An over-enthusiastic Muslim going by the name of “loveProphet,” who appears to be a regular at Sunni Answers, has argued that human evolution is “scientifically wrong”. He says the following:
“The comment that the proof for human evolution is irrefutable shows absolute ignorance of science. Scientific “facts” change so many times and scientific theories do too.
I’ve personally been studying the topic of evolution specifically for more than a year and although i’m not going to be bothered into going over it here, its actually plain that its nowhere close to facts like gravity nor is it irrefutable but rather i even deem human evolution scientifically wrong(and other agnostic biologists have too).
I’ve known quite a few well qualified biologists who don’t believe in it(one having a PhD). Its a theory that is a “house of cards”.
In fact i’d say that there’s scientific evidence for the Islamic account of the appearance of humans.
Note also how much distortion and lies that the evolutionists have done on the topic as atheists don’t believe they’re accountable except if they’re found out. Is it ok according to atheists to lie and misrepresent others’ beliefs?
I don’t see any point in discussing with an atheist/agnostic who is not even open to considering the other side who even resorts to mockery and ad hominem attacks.
You’ve basically ruled out the possibility of Islam being correct without any proof at the start and then based your arguments on this premise and then said about its beliefs ‘its absurd and wrong,’”
I tried responding to this curious comment, but for some strange reason, my own comments weren’t posted. I’ve therefore reproduced my comment below.
…..
Well, in that case, I’d say you’ve made things very easy for all of us, indeed.
If you believe that the thesis of evolution is wrong — that is, the thesis that biological life evolves from one species to another through a natural process or mechanism of change — then, I warmly invite you to substantiate that belief. If it really is “actually plain” that the thesis of evolution is “nowhere close to facts like gravity nor is it irrefutable,” then you should have absolutely no problem showing us why it’s wrong. The further it is from the facts, the easier it should be to refute it definitively and convincingly.
Again, I’m quite eager to have you show me why and how the scientific community is wrong and why and how you’re right
…..
UPDATE: Shaykh Abū Ādam al-Narūijī has indicated that he, too, shall soon, by the will of his god, be dealing with Darwinism. This is wonderful news! We warmly look forward to the day when he, too, will attempt to refute the scientific community and show us all why evolution is wrong and (Islamic) creationism is right.
June 16, 2008 at 1:32 am |
You’re making an unwarranted assumption here. He’s merely indicated that he’s going to be dealing with it, not refuting it. Don’t jump to conclusions just as yet. I know kalam enough to know that his response, whatever it be, is going to be a lot more nuanced than evangelical Christian arguments, if he’s going to be using kalam in the first place, that is.
June 16, 2008 at 4:38 am |
Dear George,
You write:
“I know kalam enough to know that his response, whatever it be, is going to be a lot more nuanced than evangelical Christian arguments, if he’s going to be using kalam in the first place, that is.”
How on earth would the study of kalam qualify one to deal with a scientific theory belonging to the fields of biology and paleontology? Other than being able to tell us whether evolution is compatible with Islam, what would his knowledge of kalam allow him to say?
Keep in mind that Shaykh Nuh Keller has written what is to date perhaps the most authoritative Islamic statement regarding evolution. According to Keller,
“As for claim that man has evolved from a non-human species, this is unbelief (kufr) no matter if we ascribe the process to Allah or to “nature,” because it negates the truth of Adam’s special creation that Allah has revealed in the Qur’an. Man is of special origin, attested to not only by revelation, but also by the divine secret within him, the capacity for ma’rifa or knowledge of the Divine that he alone of all things possesses.”
Keller, too, has studied kalam. He presumably has more authority to speak about it than you do. According to Keller, a Muslim must reject the scientific claim that humans evolved from a non-human species of primates. The Muslim must believe that humans appeared on earth without any prior non-human ancestry. What more nuance can be brought to this?
Now, I have some questions for you. Do you accept or reject the thesis of evolution? Do you agree or disagree with Keller? Are you a traditional Muslim, studying the so-called Islamic sciences, and therefore partial to traditional Muslim scholars?
Regards,
Sign of Saturn
June 16, 2008 at 3:58 pm |
Again, my personal affirmations and negations are really irrelevant. What matters is the argument.
I’ll make a similar case here: Please prove that all biologists who concur on the possibility of humans deriving their ancestry from apes.
And the study of the fossil record is not “scientific.” It cannot be tested. That is a false claim. A theory must be falsifiable for it to be deemed scientific. There may be evidence in the fossil record for the theory of evolution, but it certainly isn’t scientific because it can’t be falsified, unlike other theories that are experimented upon and tested.
