Dissection of Evolution Theory

Re: # 22

Well done observer. Three cheers for you but my question is whether the evolution ended at Adam, as your post did, or started from thereon. In the Pakland at least `devolution` is going on and the humansapiens seem to be reverting to apes. Soon it is likely to become `Apistan`. Isn`t it so?

Dear Mr Owais, you wrote:

``we do not, in recorded history, have evidence of one type of animal changing into another type``

I think this is a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. To explain, let me ask you to define the ``type of animal`` for me. If you try to define a dog, e.g., how would you do it? Short and elongated like the mexican weiner dog, or tall and furry like a husky? White and cuddly like a poodle or ugly and ferocious like a pitpull? A chihuawa weighing just a few ounces or a mastiff weighing 200lbs? Or when does a dog become a wolf? A husky and some other breeds as well, look, walk, behave, sound very much like a wolf. And when does it become a jackal or a fox? But what is a wolf anyway? The small and scrawny wolf of India or the large and robust like the one found in Canada? Or the horse for that matter...I can go on and on.

The same goes for ``parts`` of an animal. Take an eye for example. What is an eye? The human eye with its sterescopic color vision or the color blind complex eye of a moth? Or a bee which can see in polarized light or a cat which can see in the dark (like a night vision goggle). Or the simple photosensitive cells of a sunflower and many other plants and worms, etc. who lack complex eyes of other animals but can ``see`` or sense light and follow its source? (Read this para in reverse and see how the eye evolved, from simple to complex).

The point is this, we see gradations in life forms everywhere. Starting with human, we have them in different colors, sizes, shapes, etc. These gradation also occur between species also as much as within species. So a crude gradation starting with humans is Homo Sapiens, Chimpanzees, Gorrillas, Orangutans, other monkeys, other primates (such as lemurs), mammals, placental mammals, marsupial mammals, etc.....the list is not an accurate sequence (indeed it shoudl be a tree)...but you get the point I hope.

In this sequence or tree there are gaps of course but some of the gaps are filled by fossils, and some can be inferred from other evidence. For example, in the fins of a whale are the bones of five fingers. Furthermore, whale is a warm blooded mammal which suckle its babes. These and other bits of evidence points to a past where a whale may have lived on the land at least partially (like an otter or seal or a walrus, all mammals too) but in the course of millions of years moved into the water where it probably went to hunt for food. Gradually its body evolved into a hydrodynamic, smooth shape and its fingers evolved into a fin to push water more effeiciently (like a duck with its webbed fingers). And indeed they have now found intermediary animal which are believed to be whales` ancestors on the Balochistan coast of Pakistan (called Pakicetus [spelling], etc.). This is just one example, and there are hundreds of others of intermediary forms if you care.

The problem is that otherwise smart and educated people like you do not bother to read about evolution with an open mind. When you approach it with a presumption of its fallacy, you draw conclusions that fit that belief. If you just pick a text book on evolution or enroll in a course with an open mind, you will see that elvolution has so much evidence supporting it and from so many different disciplines that it cannot be denied by any reasonable person. Modern discoveries of genetics have only strengthened the truth of Darwin`s great insight. Denying it is only your loss!

Just one last question...what wsa the race of Adam? If he was a white man like the tall, blond, blue eyed Swede, where did the short, dark, curly haired pygmy come from? And if one can adapt into another, why can`t a guerilla adapt to become a chimpanzee and a chimpanzee into a cro-magnon man?

RE THOERY OF EVOLUTION AND RELIGION

I do not know what the fuss is all about. I believe in Darwinian Evolution. It is a fact supported by many different disciplines such as genetics, geology, paleontology, linguistics, etc. HOWEVER, if you are a person of faith, you can reconcile your faith with evolution in the following way:

God created this universe and established laws or processes of nature that governs it. An example of such laws is the laws of planetary motion (laws of gravity) and other laws of physics. In the field of biology there are also laws and processes which govern all biological activity such as cell division, the unfolding of the DNA spiral, the laws of sexual or asexual reproduction; and one such law is the law of evolution as described by the process of natural selection, kin selection, sex selection, etc.

