What are your views on evolution?

[Technics 1210]

It is possible to believe in both.

But if you take the literal interpretation, it means that the first two humans were created, 60 cubits tall, and out of clay. That just doesn't hold up in evolution.

But, it could be a metaphor, or there's another interpretation which means you can reconcile both beliefs.

Exactly. I do not think anyone is smart enough to fully comprehend religious books, mainly due to language, absence of context, and translation - but what does hold up to evolution is the creation of life, then life is left to evolve.

 

[tonmoy]

Fortunately facts do not care if people believe something or not.

People are free to believe in Flying horses or mythical beings trapped inside mountains or how Noah managed to save millions of species in some boats etc.. but facts are not dependent on your belief.

Evolution is a fact just like Gravity is a fact. If you do not have the capacity to understand the numerous evidence behind the Scientific theory of evolution than couple of lines in a random forum will not change your mind

 

[Technics 1210]

Fortunately facts do not care if people believe something or not.

People are free to believe in Flying horses or mythical beings trapped inside mountains or how Noah managed to save millions of species in some boats etc.. but facts are not dependent on your belief.

Evolution is a fact just like Gravity is a fact. If you do not have the capacity to understand the numerous evidence behind the Scientific theory of evolution than couple of lines in a random forum will not change your mind

There is no difference between blind faith in religion and blind faith in Darwinian evolution. If I ask you right now to name me the 4 mechanics of Darwinian Evolution, you will first search in Google, and then post something. In other words, you only believe in Evolution because you were taught so from a young age, you have neither investigated nor questioned the theory.

Gravity is not a fact. The effect of Gravity is well known, but the theory of Gravity is still up for debate. Newton had one particular understanding of Gravity, where as Einstein believed gravity was a geometric property of spacetime that is allowed to be curved. The very reason why Einstein failed to unify classical Newtonian physics with quantum mechanics.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Fortunately facts do not care if people believe something or not.

People are free to believe in Flying horses or mythical beings trapped inside mountains or how Noah managed to save millions of species in some boats etc.. but facts are not dependent on your belief.

Evolution is a fact just like Gravity is a fact. If you do not have the capacity to understand the numerous evidence behind the Scientific theory of evolution than couple of lines in a random forum will not change your mind

This argument is lacking basic intelligence. If God can exist so can anything else, not that what you wrote is a correct belief in Islam.

 

[Tubs]

No it doesnt. I do know how to access articles lol.

If you cant debate in your own words, then Im not interested.

Why would you want the words of a final year Computer Science student over a person who has a PhD in evolution (or something similar)?

You obviously don't want to believe.

 

[Tubs]

There is no difference between blind faith in religion and blind faith in Darwinian evolution. If I ask you right now to name me the 4 mechanics of Darwinian Evolution, you will first search in Google, and then post something. In other words, you only believe in Evolution because you were taught so from a young age, you have neither investigated nor questioned the theory.

Gravity is not a fact. The effect of Gravity is well known, but the theory of Gravity is still up for debate. Newton had one particular understanding of Gravity, where as Einstein believed gravity was a geometric property of spacetime that is allowed to be curved. The very reason why Einstein failed to unify classical Newtonian physics with quantum mechanics.

You only believe in Islam because you were taught it from a young age?

And you asked why the chromosomes in humans is less than in the other great apes, I gave you a response from an expert in the field who cited peer reviewed studies, and you still deny it. There is no getting through to you. What a shame.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Why would you want the words of a final year Computer Science student over a person who has a PhD in evolution (or something similar)?

You obviously don't want to believe.

Because this is a forum to discuss and debate. Why would you bother coming on here to say we are primates etc but dont have the ability to discuss/debate this view?

Ok let's keep it simple for you.

Why would primates lose the ability to jump, climb trees?

 

[Tubs]

This argument is lacking basic intelligence. If God can exist so can anything else, not that what you wrote is a correct belief in Islam.

Well you're being a little pedantic, because the 'flying horse' was a mythical flying creature, described as ' Then a white animal which was smaller than a mule and bigger than a donkey'.

 

[Technics 1210]

You only believe in Islam because you were taught it from a young age?

And you asked why the chromosomes in humans is less than in the other great apes, I gave you a response from an expert in the field who cited peer reviewed studies, and you still deny it. There is no getting through to you. What a shame.

Wrong and given up already on a simple point/challenge?

I did not ask you why humans have less chromosomes compared to a primate. I was stating it is not possible for a higher pair systems to give rise to a lower pair system as a reduction in a chromosome leads to death. Simply meaning, it is biologically impossible for humans to have evolved from primates.

You searching google for a response, for a point which you did not understand, then posting it as your argument, using phrases like peer-review, only reveal how weak your understanding is of the Theory of Evolution.

My belief and why are irrelevant, I merely was pointing out how blind faith exists in all spheres - you are a prime example of this common phenomena; though you are not alone.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Well you're being a little pedantic, because the 'flying horse' was a mythical flying creature, described as ' Then a white animal which was smaller than a mule and bigger than a donkey'.

It never flew it leaped. As I said please dont comment if you have no knowledge.

 

[Tubs]

Because this is a forum to discuss and debate. Why would you bother coming on here to say we are primates etc but dont have the ability to discuss/debate this view?

Ok let's keep it simple for you.

Why would primates lose the ability to jump, climb trees?

You're in no position to be condescending when you get your world view from a 7th century book.

Research suggests that due to the evolution of the shoulder (comparing it to ancestral fossils) shows that there was a gradual shift from living in trees, to a reliance of using tools (in this case, throwing weapons).
After becoming bipedal, early humans sacrificed speed and explosive strength (hence the jump) for endurance. While their speed decreased, their endurance increased, which coincided with their hunting strategy (persistence hunting). This also links in with the previous point of shoulder evolution and their utilisation of tools.

Besides, the burden of proof is on you, as you're the one opposing an established scientific fact.

 

[hadi123]

lol. It was a poor statement but I think we know what he was trying to say.

Evolution exists but this doesn't mean humans evolved from hairy beasts known as apes or primates. The evidence regarding this claim is very weak and arguably racist in nature.

Exactly. At least you're more capable of reading in between the lines. More evidence for evolution, literally none for God

 

[tonmoy]

There is no difference between blind faith in religion and blind faith in Darwinian evolution. If I ask you right now to name me the 4 mechanics of Darwinian Evolution, you will first search in Google, and then post something. In other words, you only believe in Evolution because you were taught so from a young age, you have neither investigated nor questioned the theory.

Gravity is not a fact. The effect of Gravity is well known, but the theory of Gravity is still up for debate. Newton had one particular understanding of Gravity, where as Einstein believed gravity was a geometric property of spacetime that is allowed to be curved. The very reason why Einstein failed to unify classical Newtonian physics with quantum mechanics.

Faith means believing in something that otherwise lacks any real evidence. Evolution does not lack evidence. So I do not have blind faith in evolution, I have evidence to believe in the scientific FACT known as evolution. Your lack of knowledge on the issue is not my concern. Please educate yourself.

When Newton came up with the equation of Gravity, he recognized a flaw in the equation. He understood that the lack of a "Time" parameter in the equation means that gravity acts instantaneously (which is untrue). That does not make his equation incorrect, infact scientist in NASA and elsewhere still use Newtonian equation of Gravity to send spaceship to another body in our solar system.

 

[KingKhanWC]

You're in no position to be condescending when you get your world view from a 7th century book.

Research suggests that due to the evolution of the shoulder (comparing it to ancestral fossils) shows that there was a gradual shift from living in trees, to a reliance of using tools (in this case, throwing weapons).
After becoming bipedal, early humans sacrificed speed and explosive strength (hence the jump) for endurance. While their speed decreased, their endurance increased, which coincided with their hunting strategy (persistence hunting). This also links in with the previous point of shoulder evolution and their utilisation of tools.

Besides, the burden of proof is on you, as you're the one opposing an established scientific fact.

Its not actually a book but the words can be found in 'book' format. Its the recitation. Please dont ridicule something you are ignorant of.

Which type of hunting was extra endurance needed for? At what time in history did this change take place and which locations?

It's a dicussion, you believe in something so defend it.

 

[tonmoy]

This argument is lacking basic intelligence. If God can exist so can anything else, not that what you wrote is a correct belief in Islam.

Yes, both God and the numerous stories exist only in your mind....
For the rest of us, a flying horse/donkey/mule is just as stupid as a Santa clause flying in his sleigh

 

[Technics 1210]

Faith means believing in something that otherwise lacks any real evidence. Evolution does not lack evidence. So I do not have blind faith in evolution, I have evidence to believe in the scientific FACT known as evolution. Your lack of knowledge on the issue is not my concern. Please educate yourself.

When Newton came up with the equation of Gravity, he recognized a flaw in the equation. He understood that the lack of a "Time" parameter in the equation means that gravity acts instantaneously (which is untrue). That does not make his equation incorrect, infact scientist in NASA and elsewhere still use Newtonian equation of Gravity to send spaceship to another body in our solar system.

Evolution doesn't lack evidence? Evolution requires faith too. Show me empirical evidence of macro evolution. Not circumstantial, but empirical. You cannot. You believe this to be true simply because you have faith.

As for your second para, you basically agree with me, that the theory of gravity is not a fact, it is a theory, and still up for debate. The bold text, I have already mentioned in the previous page. There goes your second point.

Also, please stop using the terms fact and theory in the same breath, it confirms you are intellectually bankrupt.

