NOVA documentary on Human Evolution

[Sphere Manisfest]

You’re not confused sir, you have already made up your mind on certain things. Science & technology in this age has become a cult which demands blind submission and belief. So like any good follower of cult you have already made up your mind on matters that are central to the edifice of religion.

Let me ask you some basic questions and keep the discussion of God aside for a moment.

You have cited the successful tests of CERN to corroborate the theory of Big Bang. Can you or any physicist want to explain that why that alleged incident took place at a certain moment in time? Why not before or after that? Any particular reason? Why a so called destructive phenomenon gave rise to the life on earth and other objects in our solar system? Why not a peaceful and mild incident took place to kick-start a process of life on earth instead of having so much mess in the shape of volcanic eruptions, flooding and earthquakes?

Now coming back to the topic of Richard Dawkins’s central themes of ‘Inclusive Fitness’ and the tendency of DNAs in organisms to replicate genes in the phase of reproduction to promote altruism, can you or any of your brilliant scientist can explain the growing phenomenon of disease infections in modern age Humans despite of the tendency of Genes to promote internal fitness? The concept of altruism through DNA is proved to be limited to sexually related organisms then how come the phenomenon of division of labor of ants and honeybees exists despite of the fact of their asexual nature?

You seemed to be quite an enthusiast of Archeology then would you care to explain the degree of care and attention given to every object excavated in a particular site? Is it not true that before the invention of Radio-Carbon testing technique in late 1940’s the same archeologists used to neglect the vital pieces of charcoal in dug-up sites? What is the state of ‘Microliths’ / small stone tools in many of the excavated sites of Southwest Asia in recent past? Why they were neglected by the same so called perfect archeologists in the beginning and why suddenly they carry so much importance in to do lists of modern archeologists?

And lastly if your two post graduate degrees in Ecology are not good enough to make certain points in your head firm and gives you more questions than answers to your questions then it’s better to burn them and start to search for that discipline in a university which could better navigate your intellectual energy.

Bro. Can you guide how to post a photo here in our posts?

 

[Vitamin_C]

I am speechless at the stupidity. If your going to bring me a list of scientist from an Era where Church held all the power in Europe and Blasphemy is punishable by death. Galileo was under house arrest and nearly burnt at the stake because the church said it is a sin to look into the eyes of God. Do you even in the slightest bit see a difference between the society in that time and today?
Nice2MU has failed to provide me a name of a single scientist who does not believe in the theory of evolution based on scientific reasons and not faith.

First your words was give me any name of scientist who reject the drwin or so called 2000 year old theories.So when Nice2MU provide you a list of scientists with evidences, now you demand any modern scientist name....Actually you are confuse as well first you try to prove the truthiness of the theory by mentioning it belong old era and when someone make you speechless now you start to demanding soemthing new.....

 

[Nice2MU]

Every creatures have been created by Allah and it is His well to tell us the mechanism of it or not. About human creation, He gave some details of embryonic stages not for everything.

Do you know how the eyes is formed in the embryo of human? If you find its answer, you will get the other answer of your questions as well?

If Allah says that everything done with with 'Magical' word 'Kun', then why should ask Allah that please give me the mechanism of any creation of the mechanism?

Quran is the book of 'Signs' not the book of 'science' that it will mention the name of every species or mechanism of the creations of everything in detail. This question is totally not right. Quran gives the hints not the details of everything. Had it give the details of every thing then instead its 6666 verses, it would be million of verses.

So basically you are a person who believe that some Magical creature was responsible for creation of Humans in a blink of an eye, then without giving any evidences how he created this Human, He placed him on earth, location still unknown and through a process of incest the world population was grown up to this point where you are living and denying a Scientific Theory of Evolution? right.......

By the way could you also please tell us, if God only created humans, Homo sapiens, then what about all other species which are discovered so far ? Who created them? And why God forgot to mentioned those in his Holy Book?

 

[Sphere Manisfest]

Do you know how the eyes is formed in the embryo of human? If you find its answer, you will get the other answer of your questions as well?

If Allah says that everything done with with 'Magical' word 'Kun', then why should ask Allah that please give me the mechanism of any creation of the mechanism?

