Female Muslim Biologist on Evolution. American University of Sharjah

[Vitamin_C]

You do not have to be witness to a murder to prove a crime has occurred when there is a dead body on the ground. You can use forensics and DNA to accurately verify how the body died, how long has it been dead and who killed him. This is not assumptions its science and it can be tested verified and can make accurate predictions about the future which always turn out to be true. Evolution predicts you will never find a rabbit fossil next to a T-rex fossil, if you can find a rabbit fossil with a rock next to it that can be carbon-dated to the time when dinosaurs existed, you will disprove evolution and receive a nobel prize + a comfortable living for the rest of your life. But of-course this has never happened and never will because evolution is a verifiable fact.

there might had been times when thing were evolving
we didn't see, we don't have any records of it
we have assumptions and not facts
but
everything is terminating and terminating rapidly
and we can see it, we have record of it and
it's fact,
so it's rational to think about today, about
tomorrow so that our kids could live in this
worlds as we did

 

[blatant]

dude, genetics, epigenetics was one of my favorite subjects right from high school, so I find it amusing actually to hear from you lecturing me on history of human genome. The way you have broached this whole subject of genetics makes me wonder what are your credentials when you discuss DNA and embryology. I am a doctor and this is my area of interest, both for living as well as intellectual stimulation. Thanks for calling everything I mentioned as pseudo science, because that saves me a lot more argument. I just have one advice.

Read your literature, and research its sources before quoting it. Calling other's science pseudo science may just mean you're quoting pseudo science who knows !

I don't intend disrespect. You sound like someone who is exhilarated by what science has to offer in terms of description. I Was at your stage at age 25 (presuming you're 21) so you're still doing better than I did at 21. But you got a long way to go. Paleontology, taxonomy, archaeology, embryology as well as evolutionary theories are still in evolution themselves. As and when our understand of physics and maths strengthens, and we continue interpreting it with improving philosophy, our description of universe will keep evolving as well. DO NOT take what information you have today to be absolute or for granted. That's the mistake many like you have been committing for a few centuries now.

Bro dont bother with your pseudo science because you will lose against evolution as evolution is a fact. Its not just archaeology that confirms evolution, its palaeontology, embryology, DNA, taxonomy and basically every each branch of biology that cross confirms with evolution. And evolution cross confirms them in return. If you say that evolution is wrong that means you say that every each branch of biology is wrong and that is preposterous. Darwin is not an issue anymore, at his time we had only a few branches of evidence ie fossil evidence etc... today we have new technology and new medical discoveries such as DNA and it is extremely accurate and proven to be a fact as every each prediction made by the theory confirms the result in every each branch in biology extremely accurately. In fact its one of the strongest and best proven theories in scientific community to day because there is so much strong evidence that confirms it(ever each branch of biology and some branches of other science such as carbon dating and geology) There is no question about it, even the pope has changed to official stance of Roman Catholicism to admit evolution is a fact and Adam and Eve is a metaphor. You can adjust your religion to science but you cannot adjust science to your religion. I would highly recommend you to watch that video I posted earlier on evidence of evolution on this thread you will learn many new things than I can tell you about here, but if a religious preacher tells you that evolution is just a theory and not a fact because it does not align with his version of his religion then he is lying to you so be prepared and dont let people fool us.

 

[Vitamin_C]

dude, genetics, epigenetics was one of my favorite subjects right from high school, so I find it amusing actually to hear from you lecturing me on history of human genome. The way you have broached this whole subject of genetics makes me wonder what are your credentials when you discuss DNA and embryology. I am a doctor and this is my area of interest, both for living as well as intellectual stimulation. Thanks for calling everything I mentioned as pseudo science, because that saves me a lot more argument. I just have one advice.

Read your literature, and research its sources before quoting it. Calling other's science pseudo science may just mean you're quoting pseudo science who knows !

I don't intend disrespect. You sound like someone who is exhilarated by what science has to offer in terms of description. I Was at your stage at age 25 (presuming you're 21) so you're still doing better than I did at 21. But you got a long way to go. Paleontology, taxonomy, archaeology, embryology as well as evolutionary theories are still in evolution themselves. As and when our understand of physics and maths strengthens, and we continue interpreting it with improving philosophy, our description of universe will keep evolving as well. DO NOT take what information you have today to be absolute or for granted. That's the mistake many like you have been committing for a few centuries now.

