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