As for Keller’s statement being the “most authorotative,” I like your use of the adjectives, but again, it’s a claim without any evidence. Not that I am doubting Keller’s knowledge of kalam. But again, this shows your woeful ignorance of Kalam (and even of science and the philosophy of science). Just because Keller is expressing a certain belief doesn’t necessarily mean he’s employed kalam in his argument. Heck, he hasn’t even made an argument. He’s presented a belief. So much for your citation of Keller’s kalam.
So please, prove beyond any reasonable doubt that all biologists concur that human evolution happened, and that human evolution is a scientific theory. If you can handle it, please prove beyond a reasonable doubt that human evolution did in fact happen. A mere presentation of bones just tells me that something humanoid existed. The mere similarity of DNA simply suggests similarity. Niether indicates ancestry. There is a significant jump in the logic here. Off course, if you have other more “rock solid” arguments, be sure to present them.
June 16, 2008 at 6:51 pm |
Dear George,
“Again, my personal affirmations and negations are really irrelevant.”
I’m making them relevant, George. I am asking you what you believe and why. You see George, it’s too easy to avoid answering questions. That’s the mark of a clown. It’s much more difficult and interesting to articulate your beliefs honestly and forthrightly and leave them open to critical scrutiny. However, you don’t want to do that. You want to make demands upon others, but not let others make similar demands upon you. There’s something a bit silly about that, George. Wouldn’t it be more valiant and less cowardly to be open and honest about what you believe and actually subject your beliefs to critical scrutiny? I mean, all that macho bravado and heroism would have a little more substance if you actually had something of substance to share.
Again, George, are you a Muslim? Do you believe that humans appeared on earth without any prior non-human ancestry? Do you believe in the Islamic account of human origins, George?
“And the study of the fossil record is not “scientific.” It cannot be tested. That is a false claim. A theory must be falsifiable for it to be deemed scientific. There may be evidence in the fossil record for the theory of evolution, but it certainly isn’t scientific because it can’t be falsified, unlike other theories that are experimented upon and tested.”
You’re getting ahead of yourself, George. The theory in question is that of evolution, a theory that most certainly is falsifiable. You, however, are making a different claim. You’re referring to the fossil record itself as a theory. What “theory” would that be? You have to articulate a theory before saying whether or not it’s falsifiable. What you have done is to say that some theory that you haven’t articulated is not falsifiable and that it is therefore not-scientific.
Just out of curiosity, George, what do you know about the fossil record? Have you actually studied it? When, for example, Stephen Jay Gould and Glenn Goodfriend conducted a study of the fossil record of Cerion snail shells, they revealed a case of complete evolution from an ancient species to a modern one (See G. Goodfriend and S. J. Gould, Science 274 (1996): 1894-1897. See also this non-scholarly article). Are you saying their study wasn’t scientific?
“As for Keller’s statement being the ‘most authorotative,’ I like your use of the adjectives, but again, it’s a claim without any evidence.”
Do you not read carefully, Dear George? I said it is “to date perhaps the most authoritative.” George, your role as the harsh interrogator would be a bit more impressive if your judgment wasn’t clouded by your enthusiasm.
“If you can handle it, please prove beyond a reasonable doubt that human evolution did in fact happen.”
That’s a very intimidating challenge, George. I fear I will crumble under all of the hostile pressure. I think, however, that your judgment is again being clouded by your enthusiasm. You want to throw the burden of proof on me, but not accept any burdens yourself. You want me to prove things to you, but not prove anything yourself. When a Muslim challenges evolution, you apparently have no problem. But, when I invite that Muslim to show why evolution is wrong, you then challenge me to prove it correct. Let me assure you, I don’t detect an ounce of abject silliness in that at all.
Love,
Sign of Saturn
June 16, 2008 at 10:13 pm |
I saw the comment made by George and I thought to see if I could deconstruct his arguments.
“Again, my personal affirmations and negations are really irrelevant. What matters is the argument.
I’ll make a similar case here: Please prove that all biologists who concur on the possibility of humans deriving their ancestry from apes.
And the study of the fossil record is not “scientific.” It cannot be tested. That is a false claim. A theory must be falsifiable for it to be deemed scientific. There may be evidence in the fossil record for the theory of evolution, but it certainly isn’t scientific because it can’t be falsified, unlike other theories that are experimented upon and tested.
As for Keller’s statement being the “most authorotative,” I like your use of the adjectives, but again, it’s a claim without any evidence. Not that I am doubting Keller’s knowledge of kalam. But again, this shows your woeful ignorance of Kalam (and even of science and the philosophy of science). Just because Keller is expressing a certain belief doesn’t necessarily mean he’s employed kalam in his argument. Heck, he hasn’t even made an argument. He’s presented a belief. So much for your citation of Keller’s kalam.