Problem solved, isn`t it? If Allah or Yahweh or Bhagwan or whatever you choose to call it, runs this unverse within the framework of such laws or processes, why can`t the development of animal species be governed by a law or process?

abdullah:
Could it be that you are too proud to admit that you are related to a monkey? Don`t forget that pride is one of the most deadly sins.

Mr Owais,
You have a very nice ``theory``. I have read many articles by creationists, and yours is just about the best it can get. I would suggest you one thing:
Go to a library and read November 2004 edition of National Geographic. The title of the journal is ``Was Darwin Right?``. You will find much more information and answers to most of your claims.

What I would like to know is, what is exactly your contribution in the field of botany/paleontology/ecology/genetics/zoology to make such claims. In fact if you have the guts, write a paper for your theory and present it to reviewers of world-class journals (like Nature, Science or National Geographic). If you can manage to get it accepted there, I will very happily believe in your ``theory``.

If you had written this artticle 100 years ago, it would have been very powerful. Not any more. Ironically, it is becoming increasing clear that evolution is a fact.

This is shocking! Editors of Chowk-- please screen articles like these--by all means, give articles with different points of view, but dont compromise on their quality.

Wasiq:

Indeed, scientific theories are not developed instantaneously. It takes time--sometimes several years--to embody the ``reality`` or part of the ``reality`` into a theory. My objection is that the truth is not being told to the masses--people who do not understand the scientific process very well. The result is that to some people the theory of evolution is the objective reality and, on the other hand, some people are extremely hostile to any of the ideas of the evolutionary theory.

The popular media has completely ignored problems infesting the evolutionary theory and questions raised by reputable scientists. In magazines, newspapers and on television, the litany is that we were apes.

As for the point that the theory of evolution is the only scientific explanation of the origin of life: the Greeks used to think that earth is the center on of the universe bases on the movement of constellations. But as we know that is not true. Furthermore, the survival of the theory is due to several other reasons beside its ``truthfulness``.

Shafqat:

Thank you for your invitation. I am in the process of reading your piece.

Dear Goga:

You sound like a thoughtful and educated person. I invite you to read the article `An Evolving Conversation`, which is currently displayed on the Chowk front page. The questions you are raising - evolution being little more than a belief, evolutionists using flimsy evidence like decayed bones, and academia conspiring to exaggerate about evolution - have been answered in that piece.

With regards,
Saad Shafqat

Re: Goga (17)

I agree that the details are in flux, as is the case with any frontier of scientific endeavour, but let me ask you a simple question: What is the simplest and verifiable explanation for the complexity and diversity of life?

The basic fact that spontaneous creation of any living organism has never been observed, and is in gross contradiction with our current understanding of the universe, throws all flavors of creationism out of the door. In the hooplah raised by creationists against evolutionary models, they conveniently fail to mention that creationism has not a single shred of evidence that supports it. It is alive today, like a myth, entirely on faith.

If we accept what I have said in the above para, then the only other possibility is that life arose through entirely physical processes and through the demands of survivability has produced the complexity and variety we see around us.

What do you think of this?

Evolutionary models differ on the details, but on the issue of the process of evolution, there is no argument and is accepted by everyone who is associated with it scientifically. The range of evidence present spans all size scales, from the microscopic to the macroscopic. And despite what is popularly said, the concept of evolution has been under the tightest of scrutiny and has survived attacks from all sides for about 150 years now.

regards

Wasiq:

But evolutionists are doing the same thing: basing their theory on flimsy evidence of decayed pieces of bones (in some cases a tooth and pieces of skull) and, picking and choosing whatever that support the hypotheses of evolution. These days there is a hot debate on whether dinosaurs were hot blooded or cold blooded since bird, who are hot blooded, are supposed to have evolved from dinosaurs for apparent resemblance. It must be proved that this is true otherwise birds would be ancestorless. The deciding factor is the placement of colon in the dinosaur body. In fishes (cold blooded) the colon is closer to the spine and in dinosaurs it is not. So dinosaurs were warm blooded. Now that is called a flimsy evidence.