 

[tonmoy]

Evolution doesn't lack evidence? Evolution requires faith too. Show me empirical evidence of macro evolution. Not circumstantial, but empirical. You cannot. You believe this to be true simply because you have faith.

As for your second para, you basically agree with me, that the theory of gravity is not a fact, it is a theory, and still up for debate. The bold text, I have already mentioned in the previous page. There goes your second point.

Also, please stop using the terms fact and theory in the same breath, it confirms you are intellectually bankrupt.

Again the Theory and Fact non-sense.

There is a difference between "Theory" as an english word and "Scientific theory".

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.


Please explain why some people have "Wisdom tooth" , "Palmaris Longus" (a muscle in forearm) or a tailbone (Coccyx) without using evolution as an explanation.

 

[Technics 1210]

Again the Theory and Fact non-sense.

There is a difference between "Theory" as an english word and "Scientific theory".

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.


Please explain why some people have "Wisdom tooth" , "Palmaris Longus" (a muscle in forearm) or a tailbone (Coccyx) without using evolution as an explanation.

I knew it, no empirical evidence of Macro evolution. Just mere words, and counter questions designed to bridge the gaps in your understanding, and of course, to bolster some form of self-esteem.

I was right, you just have blind faith in ToE.

By the way, facts do not change, theories do - this is the difference.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Yes, both God and the numerous stories exist only in your mind....
For the rest of us, a flying horse/donkey/mule is just as stupid as a Santa clause flying in his sleigh

The majority of people who have ever walked this planet, most smarter than you believe in a God/Creator.

Are you an athiest?

 

[Technics 1210]

The majority of people who have ever walked this planet, most smarter than you believe in a God/Creator.

Are you an athiest?

There are limits to genius, but no limits to stupidity.

 

[KingKhanWC]

There are limits to genius, but no limits to stupidity.

Yep and Indian athiests are at the top of the chart.

 

[tonmoy]

I knew it, no empirical evidence of Macro evolution. Just mere words, and counter questions designed to bridge the gaps in your understanding, and of course, to bolster some form of self-esteem.

I was right, you just have blind faith in ToE.

By the way, facts do not change, theories do - this is the difference.

Do you trust antibiotics that cured you 30 years back? I do not know what kind of evidence are you looking for?

Again
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.

I cannot re-word the same thing in countless ways...

Believe what you want, Not my problem...

 

[Technics 1210]

Do you trust antibiotics that cured you 30 years back? I do not know what kind of evidence are you looking for?

Again
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.

I cannot re-word the same thing in countless ways...

Believe what you want, Not my problem...

Still no evidence of Macro evolution.

So much for the ToE being fact.

 

[tonmoy]

The majority of people who have ever walked this planet, most smarter than you believe in a God/Creator.

Are you an athiest?

Millions of people believed our earth was the center of the universe. As I said, facts do not care about your or my faith.
Enjoy your creator.. do a small experiment, try removing life support from a dying patient and see if he/she survives based on your Dua (prayer to God). After all no one dies unless God instructs.

 

[tonmoy]

Still no evidence of Macro evolution.

So much for the ToE being fact.

Macro evolution?? LOL.. Ok bro

 

[KingKhanWC]

Millions of people believed our earth was the center of the universe. As I said, facts do not care about your or my faith.
Enjoy your creator.. do a small experiment, try removing life support from a dying patient and see if he/she survives based on your Dua (prayer to God). After all no one dies unless God instructs.

No Muslims beleived this. It wasn't millions but the so called enlightned people of the time, much like the athiests of today.

Such a stupid experiment, God has given us free will. Again you are ignorant and pretty weak in debate, so stop before digging a bigger hole.

 

[Technics 1210]

Glass is filled with water, at 50% of the volume of the glass.

Which fact is true?

Fact 1 : Glass is half full.
Fact 2 : Glass is half empty.
Fact 3 : Facts 1 & 2 are true.

3 facts, leading to multiple interpretations from ONE observation.

This ladies and gentlemen is the problem with Darwinian ToE. Not only is DToE open and accommodating to far fetched nonsense because of it random safety net, but there are no facts in DtoE, just multiple interpretations based on one observation, and any intelligent individual knows, describing how something looks, doesn't explain how something works.

Good night!

 

[tonmoy]

No Muslims beleived this. It wasn't millions but the so called enlightned people of the time, much like the athiests of today.

Such a stupid experiment, God has given us free will. Again you are ignorant and pretty weak in debate, so stop before digging a bigger hole.

Why would Azrael (angel of death) care about the life support... Lol...

Anyways, enjoy monday. ttyl

 

[KingKhanWC]

Why would Azrael (angel of death) care about the life support... Lol...

Anyways, enjoy monday. ttyl

lol. Angel of death only comes when you die, hence the name. The hole is enough for you to dive in now.

Enjoy your day too.

 

[Tubs]

Wrong and given up already on a simple point/challenge?

I did not ask you why humans have less chromosomes compared to a primate. I was stating it is not possible for a higher pair systems to give rise to a lower pair system as a reduction in a chromosome leads to death. Simply meaning, it is biologically impossible for humans to have evolved from primates.

You searching google for a response, for a point which you did not understand, then posting it as your argument, using phrases like peer-review, only reveal how weak your understanding is of the Theory of Evolution.

My belief and why are irrelevant, I merely was pointing out how blind faith exists in all spheres - you are a prime example of this common phenomena; though you are not alone.

Hahaha, ridiculous. I told you the exact reason why humans have less chromosomes than the other great apes. Of course I'm going to use the work of people who know the subject far better than I, and far, far better than you. You can stick your fingers in your ears and go 'lalalalala' all you want, won't change the fact that evolution is verifiable and has been verified may times over.

Its not actually a book but the words can be found in 'book' format. Its the recitation. Please dont ridicule something you are ignorant of.

Which type of hunting was extra endurance needed for? At what time in history did this change take place and which locations?

It's a dicussion, you believe in something so defend it.

It's still a book. Scripture. Text. Change the noun, doesn't change the fact that it was from a time of ignorance.

As previously mentioned, persistence hunting required endurance. Studies show that Australopithecus showed the first signs of human-like walking, but they weren't necessarily known for their endurance. This can be explained by their mainly plant-based diet. The adaptation for long distance running comes from Homo erectus, due to their larger joints and stronger tibia and femur. This adaptation can be explained due to the diet-shift, to a more meat-oriented diet. Around this time brain capacity was starting to increase, so the extra endurance was beneficial as it could be utilised during more complex hunting methods which would have been adopted by the more intelligence hominids.

Mind giving me evidence against human evolution? You said the evidence was weak?

 

[Tubs]

Haha, I'm glad that so many geniuses here have debunked evolution! Please, write an academic paper, get it published in Nature or Science, and get your Nobel Prize!

 

[KingKhanWC]

Hahaha, ridiculous. I told you the exact reason why humans have less chromosomes than the other great apes. Of course I'm going to use the work of people who know the subject far better than I, and far, far better than you. You can stick your fingers in your ears and go 'lalalalala' all you want, won't change the fact that evolution is verifiable and has been verified may times over.




It's still a book. Scripture. Text. Change the noun, doesn't change the fact that it was from a time of ignorance.

As previously mentioned, persistence hunting required endurance. Studies show that Australopithecus showed the first signs of human-like walking, but they weren't necessarily known for their endurance. This can be explained by their mainly plant-based diet. The adaptation for long distance running comes from Homo erectus, due to their larger joints and stronger tibia and femur. This adaptation can be explained due to the diet-shift, to a more meat-oriented diet. Around this time brain capacity was starting to increase, so the extra endurance was beneficial as it could be utilised during more complex hunting methods which would have been adopted by the more intelligence hominids.

Mind giving me evidence against human evolution? You said the evidence was weak?

Its not a book. Muslims dont need a written text.

You're just copying from the web. lol

I ask again. Simple enough questions.

Which type of hunting was extra endurance needed for? Which animals etc?

At what time in history did this change take place and which locations? Date and locations?

If you cant answer just say and please use your own words, anyone can copy others written paragraphs.

 

[tonmoy]

lol. Angel of death only comes when you die, hence the name. The hole is enough for you to dive in now.

Enjoy your day too.

Azrail is one of the archangels of the Islamic faith. He and his subordinate angels are responsible for taking the souls of the deceased away from the body. The Angel of Death does not act independently from God; he takes only those souls which he has been commanded to take.

Sorry to rain on your parade of lies.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Azrail is one of the archangels of the Islamic faith. He and his subordinate angels are responsible for taking the souls of the deceased away from the body. The Angel of Death does not act independently from God; he takes only those souls which he has been commanded to take.

Sorry to rain on your parade of lies.

So? What is your point? lol

I thought you were going?

 

[Technics 1210]

One is struggling to cite empirical evidence of Macro Evolution - the change in phylum - from a list of alleged facts, while the other is in chronic search of Youtube videos for the purpose of undermining his own points and laughing in the process. Not a single one of them has read their religious book - The Origin of Species.

Here's the cherry on the cake, these so called people who claim to have an understanding of DToE let alone science, do not believe in magic. Yet they believe in Spontaneous Generation - literally a rabbit out of a hat - in DToE. Sorry did I say believe? I meant blindly accept.

Darwinism is dead. Evolution is not possible without biological information - DNA - which was unknown in the days of Darwin. The world of science has moved on and is working on the Theory of the Origin of Biological Information, meanwhile Darwinists are becoming extinct - pun fully intended.

 

[tonmoy]

So? What is your point? lol

I thought you were going?

