A Happy Coming-Out-Story for A Somali Ex-Muslim

[Layth]

Did you just seriously call natural selection speculative?

Why do simple life-forms still exist if all species have the same origins?

 

[Layth]

Elaborate, please.

Natural selection does not talk about the existence of life forms , or one specie becoming another (i.e Speciation). It is simply the observation of the transformation of the different species under different factors, whether it be about survival or reproduction.

Oh, then in this sense it's acceptable. The Arabs for example, would breed their horses for superior characteristics and today "Arabian horses" are considered one of the fastest and most intelligent.

 

[Dhabaal]

Why do simple life-forms still exist if all species have the same origins?

Ok that is not Evolution or natural selection walaalo. What you are talking about is Darwanism.

 

[Tramo]

Natural selection in of itself is highly speculative. Why do simple life-forms still exist?

evolution depends on environmental conditions. if a species is well adapted to an environment, there's no need for it to adapt much more and change

it's not speculative sxb, ur only saying it is because u want it to be wrong. ur starting from the conclusion 'evolution is fake' and working backwards, which is intellectually dishonest to say the least

 

[Layth]

evolution depends on environmental conditions. if a species is well adapted to an environment, there's no need for it to adapt much more and change

it's not speculative sxb, ur only saying it is because u want it to be wrong. ur starting from the conclusion 'evolution is fake' and working backwards, which is intellectually dishonest to say the least

So every specie has evolved from different environmental conditions (in their earliest stages) and thus they don't have the same origin?

 

[supz]

So every specie has evolved from different environmental conditions (in their earliest stages) and thus they don't have the same origin?

From the Anti-Darwinian viewpoint, yes.

 

[Layth]

So every specie has evolved from different environmental conditions (in their earliest stages) and thus they don't have the same origin?

If this is the case, it would create even more questions.

 

[Dhabaal]

Oh, then in this sense it's acceptable. The Arabs for example, would breed their horses for superior characteristics and today "Arabian horses" are considered one of the fastest and most intelligent.

Well evolution and natural selection is a Muslim theory. It was was well known and taught theory in Medieval Islam. By the likes of Ibn Khaldun, Al-Jahiz, Ibn Miskawahy and many other Muslim scholars.

For example centuries before Darwin's theories an Ethiopian by the name of Al-Jahiz wrote: "Animals engage in a struggle for existence; for resources, to avoid being eaten and to breed. Environmental factors influence organisms to develop new characteristics to ensure survival, thus transforming into new species. Animals that survive to breed can pass on their successful characteristics to offspring."

An early exponent of the zoological and anthropological sciences, al-Jahiz discovered and recognized the effect of environmental factors on animal life; and he also observed the transformation of animal species under different factors. Furthermore, in several passages of his book, he also described the concept, usually attributed to Charles Darwin, of natural selection.

Al-Jahiz's concept of natural selection was something new in the history of science.

Here is a page from Eighty-seven folios of the Book of Animals (about one-tenth of the original text by al-Jahiz)

 

[Tramo]

So every specie has evolved from different environmental conditions (in their initial stages) and thus they don't have the same origin?

i mean there's no real evidence that every species evolved from a single origin yet, but it's a plausible hypothesis i guess

what isnt in question tho is the mechanism and the fact that when placed under different environmental conditions, species do undergo changes. basically we can see a bunch of different branches and sub-branches, but don't know if they're all connected to the same tree or not if that makes sense

 

[Layth]

i mean there's no real evidence that every species evolved from a single origin yet, but it's a plausible hypothesis i guess

what isnt in question tho is the mechanism and the fact that when placed under different environmental conditions, species do undergo changes. basically we can see a bunch of different branches and sub-branches, but don't know if they're all connected to the same tree or not if that makes sense

Haye, fair enough. Laakin do the changes that they undergo affect the species on a genetic level? As in, do they acquire additional genetic information? If you show me evidence for this, I will accept evolution wallahi.