Oops. Human Eye is the biggest prove of evolution. Evolution happens with flaws. Human eye has 6 major design flaws. A super creator should have created a perfect flawless object, but here we have a horribly imperfect human eye. "Kun" did that?
Quick Details:
http://cogpsy.info/perception/human-eye-design-flaws/

 

[Sphere Manisfest]

I am speechless at the stupidity.

Me too :(
That is how majority thinks. How about fire back with Quranic reference?
La Aksarhum Taaqiloon: Majority of them does not use brains.
La Aksarhum Taalimoon: Majority of them does not have knowledge.

 

[Nice2MU]

Oops. Human Eye is the biggest prove of evolution. Evolution happens with flaws. Human eye has 6 major design flaws. A super creator should have created a perfect flawless object, but here we have a horribly imperfect human eye. "Kun" did that?
Quick Details:
http://cogpsy.info/perception/human-eye-design-flaws/

As per your believe, then it is the 'flaws' of revolution not the Allah. No?

If I agree with the Rubbish of your people and this Dawkins, then you would object that why person is born deaf, or blind, or disable and your question would be leading it to infinity.

Then you might ask this question that why the picture formed by the eyes can't be saved to computer or make its printing?

Then you people might ask why there is not a constant pleasant weather on earth, why all people are not 'White, why some people are black, why all people are not 6 feet high why some people are small, why all are not beautiful, why there are ugly people and the stupid series of questions would go on and on.

BTW ask your Dawkins to create even such 'flawed' eye in lab which can work without any electric current or battery and last for 70 or 100 years.

BTW eyes are for human to do their day to day life work not to watch electrons in the atoms and it works for human very well.

 

[Nice2MU]

یہ بڑی سخت بات کہہ دی آپ نے

آپ جس دور میں جی رہے ہیں اس دور کے انسانوں کی جو دین اور دنیا کی انڈرسٹینڈنگ ہے اس کو جاننے میں کوئی حرج نہیں
آپ کی یہ بات بالکل درست ہے کہ مذہب کی انڈرسٹینڈنگ ایک بالکل ذاتی معاملہ ہوتا ہے لہٰذا آپ بھی دوسروں کو ان کی اپنی رائے رکھنے کی آزادی کا احترام کریں

رائے کی آزادی اور حقیقت کو اپنے الفاظ میں بیان کرنا دو مختلف چیزیں ہیں۔ اب اگر کوئی بندہ کسی کو گالی دے وہ بھی کہہ سکتا ہے جی مجھے تو رائے کی آزادی ہے اسلیے میں نے اسے گالی دی۔ نہیں؟

 

[Nice2MU]

She is a Jordanian scientist. I have read many scholars having similar views about interpretation of religious text particularly certain sections of Quran. Like universe created in 6 days but then Allah says that His one day is equal to thousands of years we have ( in an allegorical way ).

Sir we will accept only those interpretations which Sahaba Karam (RA) and the Scholars of first 300 years did because Sahabs (RA) got its understanding directly from Prophet PBUH and other scholars got it from from Sahabas (RA).

If we start believing the interpretations of everyone, then we would accept the interpretation of Munkeer-e-Hadith i.e. Pervezi, or Lahori Group and Qadianis as well because they also claim that whatever interpretation of Quran had for 1300 years is actually wrong.

The current days are due to the rotation of earth around Sun but if there was not Sun or Earth at the time of the creating the universe then where would it was? So 6 Days in Quran doesn't mean laterally these 24 hour days of this earth. If Quran mentions 'Yaun' it means periods or stage and every stage or period might be consist of 1000 or millions years, God knows.

 

[Sphere Manisfest]

As per your believe, then it is the 'flaws' of revolution not the Allah. No?

If I agree with the Rubbish of your people and this Dawkins, then you would object that why person is born deaf, or blind, or disable and your question would be leading it to infinity.

Then you might ask this question that why the picture formed by the eyes can't be saved to computer or make its printing?

Then you people might ask why there is not a constant pleasant weather on earth, why all people are not 'White, why some people are black, why all people are not 6 feet high why some people are small, why all are not beautiful, why there are ugly people and the stupid series of questions would go on and on.

BTW ask your Dawkins to create even such 'flawed' eye in lab which can work without any electric current or battery and last for 70 or 100 years.

BTW eyes are for human to do their day to day life work not to watch electrons in the atoms and it works for human very well.