Yeah I was going , but my wife needs more time to finish her work.. watching Chelsea game and typing simultaneously as a result...

Anyways religion is too confusing for me maybe... As I said, believe whatever you wish to believe, I have no problem unless you force your belief onto someone or use it as a justification to punish someone who caused no harm to anyone(ex: Death by stoning for LGBT in Brunei).

As far as stories of creation is concerned, I find the Islamic version just as absurd as most other religion. I do not believe in magic , I do not believe moon was split into two or Gog Magog or any mythical creatures. I think it would be wise to trust in science in the matter of creation just like you trust in science for most other aspects of life. Rest is upto u.

 

[Technics 1210]

So? What is your point? lol

I thought you were going?

I would not bother. What these 2 have displayed is the simple fact they believe DToE is the antithesis of Theism; they are desperate to insult religion. Science is beyond their comprehension, but as long as it somehow falsifies the need for a creator, they'll support any theory, blindly. I also bet, all this bravado, is simply a case of appeasing their personal decision (insecurity) to leave their religion - because it helps them sleep better at night.

 

[Tubs]

Its not a book. Muslims dont need a written text.

You're just copying from the web. lol

I ask again. Simple enough questions.

Which type of hunting was extra endurance needed for? Which animals etc?

At what time in history did this change take place and which locations? Date and locations?

If you cant answer just say and please use your own words, anyone can copy others written paragraphs.

So I shouldn't use academic sources when a question is asked about an academic discipline? I get that you can do Quranic analysis with little thought, but that isn't the case when it comes to science. As I said, I'm far from an expert.

Persistence hunting required endurance. As the name suggests, it is when one or many predators wear down their prey using superior endurance. The prey consisted of goat, gazelle and wildebeest-like creatures.

Homo erectus emerged around 1.8 million years ago, in Africa.

And again, don't be patronising if you don't understand the scientific method. I haven't conducted research in this myself, I have to rely on secondary research.

Funny how the My Little Pony Baraq 'leaping' to heaven (despite the fact it supposedly had wings) is plausible to you, but human evolution isn't? Don't waste my time.

 

[Tubs]

I would not bother. What these 2 have displayed is the simple fact they believe DToE is the antithesis of Theism; they are desperate to insult religion. Science is beyond their comprehension, but as long as it somehow falsifies the need for a creator, they'll support any theory, blindly. I also bet, all this bravado, is simply a case of appeasing their personal decision (insecurity) to leave their religion - because it helps them sleep better at night.

You have no proof of a creator, yet you assert that it is true. Claims asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. And yes, we're the insecure ones. We read the works of people who are at the top of their field, work which has undergone extreme scrutiny, published into the most reputable scientific journals, but you rubbish all their claims because you're so secure in your belief in the 'divine'.

 

[tonmoy]

One is struggling to cite empirical evidence of Macro Evolution - the change in phylum - from a list of alleged facts, while the other is in chronic search of Youtube videos for the purpose of undermining his own points and laughing in the process. Not a single one of them has read their religious book - The Origin of Species.

Here's the cherry on the cake, these so called people who claim to have an understanding of DToE let alone science, do not believe in magic. Yet they believe in Spontaneous Generation - literally a rabbit out of a hat - in DToE. Sorry did I say believe? I meant blindly accept.

Darwinism is dead. Evolution is not possible without biological information - DNA - which was unknown in the days of Darwin. The world of science has moved on and is working on the Theory of the Origin of Biological Information, meanwhile Darwinists are becoming extinct - pun fully intended.

Yes, science does not explain everything. However neither does Science substitute an unknown with another unknown. God is not an explanation since you cannot prove its existence let alone how it was created.

You cannot even differentiate Theory from Scientific Theory.
Please read up on the difference between hypothesis, theory and fact

In popular usage, a “theory” is something that is not known for sure. But the word “theory” has a very different meaning in science than it does in everyday use. In science, “theory” refers to an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is held with great confidence because it is supported by overwhelming evidence.

Now "overwhelming evidence" in this case of Evolution may not suffice for you. However it does for the rest of us.

It is not for me to tell you "do not believe in tooth fairy" . Believe what you want, and come back when you have evidence for your more concrete theory of creation .

 

[tonmoy]

You have no proof of a creator, yet you assert that it is true.Claims asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Amen

 

[Tubs]

Yes, science does not explain everything. However neither does Science substitute an unknown with another unknown. God is not an explanation since you cannot prove its existence let alone how it was created.

You cannot even differentiate Theory from Scientific Theory.
Please read up on the difference between hypothesis, theory and fact

In popular usage, a “theory” is something that is not known for sure. But the word “theory” has a very different meaning in science than it does in everyday use. In science, “theory” refers to an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is held with great confidence because it is supported by overwhelming evidence.

Now "overwhelming evidence" in this case of Evolution may not suffice for you. However it does for the rest of us.

It is not for me to tell you "do not believe in tooth fairy" . Believe what you want, and come back when you have evidence for your more concrete theory of creation .

Don't bother with him. He asked why humans 'lost' a chromosome pair when compared to the other great apes, I gave him the answer and he still says it can't happen. He's a great case study on religious indoctrination though, I'll give him that.

 

[babajee]

Exactly. At least you're more capable of reading in between the lines. More evidence for evolution, literally none for God

What is the link between evolution and God? Why is it one or the other?

 

[Tubs]

What is the link between evolution and God? Why is it one or the other?

It doesn't necessarily have to be.

But let's take Islam for example. It explicitly states that the first humans were created from clay, and were 60 cubits tall. It also said that dust taken from different parts of the Earth will make someone have different skin colour after they were created with it. If you take this literally, then there is an issue when it comes to evolution. But it can also be read as a metaphor (for what? I don't know, but I'm sure it's possible) or something similar.

 

[KingKhanWC]

So I shouldn't use academic sources when a question is asked about an academic discipline? I get that you can do Quranic analysis with little thought, but that isn't the case when it comes to science. As I said, I'm far from an expert.

Persistence hunting required endurance. As the name suggests, it is when one or many predators wear down their prey using superior endurance. The prey consisted of goat, gazelle and wildebeest-like creatures.

Homo erectus emerged around 1.8 million years ago, in Africa.

And again, don't be patronising if you don't understand the scientific method. I haven't conducted research in this myself, I have to rely on secondary research.

Funny how the My Little Pony Baraq 'leaping' to heaven (despite the fact it supposedly had wings) is plausible to you, but human evolution isn't? Don't waste my time.

Sure use them but dont copy almost word for word.

There is no scientific evidence homo erectus (1.8 million years ago)or any other species could make fires in order to cook meat. They had to eat meat via chewing it raw and this wasn't an easy task. Losing great skills such as climbing tress, swinging and jumping makes no sense as this helps protect the species and makes it easier to move around. Unless it's suggesting running after animals for a long period of time was needed, there was no need for extra endurance. An intelligent primate which could not walk or talk could have still hunted such prey. There were apes which existed millions of years before which hunted animals which were similar to deer, stags etc.

Lets not go into religion and keep this thread on topic. But believing in a powerful creator makes more sense than having no clue how the universe came about. But lets leave this on this thread.

Sorry to sound patronising but you dont really have a clue.

 

[Tubs]

Sure use them but dont copy almost word for word.

There is no scientific evidence homo erectus (1.8 million years ago)or any other species could make fires in order to cook meat. They had to eat meat via chewing it raw and this wasn't an easy task. Losing great skills such as climbing tress, swinging and jumping makes no sense as this helps protect the species and makes it easier to move around. Unless it's suggesting running after animals for a long period of time was needed, there was no need for extra endurance. An intelligent primate which could not walk or talk could have still hunted such prey. There were apes which existed millions of years before which hunted animals which were similar to deer, stags etc.

Lets not go into religion and keep this thread on topic. But believing in a powerful creator makes more sense than having no clue how the universe came about. But lets leave this on this thread.

Sorry to sound patronising but you dont really have a clue.

Didn't copy 'almost word for word', but sure carry on.

And there is evidence for H.erectus using fire, actually. Evidence has arisen showing that fire has been used by H.erectus in different sites, and the evidence suggested it was controlled fire too. None of them date back to 1.8 million years ago, the earliest being around 1.5 million. However, they had large teeth which would make eating raw meat possible, and not necessarily 'not an easy task' before the advent of fire.

You're making a lot of unsubstantiated assumptions there regarding their hunting habits. As I said, their prey was mainly gazelles, goats and wildebeest-like creatures, which were all terrestrial. Therefore, their reduced ability to climb would be explained by them spending a lot of their time hunting on the ground, with tools. And of course they'd need to use endurance-based hunting techniques at least some of the time, as the prey is generally a lot larger and a lot stronger than the early hominids were, so they would need to tire it out before they administered the killing blow, to minimise the chance of them getting hurt, or dying.

Yep, an all-powerful creator which wasn't created itself and always did exist, which is omnipotent(can he create a rock so heavy that he can't lift?), omnipresent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent(but calls for stoning of adulterers and homosexuals, allowed his prophet to consummate his marriage with a 9 year old, calls Jews, Christians and Polytheists worsts of the creatures) is more rational. Right, okay.

Yes, I have no clue. You have the ability to search for the multitude of evidence, but you'd rather lay back and listen to your should-be-orated-but-it's-written-down-but-it's-not-a-book-book and deny all the work that many academics (far more intelligent than you and I) have compiled after years of research. Makes total sense.

 

[Technics 1210]

There's a famous fairytale involving a princess and a frog. In essence the frog transforms into a human - a handsome young prince.