 

[Tramo]

Haye, fair enough. Laakin do the changes that they undergo affect the species on a genetic level? As in, do they acquire additional genetic information? If you show me evidence for this, I will accept evolution wallahi.

definitely bro, look up gene duplication

Gene duplications are an essential source of genetic novelty that can lead to evolutionary innovation. Duplication creates genetic redundancy, where the second copy of the gene is often free from selective pressure — that is,mutations of it have no deleterious effects to its host organism. If one copy of a gene experiences a mutation that affects its original function, the second copy can serve as a 'spare part' and continue to function correctly. Thus, duplicate genes accumulate mutations faster than a functional single-copy gene, over generations of organisms, and it is possible for one of the two copies to develop a new and different function. Some examples of such neofunctionalization is the apparent mutation of a duplicated digestive gene in a family of ice fish into an antifreeze gene and duplication leading to a novel snake venom gene [4] and the synthesis of 1 beta-hydroxytestosterone.[5]

Gene duplication is believed to play a major role in evolution; this stance has been held by members of the scientific community for over 100 years.[6]Susumu Ohno was one of the most famous developers of this theory in his classic book Evolution by gene duplication (1970).[7] Ohno argued that gene duplication is the most important evolutionary force since the emergence of the universal common ancestor.[8] Major genome duplication events can be quite common. It is believed that the entire yeast genome underwent duplication about 100 million years ago.[9] Plants are the most prolific genome duplicators. For example, wheat is hexaploid (a kind of polyploid), meaning that it has six copies of its genome.

 

[Layth]

definitely bro, look up gene duplication

That's gene duplication. No new and novel genetic information was added.

 

[The_Cosmos]

I'm not replying to you as often and as promptly because you're literally spewing nonsense. I'd rather do other things than argue with someone who's intellectually dishonest. Give me one solid example where evolution is supported by deductive reasoning.

Ok,
When Darwin constructed his theory, he began with deductive reasoning.

1. Each of the Galapagos islands has its own species of tortoise
2. The tortoises on each island are specialized for the particular habitat of that island
3. These islands have not been present for the entire history of the earth
4. There is a mainland tortoise that is very similar to these species, but none of these species are actually found on the mainland
5. It is highly unlikely that at one point all of these species were on the mainland, and all of them got washed out to these islands, but only one or two species survived on each island, and all of them went extinct on the mainland
6. Therefore, these species must have evolved from a common ancestor that drifted from the mainland

 

[Layth]

It is highly unlikely that at one point all of these species were on the mainland

No speculations.

 

[The_Cosmos]

No speculations.

What are you on about? This is deductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning in its nature is speculative. Nonetheless Darwim was proven correct by modern genetic analysis.

 

[Layth]

What are you on about? This is deductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning in its nature is speculative. Nonetheless Darwim was proven correct by modern genetic analysis.

The premise is not strong enough. I'm not impressed. Modern genetic analysis does not prove evolution lmfao. If anything, it disproves it. Have you read into Mendel's laws of genetics?

P.S. All the arguments for evolution based on modern genetic analysis are based on inductive reasoning.

 

[The_Cosmos]

The premise is not strong enough. I'm not impressed. Modern genetic analysis does not prove evolution lmfao.

You asked me give me one example of deductive reasoning for evolution and I did but yet you still out here rejecting it. LOL and you labelled me intellectually dishonest!


You started from the permise that evolution is false which clearly highlights that you have no intention of finding out the truth of evolution.

 

[Layth]

You asked me give me one example of deductive reasoning for evolution and I did but yet you still out here rejecting it. LOL and you labelled me intellectually dishonest!


You started from the permise that evolution is false which clearly highlights that you have no intention of finding out the truth of evolution.

The premise is based on likelihoods though, thus Darwin's conclusion from that premise is based on speculation to some degree. Come on man. Read it properly.

 

[The_Cosmos]

The premise is based on likelihoods though, thus Darwin's conclusion is based on speculation to some degree. Come on man. Read it properly.

You never asked for facts though?! You asked for deductive reasoning!! Deductive reasoning is based on likelihoods.


You're bloody clueless. If you want the evidence for evolution then ask for it.

 

[Layth]

You never asked for facts though?! You asked for deductive reasoning!! Deductive reasoning is based on likelihoods.


You're bloody clueless. If you want the evidence for evolution them ask for it.

No it's not based on likelihoods, that's inductive reasoning bro. I've made one request, and if fulfilled, I will accept evolution: provide evidence for species acquiring new AND novel genetic information. This is deductive reasoning -- for instance, all As are Cs, B is an A, thus it's therefore a C too. In your own words:

"It is highly unlikely that at one point all of these species were on the mainland, and all of them got washed out to these islands, but only one or two species survived on each island, and all of them went extinct on the mainland".