Bro, why you are referring me or us as "you, your people" and "your Dawkins" etc. As a Muslim, it is my strongest wish that some sane and learned Muslim scholar or scientist actually stand up and prove the "Perfect Religion" as Perfect. It is a shame to us as Ummah that we are impotent in learning and knowledge. The title holders of scholarships fail us miserably. Watch how try-to-be-clever Hamza Tzortis sounded completely stupid in front of Lawrence Krauss, whereas Krauss is mediocre in field of logic and reason in front of Dawkins. Name one person from our entire Ummah who could stand and successfully argue with Dawkins in front of neutral audience. Ever wondered, why Dr. Zakir Naik (whose lines you copied: Quran is book of Signs not Science) speaks only in front of ordinary people or known junk religious stupids like William Campbell? Vitamic C asked for list of modern biologists, but let me make it easy. I ask from you to name ONLY 1 such person from Muslim Ummah who could face Dawkins and do not get defeated. I ve been looking for such person since long and have been trying my best but fail so far. Plz also note Richard Dawkins has been my university teacher for 1 subject. I have seen him working and I have great regard for him as teacher and on biology and genetics, but during my studies I deliberately tried to distance myself from him because of my religious beliefs. Now somehow I regret it. I considered Dr. Zakir Naik as a refuge but when I tested and dissected his claims of "science in Quran", which he argues as final blow to atheists, all of them are rubbish, unscientific and looks good to faithful ears only, not scientific minds. Thanks

 

[Nice2MU]

First your words was give me any name of scientist who reject the drwin or so called 2000 year old theories.So when Nice2MU provide you a list of scientists with evidences, now you demand any modern scientist name....Actually you are confuse as well first you try to prove the truthiness of the theory by mentioning it belong old era and when someone make you speechless now you start to demanding soemthing new.....

I am speechless at the stupidity. If your going to bring me a list of scientist from an Era where Church held all the power in Europe and Blasphemy is punishable by death. Galileo was under house arrest and nearly burnt at the stake because the church said it is a sin to look into the eyes of God. Do you even in the slightest bit see a difference between the society in that time and today?
Nice2MU has failed to provide me a name of a single scientist who does not believe in the theory of evolution based on scientific reasons and not faith.

Man, Churches were not strong in the whole world and this so called evolution occurred everywhere not only in Church dominated areas.

And you are just saving yourself with this statement that those scientists were refusing it because church was strong otherwise the following and many more scientists were not at the time when the Church was NOT 'strong'. They were living in modern democratic period.
BTW to my post, you didn't take this shelter of Church being strong rather you had state that whether any body agree or not agree, you don't care.


Louis Agassiz (1807-1873)- A Swiss biologist and geologist
James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879)-A Scottish Scientist
Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)-A Czech Republic-A Biologist
Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) A French Chemistry and microbiologist
William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin (1824-1907)-A British Physicist
Joseph Lister (1827-1912)-A British Surgeon
Ernest Rutherford (1871-1937)-A British Physicist
Joseph John Thomson (1856-1940)-A British Physicist
Francis Bacon (1909-1992)-A Irish born British Painter

They are all are 19[SUP]th[/SUP] and 20[SUP]th[/SUP] century scientists and check the eras of other scientits by yourself. BTW you didn’t even check the list.

Now come to the modern day Scientists: Read and reply my post number 52 and 63 word by word not just with a general statement.

And if you want, I can give you a big list of modern century scientists as well and their lists

 

[Nice2MU]

Bro, why you are referring me or us as "you, your people" and "your Dawkins" etc. As a Muslim, it is my strongest wish that some sane and learned Muslim scholar or scientist actually stand up and prove the "Perfect Religion" as Perfect. It is a shame to us as Ummah that we are impotent in learning and knowledge. The title holders of scholarships fail us miserably. Watch how try-to-be-clever Hamza Tzortis sounded completely stupid in front of Lawrence Krauss, whereas Krauss is mediocre in field of logic and reason in front of Dawkins. Name one person from our entire Ummah who could stand and successfully argue with Dawkins in front of neutral audience. Ever wondered, why Dr. Zakir Naik (whose lines you copied: Quran is book of Signs not Science) speaks only in front of ordinary people or known junk religious stupids like William Campbell? Vitamic C asked for list of modern biologists, but let me make it easy. I ask from you to name ONLY 1 such person from Muslim Ummah who could face Dawkins and do not get defeated. I ve been looking for such person since long and have been trying my best but fail so far. Plz also note Richard Dawkins has been my university teacher for 1 subject. I have seen him working and I have great regard for him as teacher and on biology and genetics, but during my studies I deliberately tried to distance myself from him because of my religious beliefs. Now somehow I regret it. I considered Dr. Zakir Naik as a refuge but when I tested and dissected his claims of "science in Quran", which he argues as final blow to atheists, all of them are rubbish, unscientific and looks good to faithful ears only, not scientific minds. Thanks

O man forget about every body, if you think that they didn't answer, why don't you stand in front of them? Instead of lying burdens on others, why don't you take the responsibility? It is very easy to to lay blame on others but can't do any thing.