Kafir:

Even if the structure of this piece is flawed, the author is providing rational arguments against the theory of evolution. I don`t know how mullahs come in. I think that sort of derogatory labels are used to intimidate people who question a purported belief (yes, evolution is little more than a belief). These days an academia risks of being kicked out of an institution, if he/she questions the theory of evolution. So much for the freedom of thought.

S. Owais,

A couple of other questions come to my mind.

Since you have undertaken to teach us about molecular genetics, and apparently some people are actually giving your lesson some credence, please explain what do the terms `gene` and `new gene` mean to you. In other words, how different does one gene have to be from another for you to call it new?

Anita

O my goddess!! If this embarrassingly sophomoric piece of writing passes for scholarship in Pakistan, I shudder for that nation`s future.

Mr. Owais, your comments are more suited to a Friday khutbah for the brain-washed, unquestioning Muslim masses than to a forum for rigorous intellectual inquiry. As others have pointed out, your arguments are full of inconsistencies, unproved assumptions, blatant misinformation, and faulty reasoning. And your use of quotations is really disturbing. As Wasiq points out, you have pulled them out of context and colored them with your own bias in an attempt to make your point (whatever that is, I`m still not clear). I suspect you read a couple of creationist-based books attacking evolutionary theory, and now you fancy yourself an expert on the subject.

The most glaring problem with your piece is your assumption that `revelation` is an infallible source of knowledge about everything in the universe. You have to prove this to your readers before we can begin to take your argument seriously (unless, of course you`re giving a sermon. Are you?)

Regards,

K

For all the dears who believe in the Evolution Theory, well u have all the rights to think that your ancestors are champs with a big tail, no problem.

LOL

This seems to be an outline for a more detailed and coherent work. In any care, it does bring together a variety of reasons why the theory of evolution is so controversial.

The theory of evolution seems more like a belief than a fact as several scientists themselves are questioning its validity.

One disturbing fact is that in popular science sources, media and basic education, the theory of evolution is referred to in a matter of fact way when, obviously, the theory has an shaky reputation. This seems to be an effort on the part of secular forces to brain wash masses.

But personally I believe that there is less of a clash between Islam and the theory of evolution as compare to Judeo-Christianity.

The author is an engineer. It can be quite disturbing to engineers if someone says that something was created by itself since they have the first hand knowledge of the difficulties involved in developing a functioning piece of machinery. For biologists and people of that sort, computer chips as well be grown on trees -- they could care less.

re: author
you say
``Throughout history, we find people who believed that it is their MIND that is the god. They assumed that their thinking processes would alone enable them to comprehend the reality. However, they soon find themselves caught in the web of their own thought processes.`` BLAH BLAH...rest of the article.

I have to admit this is the best argument I have seen for NOT using ones mind. You are kinda upfront and direct about it. You don`t just imply it, you say it. :-)

regards

I should`nt even bother to comment upon this

Have fun...........

Rishi

S Owais has tried his best to dissect the evolution theory. It certainly demonstrates his stamina. He has quoted several important and interesting refrences.

I hope that other people interacting here would shun their killing instinct. I believe Owais has the talent and will to become a good writer in future.

A Nadir

S. Owais sahab,

This is a marathon effort, and for that you are to be commended. It would have been better received I think,if you had limited yourself to pointing out deficiences in the theory of evolution (such as the missing links in the fossil record), and provoked the biologists into trying to come up with explanations. Instead, you reveal a passionately partisan, close-minded and creationist agenda which is a turn-off. In effect, what you are saying is - since creationists are CORRECT, any other theory to explain the diversity of life MUST NECESSARILY BE INCORRECT. You can only win an argument with that kind of logic with the Taliban and their ilk.

A few general points-

In decrying the Age of Reason, you equate ``I was a chimp, therefore I am`` with a pessimistic and shallow world view. How so? To me this implies just the opposite - look where we started and where we have arrived. The potential for constant improvement - how can that be pessimistic?