I am not lecturing you on anything, just stating the theory as it is. If genetics is your favorite subject then that must absolutely mean that you understand it better than the retarded people who spent their entire lives making theories that were used to make the polio vaccines to increase your chances of not turning to be disabled?
Nothing is taken for absolute except for laws such as 2+2=4
A theory is not a law and is different from a law so by definition it is not absolute. But at the same time theory explains how a fact works and a theory is a explanation that is accepted by the scientific community. It also makes predictions. Which means, what ever theory we have now it is not necessarily absolute, but it is the best we have at this moment, and it works. Cars work, airplanes work, vaccines work and they are not 100% based on laws but mostly based on different theories(often supported by laws, statistics and mathematics) that work. How is it a mistake if it seems to be working perfectly fine. This is whats called the scientific method. Ofcourse improvements, research, discoveries will be on going because there is no absolute truths.
If you propose anything outside of the scientific method especially to a scientist, they will be more harsh than labeling it pseudo science. Because its arrogent and disrespectful towards people who spent their entire lives to make life better for us.
If you are serious that you understand evolution/genetics better than the scientific community and think that the generally accepted theory is wrong, then you can publish an acedemic article with your hypothesis supported by mathematics and laws, and if you are right then you can win a nobel prize and millions of dollars.
Also to make this discussion more precise what do you mean by when you say that the accepted theory that we have on evolution/genetics is wrong.
Is it wrong because you are having difficulty trying to understand how it works?
Is it wrong because you hold certain religious beliefs and it does not align well with your religious beliefs/scriptures?
Is it wrong because you attempted a scientific experiment/project and the theory did not predict the results accurately?
If its any of the first 2 then it has no bearing on the truth of the theory.
If its the 3rd one then it could be that you are making a mistake on the experiment, if not then it would be a good idea to publish your findings.

 

[blatant]

Vitamin C you are going on presumptions, and not me.

I say once again, go and research. You just believe that what science tells you is right. This science keeps re adjusting to new discoveries from quantum to general relativity on a daily basis.

I am not refuting scientific evidence. Science itself refutes it. Among scientists, there are numerous school of thoughts. You should realize that some of the most brilliant scientists of the day and in recent past were devout jews ! how does that fit in with evolutionary theories. You think I haven't researched the whole aspect of evolution myself. Mate ! I spent a decent chunk of time looking into all that is available on this subject. And my conclusion was, evolutionary scientists proposed theories based on data available. You choose to believe in that being the current knowledge, whereas I choose not to believe in it today because I already know it is false tomorrow. This is the same as trying to explain flight to moon by 17th century science (suggesting flight to moon back then would have labelled you as lunatic, the same label you probably propose to proponents of anti evolution theorists).

Newton's laws of physics and Einsteins equations fail at quantum level. At Quantum level you see MAGIC happening. That's where your past present future mingles, things show up in two places at the same time. And we are just about discovering what was termed magic is actually factual!

who is to say what could be possible next. Invisibility cloak is almost ready for commercial (military) use. Next thing man will be teleporting, flying to distant solar systems and achieving immortality. Science is an infant still growing, and most of these religious scriptures describe much bigger realities that science keeps discovering.

I still feel we both have a very different level of comprehension of our subjects. And as such, I can't share my interpretation of reality with you. What I do know is that I Actually think very much in line with Mr Einstein and Newton. Nothing that I Said earlier about evolution actually refutes laws of physics. Theory of evolution however is a totally different ballgame and has got nothing to do with universal laws in its current expression. As an example I will just tell you that if theory of evolution was to be given credence, that present day crocodiles and turtles would have been a much more advanced and intelligent species than us, had it not been for the massive holes in evolutionary theory fabrics. DARWIN KNEW THAT.

How about you google criticism on evolution theories for an idea on that perspective. I may not be that eloquent. But there are a lot of people who can describe the point of view I am trying to convey in much more comprehensible way. I have too much information, and a poor expression, hence my limitations.