So please, prove beyond any reasonable doubt that all biologists concur that human evolution happened, and that human evolution is a scientific theory. If you can handle it, please prove beyond a reasonable doubt that human evolution did in fact happen. A mere presentation of bones just tells me that something humanoid existed. The mere similarity of DNA simply suggests similarity. Niether indicates ancestry. There is a significant jump in the logic here. Off course, if you have other more “rock solid” arguments, be sure to present them.”
I’m going to tackle the two aspects in bold because I think they are related.
“And the study of the fossil record is not ’scientific.’ It cannot be tested.”
Hmmm, doesn’t the repeated ability to find the same species again and again mean that ideas can be tested? For example, if I wanted to piece together what Homo erectus looked like from an incomplete fossil, I would base my conclusions on other species that seem to be similar to it so therefore the missing bones would look similar. By finding more fossils of Homo erectus it would be possible to determine this too.
Another example is David Strait’s knuckle walking hypothesis. Since gorillas and chimps exhibit a knuckle walking feature in their wrist, he argued that this was an ancestral trait, not homoplasy. In order to test this, he predicted that early hominins would show knuckle walking features as a vestigal trait. After a late night search in the Smithsonian, Strait and Richmond found that two specimens of australopithecus exhibited the feature, providing proof for their hypothesis. In order to further provide evidence, more australopithecines could be found with this feature.
The article is here if you want to look and I can provide a pdf copy if need be for people.
It is also interesting to note that it is a vestigal feature with no recognisable use for a biped. This indicates somewhere in the ancestry that there was an ancestor who knuckle walked, providing a link between us and other primates.
So that is two examples of how the study of the fossil record can be falsified. 1-0
“That is a false claim. A theory must be falsifiable for it to be deemed scientific.”
Indeed I’ve already shown two examples. 2-0
“There may be evidence in the fossil record for the theory of evolution, but it certainly isn’t scientific because it can’t be falsified, unlike other theories that are experimented upon and tested.”
False, see the above examples as well as the biochronology in the fossil layers highlighting what seems to be a progression. If there is no evolution then these species should be the same throughout, or we should find “the rabbit in the Cambrian”. We have not. Therefore 3-0.
Onwards to the second piece.
“So please, prove beyond any reasonable doubt that all biologists concur that human evolution happened,”
1. Evidence for evolution as a whole. The fact we have evidence for evolution, indicates we have our own evolution too. Since the fossil record shows a progression in biochronology of hominins there is a strong suggestions that we evolved too. What would be able to prove this wrong is if humans appear in the Miocene layers suddenly before we split from Chimps. However, this is not the case.
2. DNA evidence which shows the relationship between species. As we have observed speciation and noted the similarities in DNA, it stands to follow that if we are related to other primates, our DNA as well as the serum albumin should show distinct similarities. Indeed, Wilson and Sarich in the 1970s observed this with serum albumin and managed to construct a phylogenetic tree with the data and published this paper:
Sarich VM, Wilson AC. Immunological time scale for hominid evolution. Science 158, 1967, p. 1200-1203.
I could go into chromosome fusion too, however, this essay summarises it neatly.
4-0
“and that human evolution is a scientific theory.”
Yes I provided ways of which it could be falsified, mainly, finding Homo sapiens in the Miocene. 5-0
“If you can handle it, please prove beyond a reasonable doubt that human evolution did in fact happen.”
The fact humans follow a strict biochronology like other animals? 6-0
“A mere presentation of bones just tells me that something humanoid existed.”
Wrong as shown by the article by Richmond and Strait with vestigal features. 7-0
“The mere similarity of DNA simply suggests similarity.”
Ummm, even I’m bad at English but that sentence is dreadful with an atrocious use of repetition. The mere similarity of DNA, as you like to note shows genetic relationships. Otherwise species that are related and have observed speciation should not have similar genes, but they do, because they are similar. Because they are similar they indicate a relationship. Otherwise an animal that is similar, but not genetically related to another should share similar DNA. So a marsupial wolf should be similar to a European Wolf. This also calls into question why gorillas are more similar in their DNA than Orang Utans are for us.
8-0
“Niether indicates ancestry. There is a significant jump in the logic here. Off course, if you have other more “rock solid” arguments, be sure to present them.”