I can't believe there are people who actually believe this stuff, and claim there is - wait for it - scientific *proof* substantiating such an outlandish nonsense.

Oh well.

 

[Tubs]

There's a famous fairytale involving a princess and a frog. In essence the frog transforms into a human - a handsome young prince.

I can't believe there are people who actually believe this stuff, and claim there is - wait for it - scientific *proof* substantiating such an outlandish nonsense.

Oh well.

Nice strawman!

 

[Adijazz1706]

I agree, my point being that it is not even possible for their to be evidence of God, let alone more evidence than the fact of evolution.

Evidence for God has not been defined by atheists in the history of forever, they don't know what God ia so thet have no idea what evidence is needed. Their idea of God boils down to him being President of the universe much like the presidents in the world right now

 

[yasir]

I am not sure Why there is question about Biological evolution? - Most people don’t understand it probably. It’s little complicated Science

You can watch a detailed documentary that is around 2 hours long to know everything(well not everything ) about evolution. BBC OR Nova or combined, released it on Darwin’s Birthday. Keep in mind, Darwin knew much about mechanics of evolution, we are still discovery parts of it. At the same time evolution is foundation of modern biology, it’s not some belief system, there is mountain of evidence behind it. We have not seen any concrete evidence that defy evolution.

https://youtu.be/kNPbjtej1Hk

 

[Adijazz1706]

If you want some info on why Darwin's theory was widely accepted in Britain

https://effectualgrace.com/2017/04/19/what-you-probably-were-not-told-about-charles-darwin/

Claims can be verified from the sources cited

 

[Robert]

How come of all the species on the planet only humans evolved to possess higher brain functions and consciousness? How come evolution was /is so picky?

That’s putting the cart before the horse. Your question presupposes that evolution has some sort of plan, when it does not.

If the comet that killed the dinosaurs had not come, the dominant form would arguably be intelligent far descendents of the velociraptors.

Our ancestors were very nearly selected out at one time - there were only about 100,000 of them left according to the palaeontologists - highly at risk of extinction. Another accident of climate and there might have been no intelligent life here now at all.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Didn't copy 'almost word for word', but sure carry on.

And there is evidence for H.erectus using fire, actually. Evidence has arisen showing that fire has been used by H.erectus in different sites, and the evidence suggested it was controlled fire too. None of them date back to 1.8 million years ago, the earliest being around 1.5 million. However, they had large teeth which would make eating raw meat possible, and not necessarily 'not an easy task' before the advent of fire.

You're making a lot of unsubstantiated assumptions there regarding their hunting habits. As I said, their prey was mainly gazelles, goats and wildebeest-like creatures, which were all terrestrial. Therefore, their reduced ability to climb would be explained by them spending a lot of their time hunting on the ground, with tools. And of course they'd need to use endurance-based hunting techniques at least some of the time, as the prey is generally a lot larger and a lot stronger than the early hominids were, so they would need to tire it out before they administered the killing blow, to minimise the chance of them getting hurt, or dying.

Yep, an all-powerful creator which wasn't created itself and always did exist, which is omnipotent(can he create a rock so heavy that he can't lift?), omnipresent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent(but calls for stoning of adulterers and homosexuals, allowed his prophet to consummate his marriage with a 9 year old, calls Jews, Christians and Polytheists worsts of the creatures) is more rational. Right, okay.

Yes, I have no clue. You have the ability to search for the multitude of evidence, but you'd rather lay back and listen to your should-be-orated-but-it's-written-down-but-it's-not-a-book-book and deny all the work that many academics (far more intelligent than you and I) have compiled after years of research. Makes total sense.

So there is no evidence of the use of fire 1.8m years ago, which I what I said.

Youre repeating yourself. I have stated Apes used to hunt animals such as deer long before this. So your claim of evolultion required this is a lot of nonsense.

Try to use some common sense before accepting everything you read.

Your problem is you have an issue with religion esp Islam but this has only made you look silly with your poor arguments. I will not entertain you on religion because it's evident you are easily confused.

 

[Tubs]

So there is no evidence of the use of fire 1.8m years ago, which I what I said.

Youre repeating yourself. I have stated Apes used to hunt animals such as deer long before this. So your claim of evolultion required this is a lot of nonsense.

Try to use some common sense before accepting everything you read.

Your problem is you have an issue with religion esp Islam but this has only made you look silly with your poor arguments. I will not entertain you on religion because it's evident you are easily confused.

Yet another ad hominem, bravo.

And your point was that H.erectus would struggle to eat meat without cooking it, which I told you is not true as they had larger teeth. And it is shown by the evidence that H.erectus did discover fire, may not be 1.8m years ago (could be, but the evidence isn't there to show it as far as I'm aware).

There is dental evidence to show that some early humans were purely plant-based. This is because early humans were opportunistic. So not all of them hunted. The bottom line is that humans did evolve to become terrestrial, and that was a success. Where is your evidence that other apes hunted 'animals such as deer' long before H.erectus? Why is it so hard to believe that humans slowly evolved to become terrestrial as their bodies evolved more towards the use of tools?

Another hypothesis for humans become terrestrial is the humidity and climate. This would definitely affect those who lived in trees who relied on fruits and nuts from those trees. Therefore, this could show why they would look for more terrestrial prey (not even large prey, smaller mammals and even insects) and how the transition from arboreal to terrestrial could have been driven.

You can take the moral highground all you want, but the fact that humans evolved is backed by a plethora of science (and scientists who know far more than you), but you choose to reject it because of your agenda.

And you can say I know nothing about religion, that's fine. I know that winged horse-like creatures who 'jump' to heaven despite having wings don't exist. A prophet who gifted people his sweat because it was 'fragrant', had a child bride, was allowed an unrestricted amount of wives when his book- sorry 'meant-to-be-orated-but-written-down-text' says others men can only have 4, suddenly had a revelation about people not being allowed to stay too long in his home, but he's too shy to say it...when someone was staying too long in his home (I wonder why that's in the scripture too, not like that will be used by people outside 7th century Arabia) doesn't seem very divinely inspired by me. But again, you'll misinterpret everything and try and pick me up on the smallest technicality, but go ahead. I'm the problem because I listen to science and reason over an iron age book made to glorify ancient Arab culture and violently spread that message across the whole world.

You still haven't showed why the evidence for human evolution is weak and racist. Again, it is the truth, but obviously some specifics are still being worked on by academics (again, who are far more intelligent than you).

 

[Tubs]

And another question I forgot to add: why do you accept evolution when it's regarding non-Human animals, but not for humans?

 

[KingKhanWC]

Yet another ad hominem, bravo.

And your point was that H.erectus would struggle to eat meat without cooking it, which I told you is not true as they had larger teeth. And it is shown by the evidence that H.erectus did discover fire, may not be 1.8m years ago (could be, but the evidence isn't there to show it as far as I'm aware).

There is dental evidence to show that some early humans were purely plant-based. This is because early humans were opportunistic. So not all of them hunted. The bottom line is that humans did evolve to become terrestrial, and that was a success. Where is your evidence that other apes hunted 'animals such as deer' long before H.erectus? Why is it so hard to believe that humans slowly evolved to become terrestrial as their bodies evolved more towards the use of tools?

Another hypothesis for humans become terrestrial is the humidity and climate. This would definitely affect those who lived in trees who relied on fruits and nuts from those trees. Therefore, this could show why they would look for more terrestrial prey (not even large prey, smaller mammals and even insects) and how the transition from arboreal to terrestrial could have been driven.

You can take the moral highground all you want, but the fact that humans evolved is backed by a plethora of science (and scientists who know far more than you), but you choose to reject it because of your agenda.

And you can say I know nothing about religion, that's fine. I know that winged horse-like creatures who 'jump' to heaven despite having wings don't exist. A prophet who gifted people his sweat because it was 'fragrant', had a child bride, was allowed an unrestricted amount of wives when his book- sorry 'meant-to-be-orated-but-written-down-text' says others men can only have 4, suddenly had a revelation about people not being allowed to stay too long in his home, but he's too shy to say it...when someone was staying too long in his home (I wonder why that's in the scripture too, not like that will be used by people outside 7th century Arabia) doesn't seem very divinely inspired by me. But again, you'll misinterpret everything and try and pick me up on the smallest technicality, but go ahead. I'm the problem because I listen to science and reason over an iron age book made to glorify ancient Arab culture and violently spread that message across the whole world.

You still haven't showed why the evidence for human evolution is weak and racist. Again, it is the truth, but obviously some specifics are still being worked on by academics (again, who are far more intelligent than you).

This is not a religion thread so dont waste time writing as your posts may deleted, bump up the correct thread.

Yes there is no evidence and look up Professor Henry Bunn who says apes were hunting such animals over 2 million years ago. So your theory is rubbish and weak. You still haven't explained the time line when they moved from trees to open flat plain lands.

Darwin referred to aboriginal people as "savages" and mentioned the 'favoured race'. Is this not racism?

 

[ElRaja]

Science works on the principle of falsification. While you are correct laws and theory are different, with laws, one can test and predict with absolute certainty (NASA use Newtonian laws of physics to send rockets etc in space) but with theories, any new evidence can either falsify or substantiate a theory. This is precisely why since Darwin, there have been numerous changes to the Theory of Evolution itself, but the laws of say mass motion, have barley changed.