I am not lecturing you on anything, just stating the theory as it is. If genetics is your favorite subject then that must absolutely mean that you understand it better than the retarded people who spent their entire lives making theories that were used to make the polio vaccines to increase your chances of not turning to be disabled?
Nothing is taken for absolute except for laws such as 2+2=4
A theory is not a law and is different from a law so by definition it is not absolute. But at the same time theory explains how a fact works and a theory is a explanation that is accepted by the scientific community. It also makes predictions. Which means, what ever theory we have now it is not necessarily absolute, but it is the best we have at this moment, and it works. Cars work, airplanes work, vaccines work and they are not 100% based on laws but mostly based on different theories(often supported by laws, statistics and mathematics) that work. How is it a mistake if it seems to be working perfectly fine. This is whats called the scientific method. Ofcourse improvements, research, discoveries will be on going because there is no absolute truths.
If you propose anything outside of the scientific method especially to a scientist, they will be more harsh than labeling it pseudo science. Because its arrogent and disrespectful towards people who spent their entire lives to make life better for us.
If you are serious that you understand evolution/genetics better than the scientific community and think that the generally accepted theory is wrong, then you can publish an acedemic article with your hypothesis supported by mathematics and laws, and if you are right then you can win a nobel prize and millions of dollars.
Also to make this discussion more precise what do you mean by when you say that the accepted theory that we have on evolution/genetics is wrong.
Is it wrong because you are having difficulty trying to understand how it works?
Is it wrong because you hold certain religious beliefs and it does not align well with your religious beliefs/scriptures?
Is it wrong because you attempted a scientific experiment/project and the theory did not predict the results accurately?
If its any of the first 2 then it has no bearing on the truth of the theory.
If its the 3rd one then it could be that you are making a mistake on the experiment, if not then it would be a good idea to publish your findings.

 

[Vitamin_C]

Science does not refute itself. It updates itself, thats the whole point, this is the most common misunderstanding lay person seems to have about science, they think that the updates are the bad thing about science, its not, its the beauty of science. You are proposing that we stop making polio vaccines because of the prospect of our understanding of medicine being superceded by a more superior version. We should stop making cars because in the next 20,000 years the theories of thermo dynamics which are used in making cars will be disproven and we will have cars without wheels.
Science is not a matter of personal opinion or belief, its not about what you chose to believe or what you do not chose to believe it does not prove that evolution is not a fact. There is a difference between a fact a theory and a law.
How can you know something is going to be disproven in future do you own a time machine. Can tou link me to any theory that has been totally disproven to the point that it was thrown out of science? Its very rare.
I did not understand the part about jewish biologists... What does a persons religious belief got to do with science.
​Creationists do not seem to have any problems with theory of relativity, M theory, A theory, but when it comes to evolution they put their hands up and scream foul and i wonder why.

Vitamin C you are going on presumptions, and not me.

I say once again, go and research. You just believe that what science tells you is right. This science keeps re adjusting to new discoveries from quantum to general relativity on a daily basis.

I am not refuting scientific evidence. Science itself refutes it. Among scientists, there are numerous school of thoughts. You should realize that some of the most brilliant scientists of the day and in recent past were devout jews ! how does that fit in with evolutionary theories. You think I haven't researched the whole aspect of evolution myself. Mate ! I spent a decent chunk of time looking into all that is available on this subject. And my conclusion was, evolutionary scientists proposed theories based on data available. You choose to believe in that being the current knowledge, whereas I choose not to believe in it today because I already know it is false tomorrow. This is the same as trying to explain flight to moon by 17th century science (suggesting flight to moon back then would have labelled you as lunatic, the same label you probably propose to proponents of anti evolution theorists).

Newton's laws of physics and Einsteins equations fail at quantum level. At Quantum level you see MAGIC happening. That's where your past present future mingles, things show up in two places at the same time. And we are just about discovering what was termed magic is actually factual!

who is to say what could be possible next. Invisibility cloak is almost ready for commercial (military) use. Next thing man will be teleporting, flying to distant solar systems and achieving immortality. Science is an infant still growing, and most of these religious scriptures describe much bigger realities that science keeps discovering.

I still feel we both have a very different level of comprehension of our subjects. And as such, I can't share my interpretation of reality with you. What I do know is that I Actually think very much in line with Mr Einstein and Newton. Nothing that I Said earlier about evolution actually refutes laws of physics. Theory of evolution however is a totally different ballgame and has got nothing to do with universal laws in its current expression. As an example I will just tell you that if theory of evolution was to be given credence, that present day crocodiles and turtles would have been a much more advanced and intelligent species than us, had it not been for the massive holes in evolutionary theory fabrics. DARWIN KNEW THAT.

How about you google criticism on evolution theories for an idea on that perspective. I may not be that eloquent. But there are a lot of people who can describe the point of view I am trying to convey in much more comprehensible way. I have too much information, and a poor expression, hence my limitations.

 

[blatant]

my response in a nutshell.

i am not suggesting to stop making cars, because we will be flying in future. i am suggesting to stop commenting on evolution just because we can make cars.