Science advances by the process of falsification. Scientists accept the theory of evolution because it is to date the most rational explanation for the diversity of life - however, if it is demonstrably falsified, then scientists will no longer accept it. By the same token, scientific understanding of evolution continues to (yes, you guessed it) evolve, as new data become available. Why should one expect otherwise? This is the nature of science (pun intended). No scientist claims that science is perfect - it can be arduous, frustrating, conflicting, and slow, even plain drudgery at times - but it inexorably moves forward, asking questions, exploring further, refining our sense of the world.

A few specific points:

I do not know where you get your molecular genetic facts from. They are simply wrong. Any molecular biology text review would be extremely helpful. New genes can be created easily. We do it in the lab all the time!

The fossil record is incomplete in many ways, but it still provides overwhelming evidence for evolution in that life is organized from simple to more complex forms through millenia. So for example, fossils preserved from 3 to 4 billion years ago show only simple unicellular organisms, those from 500 million years ago show more complex organisms, those from 10 million years ago, still more complex, and so on. The same genetic code has been retained through all this time. With increased complexity, you have subtle changes in the way the code is organized, so that a chimpanzee is more closely related to humans than a rat, a rat more closely related than a frog etc. In fact, we can exactly time how long ago a primitive species diverged from its common ancestor by looking at an organism`s genetic sequence and studying the rate at which random mutations accumulate in the genome (molecular clocking). To me very fascinating is the fact that Plasmodium falciparum (the agent of malaria) appears to have arisen only about 10,000 years ago - just when the earliest human societies were formed.

Then there is the astonishing similarity of our mitochondria to bacterial organisms, with some of the proteins preserved almost intact.

Contrary to what you say, many transitional forms of life have been found in the fossil record.

Although not a fossil record, (but infinitely superior) frozen chimpanzee tissue may have led to the most recent exciting evidence of a link between the chimpanzee virus and HIV - ie. the chimpanzee virus is the ancestor and appears to be thousands of years old. So even HIV did not spontaneously arise - it appears to have evolved from a chimpanzee virus - and boy, this happened in front of our eyes, probably no earlier than 50 years ago!

Regards,

Anita

Re: Syed Owais

Impressive research!

Just one question; is there a point you`re are trying to make and if there is one, could you please tell me what that might be?

Overall, the article was extermely interesting and orginal in that it was the first analytical paper I have read which had no hypothesis to base a conclusion upon! Reading this article was akin to undertanding directions to a road map which has nothing printed on it! Sarcasm aside, the article reminded me of someone trying to walk down on an escalator that is moving up!!

As an aside, I think that your writing talents will be further appreciated if you become a speech writer for Nawaz Sharif, because I know you said something, it sounded good and it made no sense at all in the end. I honestly think that you have talent and that it is being wasted in Pakistan Petroleum Limited! Think of a career as a political speech writer.....you have a gift for verbosity, I mean why confuse Chowkwallahs when you can confuse an entire nation....exploit it and be proud of yourself!!

The original passage is too long for me to read for the lack of time. But I would definitely like to comment on ``maliani```s statement.

In his zeal to discredit the author, he starts with an impolite comment. The story of Adam and Eve is the cornerstone of every ``religion of the book`` and quoting it is quite appropriate - it is not ``a quote from a holy book`` but agreed facts from several books.

When you assert the need for scientific appraoach, you yourself forget to practice it. There is no solid scientific evidence for theory of evolution. That is why it is a theory and not a fact. You say that Holy Quran is full of contradictions; pray tell me one , sir? The one you mention is the lack of your knowledge, understanding and intellect that leads you to discredit it. In Sura 41:9 and 10, the mention of four days of ``measured therein its sustenance`` includes two days of creation of the earth initially. It is a well debated and reseasrched verse, and scholars believe it with a concensus.

Allah being All Powerful has nothing to do with the number of days He needed to create anything. It is like I have the ability to hit a person in front of me, or have the ability to ram my car in to another, but I do not do so, etc, etc.