You know Ahmad Deedad who was even the Teacher of Zakir Naik. He had just 6 class pass and it took him 40 years to give answers to Catholic priests who used to object Quran.

Actually it is not Zakir Naik who take refuge, it is actually you who want to be spoon feeded.

As per Quran, Allah says to the Prophet (PBUH) that they (Christians and Jews) will not agreed/ come to you unless you completely adopt their religion. ...........The same is happening to you as well because you are not listening these things with Neutral Brains but already biased and inclined towards revolutionists.

Zakir Naik had very interesting and long debate with Mr David Campbell on his thesis about 'errors' in Quran. In the whole debate, Mr Campbell couldn't give a proper answer in many objection of Mr Naik about Bible, but had he became Muslim? No because he didn't accept Zakir's statements with open heart. He was already biased and didn't want to change his stance despite Zakir's refuted him and shown many errors in Bible.

 

[Vitamin_C]

If I give you a list of scientists who can smoke, does it tell you anything about whether it is good thing to smoke or not? I could give you an even bigger list of people who believe evolution. Sphere Manisfest gave you a Muslim scientist who believes in evolution, I can give you the name of the pope as well. It would not prove whether their belief is right or wrong so what is the point.
What I propose to you is find me as little as one modern scientist, who does not believe in the modern theory of evolution after the discovery of DNA evidence. Based on scientific evidence or method.

Man, Churches were not strong in the whole world and this so called evolution occurred everywhere not only in Church dominated areas.

And you are just saving yourself with this statement that those scientists were refusing it because church was strong otherwise the following and many more scientists were not at the time when the Church was NOT 'strong'. They were living in modern democratic period.
BTW to my post, you didn't take this shelter of Church being strong rather you had state that whether any body agree or not agree, you don't care.


Louis Agassiz (1807-1873)- A Swiss biologist and geologist
James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879)-A Scottish Scientist
Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)-A Czech Republic-A Biologist
Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) A French Chemistry and microbiologist
William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin (1824-1907)-A British Physicist
Joseph Lister (1827-1912)-A British Surgeon
Ernest Rutherford (1871-1937)-A British Physicist
Joseph John Thomson (1856-1940)-A British Physicist
Francis Bacon (1909-1992)-A Irish born British Painter

They are all are 19[SUP]th[/SUP] and 20[SUP]th[/SUP] century scientists and check the eras of other scientits by yourself. BTW you didn’t even check the list.

Now come to the modern day Scientists: Read and reply my post number 52 and 63 word by word not just with a general statement.

And if you want, I can give you a big list of modern century scientists as well and their lists

 

[Nice2MU]

Man had you even bother read my post number 63 and also post number 52?

When you read them and answer with proper logic or references then I will go further with you so show you many more not modern scientists but the modern evolutionists who can't explain many points in the theory of evolutions. So first read my two post and reply me, then I will go further. So chill

If I give you a list of scientists who can smoke, does it tell you anything about whether it is good thing to smoke or not? I could give you an even bigger list of people who believe evolution. Sphere Manisfest gave you a Muslim scientist who believes in evolution, I can give you the name of the pope as well. It would not prove whether their belief is right or wrong so what is the point.

What I propose to you is find me as little as one modern scientist, who does not believe in the modern theory of evolution after the discovery of DNA evidence. Based on scientific evidence or method.

 

[Vitamin_C]

There is nothing for me to answer in both those posts, there is so much none sense in here that I can just shake my head.
I will give you a friendly advice, if you want to learn anything about science go to a scientific website or buy a scientific book.
Do no, repeat, Do not go on creationist websites they will only misguide you are point you in the wrong direction.

You seem to have got this gibberish from Apologetics Press its a Christian creationist website and not the place I would advice you to be on if you want to learn something.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Apologetics_Press

If your research will continue to only consist of creationist websites like bible.ca and others that believe that world is 6000 years old, I will not take you seriously anymore.

If you do not understand something it does not mean you are not smart, you are just going to the wrong places.
Study this video on evolution with an open mind it will explain much about how evolution works. After that you can come back to me and ask me if something does not get through. Goodluck.

<font size="4">

Man there are laws exist in Biology as well. I know the difference between Law and Theory. Theory has just supportive evidence which could be wrong as well as right at the same place. I was pointing to him as Law mean the actual facts but the Aye Bye Shay.



This is just a statement not the evidence. If I say your Name James, will you agree to it? No the same here, the Home Erectus or might be the transition state but one species can't make the bridge between us and any animal which is claimed to be 'second' in everything to Human. I mean to say there would be many species between Human as the most advance animal and another animal which might be 2nd to human in brain complexion.

Because evolution can't be abrupt from an animal who can't even speak, or think and then converted into human? I need the evidences for those species, their life style, their any inventions etc as there many species exist between Fish and amphibians and between amphibians and birds. And the strange things it that there is NOT a single species exist today who even can speak or have some other resemblance with human character. Very Strange! No?




Again just statement. What is proof that 95% DNA of human and Chimps are same because I know it is wrong. It is around 81% or less. And BTW it is not a big deal, I will show below. Previously they reported as 98.5% similar but then they rectify it by further studies putting more data of sequences of DNA and concluded:



....In 2002 research study proved that human DNA was at least 5% different from chimpanzees—and that number probably will continue to grow as we learn all of the details about human DNA (Britten, 2002). (meaning this difference will grow further.

Reference: Britten, Roy J. (2002), “Divergence between Samples of Chimpanzee and Human DNA Sequences is 5%, Counting Intels,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99:13633-13635, October 15.

Then another scientist says:

Jonathan Marks, (department of anthropology, University of California, Berkeley) has pointed out the often-overlooked problem with this “similarity” line of thinking.

Because DNA is a linear array of those four bases—A,G,C, and T—only four possibilities exist at any specific point in a DNA sequence. The laws of chance tell us that two random sequences from species that have no ancestry in common will match at about one in every four sites. Thus even two unrelated DNA sequences will be 25 percent identical, not 0 percent identical (2000, p. B-7).

Therefore a human and any earthly DNA-based life form must be at least 25% identical. Would it be correct, then, to state that daffodils are “one-quarter human”? The idea that a flower is one-quarter human is neither profound nor enlightening; it is outlandishly ridiculous! There is hardly any biological comparison that could be conducted that would make daffodils human—except perhaps DNA. Marks went on to concede:

Moreover, the genetic comparison is misleading because it ignores qualitative differences among genomes.... Thus, even among such close relatives as human and chimpanzee, we find that the chimp’s genome is estimated to be about 10 percent larger than the human’s; that one human chromosome contains a fusion of two small chimpanzee chromosomes; and that the tips of each chimpanzee chromosome contain a DNA sequence that is not present in humans (B-7, emp. added).

Further:

In 2003, the completed human genome study is scheduled to be published. Before this massive project was created, scientists estimated that humans possessed 90,000 to 100,000 genes (a gene is a section of DNA that is a basic unit of heredity, while the genome constitutes the total genetic composition of an organism). With preliminary data from the genome project now in hand, scientists believe that the actual number of genes is around 70,000 (Shouse, 2002, 295:1447). It appears that only about 1.5% (as per old study) of the human genome consists of genes, which code for proteins. These genes are clustered in small regions that contain sizable amounts of “non-coding” DNA (frequently referred to as “junk DNA”) between the clusters. The function of these non-coding regions is only now being determined. These findings indicate that even if all of the human genes were different from those of a chimpanzee, the DNA still could be 98.5 percent similar if the “junk” DNA of humans and chimpanzees were identical.


Read Further:


Homology (or similarity) does not prove common ancestry. The entire genome of the tiny nematode (Caenorhabditis elegans) also has been sequenced as a tangential study to the human genome project. Of the 5,000 best-known human genes, 75% have matches in the worm (see “A Tiny Worm Challenges Evolution”). Does this mean that we are 75% identical to a nematode worm? Just because living creatures share some genes with humans does not mean there is a linear ancestry.