Science does not refute itself. It updates itself, thats the whole point, this is the most common misunderstanding lay person seems to have about science, they think that the updates are the bad thing about science, its not, its the beauty of science. You are proposing that we stop making polio vaccines because of the prospect of our understanding of medicine being superceded by a more superior version. We should stop making cars because in the next 20,000 years the theories of thermo dynamics which are used in making cars will be disproven and we will have cars without wheels.
Science is not a matter of personal opinion or belief, its not about what you chose to believe or what you do not chose to believe it does not prove that evolution is not a fact. There is a difference between a fact a theory and a law.
How can you know something is going to be disproven in future do you own a time machine. Can tou link me to any theory that has been totally disproven to the point that it was thrown out of science? Its very rare.
I did not understand the part about jewish biologists... What does a persons religious belief got to do with science.
​Creationists do not seem to have any problems with theory of relativity, M theory, A theory, but when it comes to evolution they put their hands up and scream foul and i wonder why.

 

[sameer]

You do not have to be witness to a murder to prove a crime has occurred when there is a dead body on the ground. You can use forensics and DNA to accurately verify how the body died, how long has it been dead and who killed him. This is not assumptions its science and it can be tested verified and can make accurate predictions about the future which always turn out to be true. Evolution predicts you will never find a rabbit fossil next to a T-rex fossil, if you can find a rabbit fossil with a rock next to it that can be carbon-dated to the time when dinosaurs existed, you will disprove evolution and receive a nobel prize + a comfortable living for the rest of your life. But of-course this has never happened and never will because evolution is a verifiable fact.

for you it could be fact, stick to it who is asking
you to shift your opinion
there is difference of opinions in science and every
one is after TOE(theory of everything)
NOTHING CONFIMRED YET
i repeat, NOTHING CONFIRMED YET
even among the scientist are CREATIONIST
what would you call their findings?

 

[Vitamin_C]

How can something be a fact for me and not for you? Something is either a fact or its not. Its a fact we live on Planet earth, how can it be a fact for one person and not another?
Creationists are not scientists they are pseudo scientists who have not even a shred of respect in the scientific community and no one takes them seriously. When it comes to laws, facts and theories there is no difference of opinion in the scientific community. Truth is deductive, either something is true or false it cannot be one for one person and another for another person as science is not a matter of personal choice or faith. Laws of gravity are same for everyone.

for you it could be fact, stick to it who is asking
you to shift your opinion
there is difference of opinions in science and every
one is after TOE(theory of everything)
NOTHING CONFIMRED YET
i repeat, NOTHING CONFIRMED YET
even among the scientist are CREATIONIST
what would you call their findings?

 

[Vitamin_C]

You have no problem with cars but have a concern with evolution. I wonder why.
Theories of thermodynamic supported by laws of physics are used to make car engines run.
Similarly what we have learned from century of research on evolution help support other theories such as germ theory which has saved millions of lives and in return supports evolution. The theory(evolution) [I am referring to the theory because I am referring to what the census is in the scientific community on how evolution works, since you agree that evolution is a fact because its a fact that all life forms on earth have been evolving.] is also being used to make cures for various viral infections and diseases as virus can evolve very fast due to short generation span to become immune to specific vaccines and we have to update them. We would know this without understanding evolution.
You either agree with the scientific method, or you do not agree with scientific method which makes us a pseudo scientist. How can you accept one production of the scientific method such as motor mechanics and reject another product such as use of a specific scientific theory in medicine. Should we stop working on medicine because you have a personal hunch that the theory may be disproved in the future, and let millions of people die. Or should we continue using it because it is making accurate predictions, its the best we have right now and it works.
This is what I do not understand. Either you reject the scientific method completely or accept it.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/medicine_01

I start to feel that you are having some personal beliefs in creationism which is blurring your logical thinking process, if that is the case then there is no point to this discussion. Its a waste of time arguing with creationists because they first form a conclusion then they try to manipulate to try to make reality conform to their personal beliefs. This is a very irrational thinking process.

my response in a nutshell.

i am not suggesting to stop making cars, because we will be flying in future. i am suggesting to stop commenting on evolution just because we can make cars.

 

[xshadow]

 

[saneopinion]

Are you Jacques Monod or David berlinski yourself ?

Sure, I may be Jacques Monod but you some to be the other of Jack. You know, the one that has last three words starting with "a" and ending with "s". Again don't sweat it too much, you might not be able to get this either and blame it on the Shezan Juice producers.