Personally the theory of evolution is a hypothesis - as Macro Evolution cannot be tested.

laws are usually codified for the specific purpose of making predictions, and they are usually found within the family of an overarching theory, for example the predictions made from time dilation are part of the theory of relativity. the theory itself could still be modified if found to be incomplete or incorrect in some way without necessarily affecting a specific law, the relative mutability of a theory does imply its likely correctness.

newtonian motion for the longest time was the most immutable theory, with numerous laws based upon it, yet we now know it is only true in very specific conditions.

evolution is not simply a hypothesis because its requirements of the presence of specific species, or bridging bio anatomical traits, existing between vastly different life forms at some point in history has been found true, and independently observed via varying phylogenetic trees based on comparative anatomy, endogenous retroviruses, dna profiling, etc and other traits of living creatures.

if you believe that the theory of evolution is purely a hypothesis, i have no problem with that, but then id request u to tell me what theory, or law regarding the unification of life has been subject to greater academic rigour or provided more testable hypotheses (even if historic).

 

[Tubs]

This is not a religion thread so dont waste time writing as your posts may deleted, bump up the correct thread.

Yes there is no evidence and look up Professor Henry Bunn who says apes were hunting such animals over 2 million years ago. So your theory is rubbish and weak. You still haven't explained the time line when they moved from trees to open flat plain lands.

Darwin referred to aboriginal people as "savages" and mentioned the 'favoured race'. Is this not racism?

Yes, this isn't a religion thread, but when you're obviously biased against a fact because of your religion, it is at least slightly relevant. Especially when you're saying there's no evidence for evolution, but believe in an Abrahamic faith.

'Yes there is no evidence', not sure what you're referring to.

And even if apes were hunting animals like deer, that doesn't change the fact of evolution. There have been studies comparing the terrestrial behaviour of chimpanzees and bonobos, the closest living relatives to humans, and it shows that during drier and wetter climates, the two species spend more time on the ground. Climate could have been a factor in humans becoming terrestrial. Also, H.erectus becoming fully upright and bipedal clearly shows that early humans were in fact gradually becoming more terrestrial, as the fossil record does illustrate.

It is unanimously agreed that H.erectus was fully terrestrial. There seems to be debate about Australopithecus afarensis. A.afarensis as I mentioned before had an ankle joint which seemed adapted for long range movement, and feet which weren't adapted to grasping branches. A.afarensis lived from around 3.9 to 2.9 million years ago, and it is estimated that they developed full bipedalism between 2 to 3 million years ago, along with a reduction in body hair. Some sources state that bipedalism evolved due to sabre-toothed cats predating them, called Dinofelis. Therefore, the fact that their bipedalism was a result of a predator which was terrestrial but could climb leads to 2 possible conclusions: that they were already terrestrial and evolved bipedalism for more speed and endurance, or evolved to be terrestrial due to the success of Dinofelis at ambushing prey in trees.

I haven't read the whole quote within the context of the chapter, so I'll go with your view. Yes it's racist, definitely something a white man from the 19th century would say. However, how does a racist comment of Darwin make the whole evolutionary process racist? Evolution would exist regardless of whether Darwin existed or not. A very weak point indeed.

You also didn't explain why the evidence for human evolution is weak, or why you don't think evolution works for humans when it did for other animals?

 

[Pakpak]

Yes, this isn't a religion thread, but when you're obviously biased against a fact because of your religion, it is at least slightly relevant. Especially when you're saying there's no evidence for evolution, but believe in an Abrahamic faith.

'Yes there is no evidence', not sure what you're referring to.

And even if apes were hunting animals like deer, that doesn't change the fact of evolution. There have been studies comparing the terrestrial behaviour of chimpanzees and bonobos, the closest living relatives to humans, and it shows that during drier and wetter climates, the two species spend more time on the ground. Climate could have been a factor in humans becoming terrestrial. Also, H.erectus becoming fully upright and bipedal clearly shows that early humans were in fact gradually becoming more terrestrial, as the fossil record does illustrate.

It is unanimously agreed that H.erectus was fully terrestrial. There seems to be debate about Australopithecus afarensis. A.afarensis as I mentioned before had an ankle joint which seemed adapted for long range movement, and feet which weren't adapted to grasping branches. A.afarensis lived from around 3.9 to 2.9 million years ago, and it is estimated that they developed full bipedalism between 2 to 3 million years ago, along with a reduction in body hair. Some sources state that bipedalism evolved due to sabre-toothed cats predating them, called Dinofelis. Therefore, the fact that their bipedalism was a result of a predator which was terrestrial but could climb leads to 2 possible conclusions: that they were already terrestrial and evolved bipedalism for more speed and endurance, or evolved to be terrestrial due to the success of Dinofelis at ambushing prey in trees.

I haven't read the whole quote within the context of the chapter, so I'll go with your view. Yes it's racist, definitely something a white man from the 19th century would say. However, how does a racist comment of Darwin make the whole evolutionary process racist? Evolution would exist regardless of whether Darwin existed or not. A very weak point indeed.

You also didn't explain why the evidence for human evolution is weak, or why you don't think evolution works for humans when it did for other animals?

Darwin's savage comment I don't know and its deplorable if he said that but when he was speaking about favored races he didn't mean humans. The phrase he used was used in a book about plant species and similar traits found in certain plants and how certain plants survived and others did not. He used the word race with the word species interchangeably.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Yes, this isn't a religion thread, but when you're obviously biased against a fact because of your religion, it is at least slightly relevant. Especially when you're saying there's no evidence for evolution, but believe in an Abrahamic faith.

'Yes there is no evidence', not sure what you're referring to.

And even if apes were hunting animals like deer, that doesn't change the fact of evolution. There have been studies comparing the terrestrial behaviour of chimpanzees and bonobos, the closest living relatives to humans, and it shows that during drier and wetter climates, the two species spend more time on the ground. Climate could have been a factor in humans becoming terrestrial. Also, H.erectus becoming fully upright and bipedal clearly shows that early humans were in fact gradually becoming more terrestrial, as the fossil record does illustrate.

It is unanimously agreed that H.erectus was fully terrestrial. There seems to be debate about Australopithecus afarensis. A.afarensis as I mentioned before had an ankle joint which seemed adapted for long range movement, and feet which weren't adapted to grasping branches. A.afarensis lived from around 3.9 to 2.9 million years ago, and it is estimated that they developed full bipedalism between 2 to 3 million years ago, along with a reduction in body hair. Some sources state that bipedalism evolved due to sabre-toothed cats predating them, called Dinofelis. Therefore, the fact that their bipedalism was a result of a predator which was terrestrial but could climb leads to 2 possible conclusions: that they were already terrestrial and evolved bipedalism for more speed and endurance, or evolved to be terrestrial due to the success of Dinofelis at ambushing prey in trees.

I haven't read the whole quote within the context of the chapter, so I'll go with your view. Yes it's racist, definitely something a white man from the 19th century would say. However, how does a racist comment of Darwin make the whole evolutionary process racist? Evolution would exist regardless of whether Darwin existed or not. A very weak point indeed.

You also didn't explain why the evidence for human evolution is weak, or why you don't think evolution works for humans when it did for other animals?

Bump a religious thread and you will learn a thing or two.

Yes no evidence of fire making. You claimed it was due to hunting larger prey such a deer but this is not true as apes hunted similar animals much before this time. So you were wrong.

Reading and writing like a curious schoolboy doesn't help. We dont know the reason for and when so called primates started to walk up right. You are just copying therios which have little or no evidence. Dont take my word for it, here is the BBC. If you dont believe them, write to them to advise you know it all.

Exactly why and when our ancestors stood upright and started moving around on two feet is still shrouded in mystery

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20161209-the-real-reasons-why-we-walk-on-two-legs-and-not-four

Read his works being a hero of yours. I suggest you look up social darwinism to see how racist and hate filled this man was along with his close friend. Evolution does exist, it existed before Darwin and Muslim scientists knew of this long before. Dont get too caught up the white mans version of history or their theories which are partially based on racism.

Humans are a unique species as you may have noticed. There simply isn't enough evidence of this and Im a Muslim so until there is concrete evidence I will not accept. Even if I was to accept we were apes/primates who swung on trees this doesn't take away the Islamic belief.

So you being an ex muslim(if you say so) and on some sort of athiest 'crusade' to disprove religion wont work. My advice is stop worrying about other peoples beliefs, there have been many a smarter man than you who have failed and you will too. Try golf or fishing if youre bored.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Darwin's savage comment I don't know and its deplorable if he said that but when he was speaking about favored races he didn't mean humans. The phrase he used was used in a book about plant species and similar traits found in certain plants and how certain plants survived and others did not. He used the word race with the word species interchangeably.

He did mean humans

He also wrote "The Western nations of Europe . . . now so immeasurably surpass their former savage progenitors [that they] stand at the summit of civilization. . . . The civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races through the world. "

 

[Pakpak]

He did mean humans

He also wrote "The Western nations of Europe . . . now so immeasurably surpass their former savage progenitors [that they] stand at the summit of civilization. . . . The civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races through the world. "

Fair enough, it is deplorable but doesn't mean anything when it comes to his theory. Gandhi was a known racist, but it didn't make his struggle or message any less meaningful.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Fair enough, it is deplorable but doesn't mean anything when it comes to his theory. Gandhi was a known racist, but it didn't make his struggle or message any less meaningful.

Sure.

As I wrote earlier Darwin wasn't the first to figure out evolution just as Columbus wasn't the first to 'discover' America. These are white western narratives for many reasons. Just look up social darwinism which is to apply evolution to humanity, it's worse than the KKK.

 

[Pakpak]

Sure.

As I wrote earlier Darwin wasn't the first to figure out evolution just as Columbus wasn't the first to 'discover' America. These are white western narratives for many reasons. Just look up social darwinism which is to apply evolution to humanity, it's worse than the KKK.

Yes but now evolution really isn't racist in any way. It would be if they said Europe was where life started when it came to Homo Sapiens, when we now know actually it was Africa and it was from Africa where humans travelled to Europe, which was inhabited by Neanderthals. The same Neanderthals who's name is used as an insult nowadays. Many racists have come up with great inventions, the entire rocket and space program would not have been possible without Nazi scientists defecting to the US, as an example.

I am about to be a doctor, so I am not speaking as a layman and even at this basic level I am afraid there is more than enough evidence of evolution. A lot of religious people do accept it and try to integrate evolution into religion. It doesn't make their religious beliefs any less true. Numerous posters on PP, uberkoen the biggest example, were ardent anti-evolutionists but uptil last year didn't believe in religion at all. I am not telling you to be that ofcourse but read up on it if you can, you can still be Muslim and believe in it.

I am not here to get into the debate when it comes to religion vs atheism. My closest and dearest are religious people and that alone matters to me. I came to correct you on Darwin's quote, but you corrected me on it so fair enough.

 

[Technics 1210]

laws are usually codified for the specific purpose of making predictions, and they are usually found within the family of an overarching theory, for example the predictions made from time dilation are part of the theory of relativity. the theory itself could still be modified if found to be incomplete or incorrect in some way without necessarily affecting a specific law, the relative mutability of a theory does imply its likely correctness.

newtonian motion for the longest time was the most immutable theory, with numerous laws based upon it, yet we now know it is only true in very specific conditions.

evolution is not simply a hypothesis because its requirements of the presence of specific species, or bridging bio anatomical traits, existing between vastly different life forms at some point in history has been found true, and independently observed via varying phylogenetic trees based on comparative anatomy, endogenous retroviruses, dna profiling, etc and other traits of living creatures.

if you believe that the theory of evolution is purely a hypothesis, i have no problem with that, but then id request u to tell me what theory, or law regarding the unification of life has been subject to greater academic rigour or provided more testable hypotheses (even if historic).

The key word here is mechanisms. With laws, mechanisms are clear and predictable, whether it be Gravity, Electromagnetism, etc.

The Theory of Darwinian Evolution (note I used the term Darwinian) is based on mechanics Random Mutation and Natural Selection - is a hypothesis. RM+NS can neither be tested nor can provide any predictions what so ever because inherently the main mechanism of change is random. If I ask you when the next DNA mutation will occur in a specie, you cannot pin point the answer, other than say, it will happen sometime. This is not a prediction, it's a guess, because describing how something looks, doesn’t explain how it works, meaning, tautology is not science.

The question is not whether evolution is true or not, it is clear evolution does occur, change over time does occur, the questions are how and why – what are the mechanisms that bring about change and how? Natural Selection? NS does not bring about change in DNA and is simply death. Random mutations? All forms of cancer known to man is the result of random mutations resulting in DNA transcription errors, but Darwinists want us to believe that some random mutations are successful - lucky!

All the evidence cited in favour of RM+NS, whether fossils in multiple stratas, virus’, identical DNA sequences, resistance etc – do not in any way confirm RM+NS. All the evidence simply reveals is change over time.

Darwinian evolution is a political ideology. A process that is considered random and blind without purpose bodes well with the antithesis view. Therefore, phrases like Adaptive Mutagenesis are discarded, because purposeful mutations do not sit with the antithesis view and completely undermine RM. Take resistance for example, is resistance the result of a random mutation or a purposeful mutation leading to adaptation?

People seem to forget that during the days of Darwin DNA was unknown, and as more knowledge is gained on DNA, the greater challenges Darwinian Evolution faces. This is why in order to understand evolution, change over time, it's vital to understand DNA.

There are no axioms in Biology, not a single one. The only truth in life/biology, is death. This is why I am more inclined towards Teleology as it provides an alternative - and frankly logical view – than it just happens.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Yes but now evolution really isn't racist in any way. It would be if they said Europe was where life started when it came to Homo Sapiens, when we now know actually it was Africa and it was from Africa where humans travelled to Europe, which was inhabited by Neanderthals. The same Neanderthals who's name is used as an insult nowadays. Many racists have come up with great inventions, the entire rocket and space program would not have been possible without Nazi scientists defecting to the US, as an example.

I am about to be a doctor, so I am not speaking as a layman and even at this basic level I am afraid there is more than enough evidence of evolution. A lot of religious people do accept it and try to integrate evolution into religion. It doesn't make their religious beliefs any less true. Numerous posters on PP, uberkoen the biggest example, were ardent anti-evolutionists but uptil last year didn't believe in religion at all. I am not telling you to be that ofcourse but read up on it if you can, you can still be Muslim and believe in it.

I am not here to get into the debate when it comes to religion vs atheism. My closest and dearest are religious people and that alone matters to me. I came to correct you on Darwin's quote, but you corrected me on it so fair enough.

I agree with everything you have written bro. Yes there are Muslims who deny this but this is their own insecurity and lack of understanding of religion. Al-Tusi discussed evolution 600 years before Darwin, so Muslims have no real history of serious objection or refusal of such principles of biology.

 

[Tubs]

Bump a religious thread and you will learn a thing or two.

Yes no evidence of fire making. You claimed it was due to hunting larger prey such a deer but this is not true as apes hunted similar animals much before this time. So you were wrong.

Reading and writing like a curious schoolboy doesn't help. We dont know the reason for and when so called primates started to walk up right. You are just copying therios which have little or no evidence. Dont take my word for it, here is the BBC. If you dont believe them, write to them to advise you know it all.



http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20161209-the-real-reasons-why-we-walk-on-two-legs-and-not-four

Read his works being a hero of yours. I suggest you look up social darwinism to see how racist and hate filled this man was along with his close friend. Evolution does exist, it existed before Darwin and Muslim scientists knew of this long before. Dont get too caught up the white mans version of history or their theories which are partially based on racism.

Humans are a unique species as you may have noticed. There simply isn't enough evidence of this and Im a Muslim so until there is concrete evidence I will not accept. Even if I was to accept we were apes/primates who swung on trees this doesn't take away the Islamic belief.

So you being an ex muslim(if you say so) and on some sort of athiest 'crusade' to disprove religion wont work. My advice is stop worrying about other peoples beliefs, there have been many a smarter man than you who have failed and you will too. Try golf or fishing if youre bored.

Maybe another time, but I have spoken to many theists (many smarter than you) and it has been less than convincing. A case can much easily be made for Deism.

No evidence of fire?

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120402162548.htm

Evidence 1 million years ago.

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rstb.2015.0164

Evidence from 1.5 million years ago.

Though, it must be said, traces of fire are incredibly hard to find. It's not like a tool, but there is evidence. But you'll find a way to deny it.

The larger animals I mentioned were in fact wildebeest-like creatures. However, the use of tools isn't just for larger prey, it would help quicken the kill for smaller prey, hence reduce the amount of energy needed to be exerted and to lessen the chance of injury from the prey. And as the studies have shown that shoulder evolution for the use of tools had an adverse effect on the ability to climb- which would only get worse.

And yes, I did mention an exact reason is not found, and that this is an active area of study. However, the transitional fossils do show that they became bipedal overtime, that cannot be disputed. Also, you're the one spitting in the face of science, of all the scientists that have proved human evolution (more nuanced areas are still being worked on), but human evolution is true. The burden of proof is on the science denier, the burden of proof is on you.

Social Darwinism isn't even from Darwin himself. It was a movement created around the time of his death. That's like me saying 'Look at the Islamic conquest of Persia, Maghreb and India, what a vile ideology that Muhammad started!' Wouldn't be fair to blame Muhammad because he was dead. And I do respect Darwin for his work, but I don't agree with what he said about the aborigines(even if there is context, I can't see how that would make what he said less deplorable). Mentioning 'white man' just screams insecurity.

Also, if we're on about racism, let's take a look at this hadith: https://sunnah.com/nasai/44/173. Look at the title, interesting isn't it. And no, I am not going to accept 'but you said humans are animals', we both know that Al Nas'ai didn't mean it like that.

Also, yes some Islamic scholars during the golden age (an amazing time for Islam, I truly wish it lasted), but a theory wasn't formalised for evolution until Darwin. Funnily enough, one of your Islamic scientists from the 14th century said that humans' increased cognitive abilities was 'reached from old world monkeys', why can't you accept that? I just read your most recent post, Muslims seem happy to chest thump when one Muslim does a good thing, but disappear when something bad happens. Interesting.

Humans are unique in their cognitive abilities, still an animal. Read scientific journals, the evidence is all there. Check the fossil record. Check the genome comparisons. See how the human chromosomes fused, meaning they have 1 less than the other great apes. Look at the vestigial traits in humans (appendix, coccyx). The evidence is there, go for it.

Funny how you assume I'm not an ex Muslim, though I guess I have no reason to prove it (like God). Muslims don't seem to understand the possibility of apostasy, probably because you're meant to kill those who leave the religion. All religious jabs aside, it's just funny how you say there's no evidence for human evolution, but then say God is true. I am an atheist, but I'll say that I'm only 9/10 on the atheist scale, because I can't know for sure (thought the God of Abraham is very unlikely due to the inaccuracies in scripture). You can't surely know for sure, can you? And I do worry about people's beliefs when it contradicts verifiable truths. The fact that you had to state that you're a Muslim in that paragraph says it all; but that's your loss I suppose. Your condescension does you no favours, but it's a common trait in all your posts that I've seen so do carry on.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Maybe another time, but I have spoken to many theists (many smarter than you) and it has been less than convincing. A case can much easily be made for Deism.

No evidence of fire?

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120402162548.htm

Evidence 1 million years ago.

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rstb.2015.0164

Evidence from 1.5 million years ago.

Though, it must be said, traces of fire are incredibly hard to find. It's not like a tool, but there is evidence. But you'll find a way to deny it.

The larger animals I mentioned were in fact wildebeest-like creatures. However, the use of tools isn't just for larger prey, it would help quicken the kill for smaller prey, hence reduce the amount of energy needed to be exerted and to lessen the chance of injury from the prey. And as the studies have shown that shoulder evolution for the use of tools had an adverse effect on the ability to climb- which would only get worse.

And yes, I did mention an exact reason is not found, and that this is an active area of study. However, the transitional fossils do show that they became bipedal overtime, that cannot be disputed. Also, you're the one spitting in the face of science, of all the scientists that have proved human evolution (more nuanced areas are still being worked on), but human evolution is true. The burden of proof is on the science denier, the burden of proof is on you.

Social Darwinism isn't even from Darwin himself. It was a movement created around the time of his death. That's like me saying 'Look at the Islamic conquest of Persia, Maghreb and India, what a vile ideology that Muhammad started!' Wouldn't be fair to blame Muhammad because he was dead. And I do respect Darwin for his work, but I don't agree with what he said about the aborigines(even if there is context, I can't see how that would make what he said less deplorable). Mentioning 'white man' just screams insecurity.

Also, if we're on about racism, let's take a look at this hadith: https://sunnah.com/nasai/44/173. Look at the title, interesting isn't it. And no, I am not going to accept 'but you said humans are animals', we both know that Al Nas'ai didn't mean it like that.

Also, yes some Islamic scholars during the golden age (an amazing time for Islam, I truly wish it lasted), but a theory wasn't formalised for evolution until Darwin. Funnily enough, one of your Islamic scientists from the 14th century said that humans' increased cognitive abilities was 'reached from old world monkeys', why can't you accept that? I just read your most recent post, Muslims seem happy to chest thump when one Muslim does a good thing, but disappear when something bad happens. Interesting.

Humans are unique in their cognitive abilities, still an animal. Read scientific journals, the evidence is all there. Check the fossil record. Check the genome comparisons. See how the human chromosomes fused, meaning they have 1 less than the other great apes. Look at the vestigial traits in humans (appendix, coccyx). The evidence is there, go for it.

Funny how you assume I'm not an ex Muslim, though I guess I have no reason to prove it (like God). Muslims don't seem to understand the possibility of apostasy, probably because you're meant to kill those who leave the religion. All religious jabs aside, it's just funny how you say there's no evidence for human evolution, but then say God is true. I am an atheist, but I'll say that I'm only 9/10 on the atheist scale, because I can't know for sure (thought the God of Abraham is very unlikely due to the inaccuracies in scripture). You can't surely know for sure, can you? And I do worry about people's beliefs when it contradicts verifiable truths. The fact that you had to state that you're a Muslim in that paragraph says it all; but that's your loss I suppose. Your condescension does you no favours, but it's a common trait in all your posts that I've seen so do carry on.

Dude you't not in school now , so no need for long essays.

We were dicussing fire 1.8 million years ago, try to remember what you're debating it does help.

Social darwnism is based on his works and I have quoted his racist remarks. A racist such as Darwin cannot fully understand humanity or human evolution if the thinks some races are superiour to others which we know to be not true, so he was wrong.

Tools were used way before and larger prey was hunted way before too.

Again, bump up the thread on Islam and you will be educated.

I am an atheist, but I'll say that I'm only 9/10 on the atheist scale, because I can't know for sure (thought the God of Abraham is very unlikely due to the inaccuracies in scripture)

Seems like youre confused but fine.

What is your view on how the universe came into existance?

 

[Technics 1210]

The sad aspect is that chest thumping militant Atheists actually believe any theory of Evolution is a counter
to the existence of God. Blinded by their hate they are simply ignorant of the fact that Evolution is used explain the diversity of life, NOT the creation of life (Abiogenesis).

 

[Ronaldo7]

[MENTION=146370]Tubs[/MENTION]
Can you share some of those 'inaccuracies' so we can see if they are true or false?

I've seen many of those 'inaccuracies' from athiests which supposedly show the quran to be false. Well the interpretation of the Quran is done differently due to the language of Arabic.
But please do share so some of us (muslims) can give our views on them.

 

[KingKhanWC]

The sad aspect is that chest thumping militant Atheists actually believe any theory of Evolution is a counter
to the existence of God. Blinded by their hate they are simply ignorant of the fact that Evolution is used explain the diversity of life, NOT the creation of life (Abiogenesis).

Point.

Great posts btw bro.

Imo there is no such thing as an athiest. Lock them up in a dark room, give it an hour, a day or a few days before they fall to their knees crying like 12 year olds begging help from God.

The lack of belief quickly turns.

 

[Tubs]

Dude you't not in school now , so no need for long essays.

We were dicussing fire 1.8 million years ago, try to remember what you're debating it does help.

Social darwnism is based on his works and I have quoted his racist remarks. A racist such as Darwin cannot fully understand humanity or human evolution if the thinks some races are superiour to others which we know to be not true, so he was wrong.

Tools were used way before and larger prey was hunted way before too.

Again, bump up the thread on Islam and you will be educated.



Seems like youre confused but fine.

What is your view on how the universe came into existance?

Responding with one sentence with no evidence, great. Sorry that reading so much is a struggle, or maybe you don't like the fact that I'm using evidence and actual arguments.

1.8 million years ago was an approximate emergence of H.erectus, not fire. You said that H.erectus would 'struggle' to eat raw meat without cooking it, which is false as they had large teeth. You said 'no evidence of fire' and I showed you evidence.

Tools were used before yes, but the shoulder evolved with an increased reliance of tools, and yes larger prey may well have been hunted, but success would have been increased with the evolution of endurance (persistence hunting) and greater usage of tools.

Why don't you educate me on that hadith? Where black slaves were sold, and called 'animals'?

Again, just because someone applied Darwinian principles to a non-Darwinian society (human civilisation), and deplorable views came from it, it doesn't change the fact that Darwin was right.

I am confused because I accept the possibility that my position could be wrong? Just because you're so sure of your position (which is devoid of evidence), it doesn't make me 'confused'.

I don't usually discuss cosmology, as I don't understand it too much. But the 'Big Bang Theory' is the most plausible solution right now. I don't think saying 'I don't know, therefore God' is the best approach, but I'm sure you'll do that anyway.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Responding with one sentence with no evidence, great. Sorry that reading so much is a struggle, or maybe you don't like the fact that I'm using evidence and actual arguments.

1.8 million years ago was an approximate emergence of H.erectus, not fire. You said that H.erectus would 'struggle' to eat raw meat without cooking it, which is false as they had large teeth. You said 'no evidence of fire' and I showed you evidence.

Tools were used before yes, but the shoulder evolved with an increased reliance of tools, and yes larger prey may well have been hunted, but success would have been increased with the evolution of endurance (persistence hunting) and greater usage of tools.

Why don't you educate me on that hadith? Where black slaves were sold, and called 'animals'?

Again, just because someone applied Darwinian principles to a non-Darwinian society (human civilisation), and deplorable views came from it, it doesn't change the fact that Darwin was right.

I am confused because I accept the possibility that my position could be wrong? Just because you're so sure of your position (which is devoid of evidence), it doesn't make me 'confused'.

I don't usually discuss cosmology, as I don't understand it too much. But the 'Big Bang Theory' is the most plausible solution right now. I don't think saying 'I don't know, therefore God' is the best approach, but I'm sure you'll do that anyway.

Are you slow? I said bump up the correct thread and we will discuss it. Everyone will risk their posts being deleted if off topic. Do you not undestand this?

We were discussing 1.8 million years ago and I stated there is no evidence of anyone being able to use fire (cooking/any other deliberate use).

Why the need to evolve a shoulder when hunting larger prey was no issue. You claimed it helped endurance but there is no need to run after a deer, you can just set traps/use tools. You still haven't confirmed the timeline of this change and the area because you dont know.

Muslims were right 600 years ago before Darwin, hardly a great achievement after such a long time.

We all know of the Big Bang theory but why did the bang happen happen not how it happened?

 

[Tubs]

The sad aspect is that chest thumping militant Atheists actually believe any theory of Evolution is a counter
to the existence of God. Blinded by their hate they are simply ignorant of the fact that Evolution is used explain the diversity of life, NOT the creation of life (Abiogenesis).

I know what abiogensis is.

The fact that the Quran says humans were made of clay/earth and that the dust from different parts of the world accounts for skin colour is incorrect and disproved by evolution, the fact that Adam was 60 cubits tall is too.

I did mention before, that if you interpret this as some sort of metaphor, then fine, but the Quran is meant to be the literal word of God.

[MENTION=146370]Tubs[/MENTION]
Can you share some of those 'inaccuracies' so we can see if they are true or false?

I've seen many of those 'inaccuracies' from athiests which supposedly show the quran to be false. Well the interpretation of the Quran is done differently due to the language of Arabic.
But please do share so some of us (muslims) can give our views on them.

Ah, the 'Arabic' argument. If God wanted to communicate his message to everyone in the world, why choose such a seemingly ambiguous language like Arabic then? Or, why couldn't he word it in such a way that lead to no ambiguity?

Sun setting in a muddy puddle : https://quran.com/18/86

Praying towards Kaaba, which is impossible (unless you're at a close proximity to it) due the the Earth not being flat (also your backside is to it at the same time, which is haram) : https://quran.com/2/144

Sperm comes from between backbone and ribs : https://quran.com/86/5-8?translations=20 (idk if I linked correctly, Quran 86:5-8)

Stars used as missiles against Devil : https://quran.com/67/5

Universe and everything in it created in 6 days : https://quran.com/50/38 (earth itself took millions of years to be formed, a bit longer than 6 days)

Bird flight is a miracle : https://quran.com/16/79
Obviously, Allah didn't study aerodynamics enough.

 

[Tubs]

Are you slow? I said bump up the correct thread and we will discuss it. Everyone will risk their posts being deleted if off topic. Do you not undestand this?

We were discussing 1.8 million years ago and I stated there is no evidence of anyone being able to use fire (cooking/any other deliberate use).

Why the need to evolve a shoulder when hunting larger prey was no issue. You claimed it helped endurance but there is no need to run after a deer, you can just set traps/use tools. You still haven't confirmed the timeline of this change and the area because you dont know.

Muslims were right 600 years ago before Darwin, hardly a great achievement after such a long time.

We all know of the Big Bang theory but why did the bang happen happen not how it happened?

No, I never said I had any evidence of 1.8 million years ago, and that doesn't diminish human evolution at all. There have been hearts found around 700,000 years ago, and deliberate fire usage from 1.5million years ago, which is what I said earlier.

You keep using this 'post will get deleted' to avoid answering the hadith. It's related to your claims of racism. Prove to me that hadith isn't racist.

Any proof hunting larger prey wasn't an issue? Have you not heard of coevolution? Prey items have to evolve otherwise they'd be hunted to extinction. 'Just set traps and use tools' show how uneducated you are on the subject. While they were intelligent, they were still primitive. Traps weren't easy to make, be it a physical one or an ambush. Persistence hunting is used today in animals, don't be ignorant.

I gave you a timeframe, the transition from A.afarensis and H.erectus, between 2.9 and 1.8 million years ago, during the lifetime of H.habilis, between 2.1 and 1.5 million years ago, and the location was obviously Africa. Many sources site them living in the Savannah.

Then why didn't the Muslims publish the work before Darwin? They definitely had a good idea going on (some of them at least), but it wasn't published to the level of Darwin. The Muslims during the Golden Age are role models to the Muslim world today, I really hope they return to that level of scientific greatness.

We are talking about evolution here. Everyone will risk their posts being deleted if off topic. Do you not understand this?

 

[Technics 1210]

I know what abiogensis is.

The fact that the Quran says humans were made of clay/earth and that the dust from different parts of the world accounts for skin colour is incorrect and disproved by evolution, the fact that Adam was 60 cubits tall is too.

I did mention before, that if you interpret this as some sort of metaphor, then fine, but the Quran is meant to be the literal word of God.

Do you not see the irony in your post above? Despite claiming you know what Abiogensis is, you continue to invoke God with respect to a theory (Evolution) that attempts to explain, Biogenesis - life from life.

All you have done in this thread is claim Darwinian evolution is fact by citing 3rd party work without understanding the tenets of science and the DToE, and retrospectively claiming God is false because you are an ex-muslim. On top of this, your posts in reference to religion and God serve more to appease your decision to leave religion - nothing more nothing less.

You are using DToE to falsify God when the reality is DToE does not even attempt to address the creation of life.

 

[Tubs]

Do you not see the irony in your post above? Despite claiming you know what Abiogensis is, you continue to invoke God with respect to a theory (Evolution) that attempts to explain, Biogenesis - life from life.

All you have done in this thread is claim Darwinian evolution is fact by citing 3rd party work without understanding the tenets of science and the DToE, and retrospectively claiming God is false because you are an ex-muslim. On top of this, your posts in reference to religion and God serve more to appease your decision to leave religion - nothing more nothing less.

You are using DToE to falsify God when the reality is DToE does not even attempt to address the creation of life.

I don't see how you don't understand. First of all, it's Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection, not evolution. Evolution exists without Darwin. Next, if evolution states that humans are apes (share a common ancestor with the other great apes), and the Quran says humans were made of clay, don't you see the problem there?

Also, please do tell me the 'tenets of science and DToE' oh wise one.

And no, I mention God when the notion of 'concrete evidence' is bought up. There is evidence for evolution, there is no evidence for God. Why have one standard for evolution, but another for God? That's obviously an emotional reaction.

 

[KingKhanWC]

No, I never said I had any evidence of 1.8 million years ago, and that doesn't diminish human evolution at all. There have been hearts found around 700,000 years ago, and deliberate fire usage from 1.5million years ago, which is what I said earlier.

You keep using this 'post will get deleted' to avoid answering the hadith. It's related to your claims of racism. Prove to me that hadith isn't racist.

Any proof hunting larger prey wasn't an issue? Have you not heard of coevolution? Prey items have to evolve otherwise they'd be hunted to extinction. 'Just set traps and use tools' show how uneducated you are on the subject. While they were intelligent, they were still primitive. Traps weren't easy to make, be it a physical one or an ambush. Persistence hunting is used today in animals, don't be ignorant.

I gave you a timeframe, the transition from A.afarensis and H.erectus, between 2.9 and 1.8 million years ago, during the lifetime of H.habilis, between 2.1 and 1.5 million years ago, and the location was obviously Africa. Many sources site them living in the Savannah.

Then why didn't the Muslims publish the work before Darwin? They definitely had a good idea going on (some of them at least), but it wasn't published to the level of Darwin. The Muslims during the Golden Age are role models to the Muslim world today, I really hope they return to that level of scientific greatness.

We are talking about evolution here. Everyone will risk their posts being deleted if off topic. Do you not understand this?

I know you didn't have any evidence but you claimed there was evidince. Well done for changing your tune.

I suggested you read Professor Henry Bunn . Here is a quote from his work.

Bunn argues that our apemen ancestors, although primitive and fairly puny, were capable of ambushing herds of large animals after carefully selecting individuals for slaughter.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/sep/23/human-hunting-evolution-2million-years

Traps ambush. Sure you're the educated but a proffessor isn't.

lol. Africa is a huge continent. Where did they move from after living in trees/forrests to plains? So a million years here or there. Not very accurate are you.

Nasir al-Din Tusi did publish many of his works, how else would we know Muslims knew of evolution 600 yeas before Darwin. Again please use some common sense.

When you are quoting religous texts which have nothing to do with evolution but your personal desire to criticise Islam it's off topic.

You can't even put a good case for human evolution so would be disater when debating Islam. Fishing is best for you.

 

[Technics 1210]

I don't see how you don't understand. First of all, it's Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection, not evolution. Evolution exists without Darwin. Next, if evolution states that humans are apes (share a common ancestor with the other great apes), and the Quran says humans were made of clay, don't you see the problem there?

Also, please do tell me the 'tenets of science and DToE' oh wise one.

And no, I mention God when the notion of 'concrete evidence' is bought up. There is evidence for evolution, there is no evidence for God. Why have one standard for evolution, but another for God? That's obviously an emotional reaction.

You are doing it again. Evidence of God has nothing to do with evidence of evolution. Also absence of evidence, is not evidence itself.

Tenets of science? Observation, Falsification, Repeatable Testing, and Predictions. I guess you knew this already.

Science is just a method of discovery.

But don't worry, you stick with Natural Selection!

 

[Tubs]

I know you didn't have any evidence but you claimed there was evidince. Well done for changing your tune.

I suggested you read Professor Henry Bunn . Here is a quote from his work.



https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/sep/23/human-hunting-evolution-2million-years

Traps ambush. Sure you're the educated but a proffessor isn't.

lol. Africa is a huge continent. Where did they move from after living in trees/forrests to plains? So a million years here or there. Not very accurate are you.

Nasir al-Din Tusi did publish many of his works, how else would we know Muslims knew of evolution 600 yeas before Darwin. Again please use some common sense.

When you are quoting religous texts which have nothing to do with evolution but your personal desire to criticise Islam it's off topic.

You can't even put a good case for human evolution so would be disater when debating Islam. Fishing is best for you.

Changing my tune for what? You aren't making any sense.
You only quote professors when it's convenient for you. I could quote 100's of profs who agree with me but you'll dismiss it.

I didn't dispute that traps were impossible, it was mainly a response to you saying endurance wasn't necessarily, which was nonsensical.

You're moving the goalposts now. Let's stick to the process of evolution without worrying about the exact geographical location. Besides, the Out of Africa hypothesis means that our early humans in question didn't leave African until far more recently, when they became Homo sapiens. Accuracy isn't a luxury we have when looking at fossils. Time frames are used in geological, paleontological, and even archaeological (even when it's only a few thousand years), so enough of that.

Some work may have been published, but not enough if you fail to see the truth of human evolution. Why don't you use common sense and listen to Ibn Khaldun when he mentions humans getting their intelligence from old world monkeys.

No, it was relevant. You mentioned some reprehensible, racist things Darwin said. I showed you similarly racist things in a hadith, and you refuse to comment.

You can't even put up a good case against evolution. Carry on with the ad hominem, shows who's losing the debate.

Do carry on citing academics who make one quote 'in your favour', and ignore the multitude of academics who go against you. Also, laughably, Prof Bunn mentions 'early ancestors', which shows that he's against you. Please do read the whole article next time.