No there isn’t. There is a similarity of DNA between certain species that look similar (although as I’ve argued, this does not occur all the time). Not only that, these species exhibit a biochronology too. Furthermore, we have a biochronology exists, for example:
Ardipithecus ramidus (4.45 Mya)
Ardipithecus anamensis (4.2 Mya)
Australopithecus afarensis (3.8 Mya)
Australopithecus bahrelghazali (3.5 Mya)
Australopithecus africanus (3.0 Mya)
Australopithecus garhi (2.5 Mya)
Paranthropus aethiopicus (2.5 Mya)
Paranthropus boisei (1.6 Mya)
Paranthropus robustus (1.6 Mya)
Homo rudolfensis (2.0 Mya)
Homo habilis (1.8 Mya)
Homo ergaster (1.8 Mya)
Homo antecessor (0.8 Mya)
Homo heidelbergensis (0.5 Mya)
Homo neanderthalensis (0.2 Mya)
Homo Sapiens (0.2 Mya)
We also know Evolution occurs too with examples of speciation such as:
Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory by J.R. Weinberg V. R. Starczak and P. Jora, Evolution vol 46, pp 1214-1220, 1992
Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory by J.R. Weinberg V. R. Starczak and P. Jora, Evolution vol 46, pp 1214-1220, 1992
Experimentally Created Incipient Species of Drosophila by Theodosius Dobzhansky & Olga Pavlovsky, Nature 230, pp 289 – 292 (02 April 1971)
Founder-flush speciation in Drosophila pseudoobscura: a large scale experiment by A. Galiana, A. Moya and F. J. Alaya, Evolution vol 47, pp 432-444, 1993 (Speciation event in Drosophila melanogaster)
Sexual isolation caused by selection for positive and negative phototaxis and geotaxis in Drosophila pseudoobscura by E. del Solar, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, vol 56, pp 484-487, 1966
Adaptive Evolution And Explosive Speciation: The Cichlid Fish Model by Thomas D. Kocher, Nature Reviews: Genetics, 5: 288-298 (April 2004)
Cichlid Species Flocks of the Past and Present by A. Meyer, Heredity vol 95, 419-420, 20 July 2005
Fractious Phylogenies by Thomas D Kocher, Nature, Vol 423, pp 489-490, 29 May 2003
Hybridisation and Contemporary Evolution in an introduced Cichlid Fish from Lake Malawi National Park by J. Todd Streelman, S.L. Gymrek, M.R. Kidd, C. Kidd, R.L. Robinson, E. Hert, A.J. Ambali and T.D. Kocher, Molecular Ecology, vol 13, pp 2471-2479, 21 April 2004
Major Histocompatibility Complex Variation In Two Species Of Cichlid Fishes From Lake Malawi by Hideki Ono, Colm O’hUigin, Herbert Tichy and Jan Klein, Molecular and Evolutionary Biology, 10(5): 1060-1072 (1993)
Mitochondrial Phylogeny of the Endemic Mouthbrooding Lineages of Cichlid Fishes from Lake Tanganyika in Eastern Africa by Christian Sturmbauer and Axel Meyer, Journal of Molecular and Biological Evolution, Vol 10, No. 4, pp 751-768, 1993
Multilocus Phylogeny of Cichlid Fishes (Pisces: Perciformes) : Evolutionary Comparison of Microsatellite and Single-Copy Nuclear Loci by J. Todd Streelman, Rafael Zardoya, Axel Meyer and Stephen A Karl, Journal of Molecular and Biological Evolution, Vol 15, No 7, pp 798-808, 1998
Origin of the Superflock of Cichlid Fishes from Lake Victoria, East Africa by Erik Verheyen, Walter Salzburger, Jos Snoeks and Axel Meyer, Science, vol 300, pp 325-329, 11 April 2003
Persistence of Neutral Polymorphisms In Lake Victoria Cichlid Fishes by Sandra Nagl, Herbert Tichy, Werner E. Mayer, Naoyuki Takahata and Jan Klein, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, vol 95, pp 14238-14243, Nov 1998
Phylogeny of African Cichlid Fishes as Revealed By Molecular Markers by Werner E. Mayer, Herbert Tichy and Jan Klein., Heredity, vol 80, pp 702-714, 1998
The Species Flocks of East African Cichlid Fishes: Recent Advances in Molecular Phylogenetics and Population Genetics by Walter Salzburger and Axel Mayer, Naturwissenschaft, vol 91, pp 277-290, 20 April 2004
(Thanks Cali for that list)
Following this logical point, it is far simpler to argue there is a connection between these species and that Human Evolution works than it doesn’t. Therefore, using Occam’s Razor it is most likely to be the correct answer.
Further reading can be shown in 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
I believe that would demonstrate a firm link and ways to falsify this theory.
Me=10
Random creotard=0