The making of lunar calendar as the marker of time is not primitive, but highly ingenious. This way, seasons change in various years in different months. e.g. Ramadan comes in different seasons over a period of years, therefore eliminating monotony, and so forth.

In the Sura 33:72 you again lack the intellect to comprehend such a profound philosophical argument! Heavens and Earth were offered the Trust, but they were unable to take the trust because they are not of free will; trust presumes a free will on the part of those trusted, and Earth and Heavens were but only obedient to Allah. Also, knowing the immense magnitude and responsibiityassociated with the task, they knew they could not accept it. Actually it is only a metaphorical example, and not to be taken so literally.

This is already a very loong reply. MOre on evolution and its compatibility with Quran later.

While all the references are interesting there is next to no intelligent analysis or deduction done here.

If the author`s message is that Logic should be subservient to Faith, why give all this ``support`` material to the reader only to say at the end that the best conclusion (the only option) is to be a good believer.

The Age of Reason limerick was particularly banal and immature.

As a muslim I believe in Creation and in the inadequacy of evolution in explaining the Origins of life but I really dont see how this article bolsters someone`s belief or diminish someone else`s skepticism.

If so little had to be said, at least it ought to have been said more succinctly.

What hocus-pocus! The story of Adam and Eve has no place in a scientific account of the origins of the human race!!!

You have the right to disect the evolution theory and the big bang theory but only with scientific approach and hypthesis and not by givng references from a ``holy`` book which is full of contradictions. In fact Quran gives a conradictory account of the creation:

Sura 50.37:
``We created the heavens and the earth and all between then in Six days, nor did any sense of weariness touch us.``

and then in Sura 41.9:
``Do you indeed disbelieve in Him who in two days created the earth? And do you join equals with him? He is the lord of(all) the worlds.
He set on (earth)mountains standing firm, high above it, and bestowed blessings on the earth, and measured therein its sustenance in four Days, Alike for (all) who ask.
Then he turned to the sky, and it had been smoke: He said to it and to the earth: come ye together, willingly or unwillingly. They said: we do come in willing obedience. So He completed them as seven heavens in two Days and He assigned to each heaven its duty and command.``

Now, 2 days for the earth, 4 days for the sustenance and 2 days to complete heavens. so the total is 8 Days, whereas in sura 50 we are told that the creation took 6 days!!!!!!!!! what a contradiction!

Besides, Allah is supposed to be almighty and merely has to say ``Be`` and his will is accomplished, so why does it take him 6 (or 8) days to create the heavens. And how come there were days before creation of earth. In some other verse we are told that before the creation God`s throne floated above the ``waters.`` Now where did this water come from when earth and the heavens were not created yet? and why does God need a throne which is such a human concept!

And then in sura 10.5:
``It is he who made the sun to be a shining glory and the moon to be a light (of beauty) and measured out stages for it, that you might know the number of years and the count of time...``

This is primitive Arabian notion, since all the advanced civilizations of Babylon, Egypt, Persia, China and Greek used the solar year for the purpose of time reckoning.


Here`s another strange verse:

Sura 33.72 ``We did indeed offer the Trust to the Heavens and the Earth and the mountains; But they refused to undertake it, being afraid thereof, but man undertook it. He was indeed unjust and foolish.``

It seems from the above verse that heavens, the earth and the mountains are seen as persons, and furthermore being the creation of God how dare they refuse disobey God. How come his own creation declines to accept this burden?????????

Your guidelines say not to use language that is offensive however, as a woman, I find the use of sexist nouns and pronouns to be offensive to the other half of the human race that you have left out. According to the ``APA`` publication Manual and other writing style manuals that are routinely used in today`s universities, the use of gender-neutral language has been in practice since 1974! This practice particularly important for science writing in order to eliminate any ambiguity. This gender-neutal policy was also adopted and revised by the National Council of English Teachers,(NCTE)in 1985. How about updating your use of the English language to reflect the times...