Biologist John Randall admitted this when he wrote:

The older textbooks on evolution make much of the idea of homology, pointing out the obvious resemblances between the skeletons of the limbs of different animals. Thus the “pentadactyl” [five bone—BH/BT] limb pattern is found in the arm of a man, the wing of a bird, and flipper of a whale—and this is held to indicate their common origin. Now if these various structures were transmitted by the same gene couples, varied from time to time by mutations and acted upon by environmental selection, the theory would make good sense. Unfortunately this is not the case. Homologous organs are now known to be produced by totally different gene complexes in the different species. The concept of homology in terms of similar genes handed on from a common ancestor has broken down... (as quoted in Fix, 1984, p.189).




Mr Aqalmand, I had told you that between human and 'ancestors', there shouldn't be just two species but many more. I think you have just heard the word evolution but don't know its actual meaning? A true Evolution must involve step wise changes not leaps and bounces. When a child born, he is transforms from a small baby into a full fledge man no in one month or year but needs many years involving many observable changes.

And about the DNA claim, I have given detail about. It is useless analogy. If DNA is even 99% same, at least Chimpanzee should talk or any of its organs should be used in human being by transplantation etc. Come'on man, what a non-sense. If there are even 100% identical person, with 100% DNA matching but still they will look like different, their colour, their hair, their thinking, their brain intelligence and in many aspects and you are talking about 95% (which is also very wrong because the scientists have hidden many facts and data in it and compare only identical regions.)





All your answer are just statement not proves. You are asking me to search. Why should I search? You are claiming hence you provide the proof not me.

At end of my post, I had asked the question that in how much Fish had been transferred into amphibians and in which conditions? Plus is this process still continue? If it is still continue give the proof if not then answer me why?..........But you have ignored this question and blaming me irrational...

 

[Nice2MU]

There is nothing for me to answer in both those posts, there is so much none sense in here that I can just shake my head.
I will give you a friendly advice, if you want to learn anything about science go to a scientific website or buy a scientific book.
Do no, repeat, Do not go on creationist websites they will only misguide you are point you in the wrong direction.

You seem to have got this gibberish from Apologetics Press its a Christian creationist website and not the place I would advice you to be on if you want to learn something.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Apologetics_Press

If your research will continue to only consist of creationist websites like bible.ca and others that believe that world is 6000 years old, I will not take you seriously anymore.

If you do not understand something it does not mean you are not smart, you are just going to the wrong places.
Study this video on evolution with an open mind it will explain much about how evolution works. After that you can come back to me and ask me if something does not get through. Goodluck.

<font size="4">

Science depends on some solid facts not just a lie that millions years ago something happened which even people can't verify. This evolution is just myth and believe.

Criationist website misguides but evolutionist website just push you in the well without any evidence.

Forget about the website, I can't even digest this that if Chimps DNA is 95% is like human so it from the same ancestor meaning 5% difference covers all the big differences between Man and Chimps including the tail, Nails, Hair, or number of Chromosomes.

You are just hiding behind this excuse thaf I don't know about evolution so I should either accept it blindly or keep quite but you will not answer my any post properly.

And thanks fo your advice. I had studied Chemistry, Biology and even Geology at uni level with open eyes. So Chill.

 

[Vitamin_C]

That very question of amount of chromosomes is covered in the video. It also talks about the one chromosome that we have less, trust me its a very interesting video you will thank me later if you watch it with an open mind.

We have dna similarity with Chimp from 95% to 99% depending on what we count (so it means that just 1% dna makes such a big difference that we make space shuttles etc while chimps can only use sticks to fight each other). We share 50% dna with banana and creationist will try to confuse you by making it sound like scientist are saying that we are 50% banana, this is dishonest misrepresentation. What it means is the further back our common ancestor is with a particular living thing, the less % of dna we share. So if we shared a common ancestor with Chimp 7 million years ago, we share around 97-99% dna, and if we share common ancestor with Gorilla around 8 million years ago and share around 95%-97% of dna with us (depending on what you count of course . (Gorilla has same number of hair follicles as us). And if we share 50% dna with banana it means that we shared a common ancestor a long long time ago compared to the rest - over 1.6billion years ago.

Did that answer your question? I wouldn't have to if you just watch that short video I do not know why you are so afraid of it.

Science depends on some solid facts not just a lie that millions years ago something happened which even people can't verify. This evolution is just myth and believe.

Criationist website misguides but evolutionist website just push you in the well without any evidence.

Forget about the website, I can't even digest this that if Chimps DNA is 95% is like human so it from the same ancestor meaning 5% difference covers all the big differences between Man and Chimps including the tail, Nails, Hair, or number of Chromosomes.

You are just hiding behind this excuse thaf I don't know about evolution so I should either accept it blindly or keep quite but you will not answer my any post properly.

And thanks fo your advice. I had studied Chemistry, Biology and even Geology at uni level with open eyes. So Chill.

 

[ThoughtFelon]

As I said earlier, it's futile to argue with creationist zombies on evolution. It's a matter of faith for them not reason and rationality. There existence depends on it, eerything about them crumbles apart if they believe in evolution. So I understand why the oppose it so vigorously.

It's blind faith (on holy scriptures) vs science (evidence based facts).

 

[Vitamin_C]

Science is the study of the natural world based on the scientific method. Making tools out of stones is science, using a needle made from animal bone to make clothes for survival during winter in Siberia is science. It may sound crude but thats how humans have been getting along since 100,000s years. Humans have colonized the most inhospitable corners of the Earth from thousands of years this may have not been possible without basic science like using bear hide to make shoes to walk over alaska etc. Science is the only thing we humans have that give us an edge and it is not something new, we can see it since the beginning of humanity and we can also see it in extinct species that were related to us like Neanderthal and Homo Erectus.

Rationality is behaving in a rational manner for example not accepting/believing in claims without any conclusive evidence.

If you go to a doctor and tell him that there is a lump on your chest and is it cancer or not. Before he gives an answer he needs to see evidence first for example any symptoms that are in common with cancer, he will look at the mammograms or x-rays. He can not tell without look at the evidence that I believe you have cancer based on my faith or that someone said it to me in my dream etc...
So you look at the evidence first then build a conclusion based on the evidence that you have seen. The woman does not have breast cancer, this conclusion will only come after studying the evidence ie xray and mammograms. We cannot make the conclusion first that a woman has cancer, and then study the evidence and manipulate it to fit their conclusion.
Why is this important. Some people for example those who hold faith. Build their conclusion first, for example Jesus is God and Bible is 100% literally true. Then they manipulate whatever evidence there is to fit their reality. What ever goes against their reality for example evolution, Noahs Ark, myth of the exodus from Egypt, they will dispute it, not because they have evidence that this is wrong, but because it does not fit their model of reality as they already have their conclusion.

My degree of confidence on Evolution as a fact?
There are no two opinions on evolution in the scientific community today, it is regarded as a fact. There maybe debate on how exactly evolution occurs and how mutations occur, but there is no question on whether evolution itself occurs or not. If you want my honest opinion, then I can say with 99.99% confidence that it is a fact. The evidence that has been found in the last couple hundred years cannot be explained with anything else other than gradual change from one generation to another leading to big changes.
All evidence points against intelligence design or that all species were made at the same time. The evidence is very conclusive. Here is just one simple example that can be demonstrated.

Existence of God:
No, I do not have any issue with people believing in the existence of God, it is a very important part of our cultures. I like to be a part of our culture regardless of my personal beliefs, I do not mind praying because meditation is good for our mind and Fasting is good for the body, I do it for rational reasons not because of faith. Religion has been an important part of the culture of different civilizations from Greek Mythology, to Egyptians, Israelites, Arabs etc. Also I like to read about the evolution of religions, because the concepts had been changing over time on what was the properties and definition of Gods ie from Hercules(someone who is just immortal) to Allah(someone who is not only immortal but omnipotent as well). And the ideas of life after death from Egyptian religions.
Also I do not discourage people from religion, whether it is true or false(existence of God), it is good for some people. It gives happiness and hope to people.

What is your degree of confidence in the theory of evolution as a fact?

How would you define science? and rationality as well?

I know there are scores of definitions of these terms available in literature/on the web. However, my take is a little different. In any discussion, the use of terminology is not only inevitable but important as well. For a fruitful discussion, it is imperative that we agree on these definitions.

Do you any issue with the belief about the existence of God in whatever shape people in different culture may perceive it?

 

[غزالی]

Science is the study of the natural world based on the scientific method. Making tools out of stones is science, using a needle made from animal bone to make clothes for survival during winter in Siberia is science. It may sound crude but thats how humans have been getting along since 100,000s years. Humans have colonized the most inhospitable corners of the Earth from thousands of years this may have not been possible without basic science like using bear hide to make shoes to walk over alaska etc. Science is the only thing we humans have that give us an edge and it is not something new, we can see it since the beginning of humanity and we can also see it in extinct species that were related to us like Neanderthal and Homo Erectus.

Rationality is behaving in a rational manner for example not accepting/believing in claims without any conclusive evidence.

If you go to a doctor and tell him that there is a lump on your chest and is it cancer or not. Before he gives an answer he needs to see evidence first for example any symptoms that are in common with cancer, he will look at the mammograms or x-rays. He can not tell without look at the evidence that I believe you have cancer based on my faith or that someone said it to me in my dream etc...
So you look at the evidence first then build a conclusion based on the evidence that you have seen. The woman does not have breast cancer, this conclusion will only come after studying the evidence ie xray and mammograms. We cannot make the conclusion first that a woman has cancer, and then study the evidence and manipulate it to fit their conclusion.
Why is this important. Some people for example those who hold faith. Build their conclusion first, for example Jesus is God and Bible is 100% literally true. Then they manipulate whatever evidence there is to fit their reality. What ever goes against their reality for example evolution, Noahs Ark, myth of the exodus from Egypt, they will dispute it, not because they have evidence that this is wrong, but because it does not fit their model of reality as they already have their conclusion.

My degree of confidence on Evolution as a fact?
There are no two opinions on evolution in the scientific community today, it is regarded as a fact. There maybe debate on how exactly evolution occurs and how mutations occur, but there is no question on whether evolution itself occurs or not. If you want my honest opinion, then I can say with 99.99% confidence that it is a fact. The evidence that has been found in the last couple hundred years cannot be explained with anything else other than gradual change from one generation to another leading to big changes.
All evidence points against intelligence design or that all species were made at the same time. The evidence is very conclusive. Here is just one simple example that can be demonstrated.

Existence of God:
No, I do not have any issue with people believing in the existence of God, it is a very important part of our cultures. I like to be a part of our culture regardless of my personal beliefs, I do not mind praying because meditation is good for our mind and Fasting is good for the body, I do it for rational reasons not because of faith. Religion has been an important part of the culture of different civilizations from Greek Mythology, to Egyptians, Israelites, Arabs etc. Also I like to read about the evolution of religions, because the concepts had been changing over time on what was the properties and definition of Gods ie from Hercules(someone who is just immortal) to Allah(someone who is not only immortal but omnipotent as well). And the ideas of life after death from Egyptian religions.
Also I do not discourage people from religion, whether it is true or false(existence of God), it is good for some people. It gives happiness and hope to people.

I would appreciate if we could contain the word counts of our responses to keep the discussion manageable against the limitations of the medium we are using. I would also expect and request a standard scientific/scientist's expression; grammatically correct as well, so that we dont waste time in offering and seeking clarifications. Occasional error or typo is allowed! ...... :)

Science: What you have written here is more about its application (art, tech, etc.) rather than the science per se. Would it be difficult for you to accept that science is only a methodology, a tool to discover truth? It is not a knowledge but an instrument to create knowledge?

Rationality: to this definition/understanding, would you consider adding 'a logical and convincing argument' to the array of evidences where material/tangible evidence is either missing or not readily available/have not yet been discovered?

Evolution: here you have avoided a specific/clear reference to evolution of human race/homo sapiens. Is it inadvertent or deliberate? Secondly, I dont think hat by definition a fact or any fact for that matter needs to be qualified with 99.99% confidence or does it? First we need to get these two issues out of the way then I would come back on this consensus among the community thing.

I dont have any serious issue with your understanding about the existence of God except that you just stop short (perhaps a very tiny step!) of personifying it; coagulation of all the enumerated concepts with a touch of congeniality is what is required here, perhaps.

 

[غزالی]

As I said earlier, it's futile to argue with creationist zombies on evolution. It's a matter of faith for them not reason and rationality. There existence depends on it, eerything about them crumbles apart if they believe in evolution. So I understand why the oppose it so vigorously.

It's blind faith (on holy scriptures) vs science (evidence based facts).

Could you hold on to this authoritative opinion just for a while, please? Just until there is some conclusion on this thread! Thank you