43 PM
    Quote from: someguy on November 17, 2013, 03:16 PM
    for instance, say evolution applies to all creatures but Man is a special case and was instead inserted into creation.

    Have you actually read any books on evolution?
    If you want to challenge your belief then I think you should pick up a book on the topic from the library.
    This is one of the recommended books (I haven't read it yet myself)
    Why Evolution Is True - Jerry A. Coyne

    The evidence for evolution and us being a part of it is outstanding. You have been warned!   Wink
  • Explaining evolution
     Reply #17 - November 17, 2013, 04:59 PM
    Exemption is the wrong word to use regarding evolution. As you have demonstrated the "exemption" is not a scientific one but a religious one. An "exemption" which has no theory or even hypothesis in support. Science in general need not bend to the whim of religious views which are unsupported. If one can prove an alternative it will be accepted but in this case no one has. Should all religious views become exceptions? This type of thinking opens the flood gates to any and all religious views which solves nothing but comforting the religious. Not just the views of Islam but Christianity, Hinduism, etc. It is everyone's right to believe what they wish but this right does not extend beyond the individual or into any field they wish.
  • Explaining evolution
     Reply #18 - November 17, 2013, 05:02 PM
    Quote from: someguy on November 17, 2013, 04:20 PM
    ok, I thought you were trying to use religion as proof against itself.

    about science, all I would say from a belief perspective is that the known laws of the physical world don't necessarily have to be thrown away just because of a few exemptions here and there.



    Youa re correct someguy. Human evolution is a myth.

    Check out this so-called website by a reputable institution that is headed b some of the leading scientific authorities in the world. They are spreading lies that humans have evolved from a single ancestor like all the other animal and plant species in existence.

    Allah teaches us that we are special. But that does not stop dirty kuffar scientists who have never been disproven in their particular fields from spreading such lies as this on their despicable yet highly reputable website:

    http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence

    YUK!
    No free mixing of the sexes is permitted on these forums or via PM or the various chat groups that are operating.

    Women must write modestly and all men must lower their case.

    http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?425649-Have-some-Hayaa-%28modesty-shame%29-people!
  • Explaining evolution
     Reply #19 - November 17, 2013, 05:31 PM
    Quote from: bogart on November 17, 2013, 04:59 PM
    Exemption is the wrong word to use regarding evolution. As you have demonstrated the "exemption" is not a scientific one but a religious one.


    The exemption was the creation of man in my example, I  wasn't making a case against science. By their very nature, miracles go against the expected order of things.

    Belief in such things don't necessarily disqualify one from using the scientific method in their appropriate fields.
  • Explaining evolution
     Reply #20 - November 17, 2013, 05:44 PM
    You have a point there. The catholic church has the Adam and Eve creation myth yet they're managed to incorporate it with what actually happened without compromising the belief system.
    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Explaining evolution
     Reply #21 - November 17, 2013, 05:45 PM
    Quote
    Human evolution is a myth.


    Can you imagine if that were true? The ramifications would be huge.
    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Explaining evolution
     Reply #22 - November 17, 2013, 05:48 PM
    What Quod, you are not a believer in spontaneous animation?
    No free mixing of the sexes is permitted on these forums or via PM or the various chat groups that are operating.

    Women must write modestly and all men must lower their case.

    http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?425649-Have-some-Hayaa-%28modesty-shame%29-people!
  • Explaining evolution
     Reply #23 - November 17, 2013, 05:50 PM
    I doubt it would make any difference to society - I think the average person doesn't give much thought to it really.
  • Explaining evolution
     Reply #24 - November 17, 2013, 05:54 PM
    Well obviously we'd still have to go about our lives, take care of ourselves and our families, go to work, pay the bills, and so on, but if it were suddenly discovered tomorrow that we were wrong and humans are outside the evolutionary process, it would have a profound impact.
    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Explaining evolution
     Reply #25 - November 17, 2013, 05:56 PM
    Quote from: Jedi on November 17, 2013, 05:48 PM
    What Quod, you are not a believer in spontaneous animation?


    a random lightning strike on some fabled primordial goo is quite spontaneous. although it does sound like something from a cartoon.

    ... oh, you meant something else with that sarcasm.
  • Explaining evolution
     Reply #26 - November 17, 2013, 06:00 PM
    Lightening striking random goo is less believable that Adam?
    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Explaining evolution
     Reply #27 - November 17, 2013, 06:04 PM
    Quote from: someguy on November 17, 2013, 05:56 PM
    a random lightning strike on some fabled primordial goo is quite spontaneous. although it does sound like something from a cartoon.

    ... oh, you meant something else with that sarcasm.


    Yeah. No lightening. Things just poppoing into existence without any rational explanation.
    No free mixing of the sexes is permitted on these forums or via PM or the various chat groups that are operating.

    Women must write modestly and all men must lower their case.

    http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?425649-Have-some-Hayaa-%28modesty-shame%29-people!
  • Explaining evolution
     Reply #28 - November 17, 2013, 06:11 PM
    Quote from: Quod Sum Eris on November 17, 2013, 06:00 PM
    Lightening striking random goo is less believable that Adam?


    both require a leap of faith I think - which works out better for religion.

    it makes less sense for a disbeliever to randomly choose between goo, space viruses or whatever is currently trending as an origin story/myth - the better position is to say you don't know rather than inventing a substitute dogma.
  • Explaining evolution
     Reply #29 - November 17, 2013, 06:15 PM
    Well I would point out I don't believe the lightening thing. It's been suggested by someone, but that doesn't mean it's true. How life first started is still very much a mystery. How did chemistry become biology? How did life first begin? What was it that started the first self replicating cell? Some people think this, some people think that, but the honest truth is we don't know for certain how it happened.
    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • 12 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »