Let me utterly destroy your fantasies.
The question of origins has always fascinated the human mind. From the earliest times, the existence of life has mostly been attributed to supernatural intervention. However, naturalistic models of origins based on logic and philosophy can be traced to about the fifth century BC in Greece. Plato (428-348 BC) and Aristotle (384-322 BC) were the philosophers that probably had the greatest impact on western thought. Their idealistic view of striving for perfection laid the foundations for a naturalistic view of origins.
Plato's idealistic views had a profound effect on biology. To him, the structure and form of organisms could be understood from their function which in turn was designed to achieve ultimate goodness and harmony imposed by an external creator.
Aristotle, the father of biology, expanded this idea to include the development of organisms and the origins of groups of organisms. To Aristotle, the adult form represented the final goal or telos, and the changes occurring during embryological development represented a striving towards the telos and is dictated by the telos.
So tell me how the origins of the theory of evolution started with Islamwhen the origins of it is way way before Islam even came into the picture Baal I sheeg please tell me now how Muslims don't practice the art of plagiarism to the fullest
i asked you what was the origin then you went and brought up a vid and claimed it was from ibn khaldun.
Mohammedan theory was more accurate then Charles Darwin
Aristotle used this idea to develop a "scale of nature," in which he arranged the natural world on a ladder commencing with inanimate matter to plants, invertebrates, and vertebrates. Among the vertebrates, he placed the fish at the lowest rung of the ladder and humans on the highest rung. This "scale of nature" represents a progression from the most imperfect to the most perfect.
The concepts developed by the Greek philosophers retained their influence well into the 18th century and were nurtured by prominent thinkers such as Goethe (1749-1832), who believed that the origin of each level of organism was based on a fundamental primitive plan—anarchetype—from which the more complex features and organisms developed.
And your telling me they didn't propose the theory of evolution
Ma galaada ka seexo niin yahow your making your self look like a fool smh
he or other greek philosophers did not present any "evolution theory", they were great thinkers that is all.
what is your aim? 
what are you trying to achieve?
@JohnDoe waan idinka yara yaabay dadyahow, adiga iyo beeshaada gaalo. what are you trying to get out of all these countless threads were you engage in constant debates with no outcome? personally i got tired of following it after the first or second day. You would think a bloke from the atheist club who claim to be a rational thinker would know when a debate bears no fruit or not. we get it you're an atheist and you don't plan on changing and neither do we. so what is the point in engaging in useless debate which restarts every other 2-3 days?
There is no outcome
... repeating the same repetitive tedious ishh is so tiring walee... at the end of the day 'lakum deenukum waliya deen'... stop tryna force us to disown our deen... just cahs you chose to take certain route, you expect everyone to also take that route
.... well guess what we not coming with you!!... ma qasab baa???
.. i just regret I haven't put you in there sooner 
That is what is called "scientific assumption" he just assuming, and placed plants at lowest ladder stop resorting to lying
In that case you could say the same for ibn khaldun
Confirmation bias check √ cognitive dissonance check √ have a good night
You have no real come backs do you ?, your just replying cos you want to stroke your ego after you got destroyed with facts i can see through that facade reaching for the Egyptians which have nothing to do with this topic
you probably reply back with things and ascertions that have nothing to do with the actuall argument so this my last reply to you.
"He took the sequence of 23 highly-conserved proteins found in all three domains of life (bacteria, archaea, eukaryotes) and ran them through a battery of phylogenetic algorithms. In these algorithms, one is expected to set various parameters, such as the model for sequence evolution. Theobald tried various models, all of which reflect different hypotheses of ancestry (universal common ancestry, two origins of life, etc.). This is called the AIC method (Akaike information criterion), and is the standard way of testing different ancestry hypotheses.I woke up for fajr, was quickly scanning through the recent posts on this forum (which is the first time doing this since I quit) and stumbled across this thread. After seeing some of the spurious information propagated by certain individuals on this forum, I felt obliged to reply.
That's pretty straightforward. What they've stated in their books, au fond, is none other than microeconomics. Now, we all know there's evidence that supports the authenticity of microeconomics (where organisms develop particular traits for an evolutionary advantage). Nowhere was it stated in the books of the early Muslim scientists that organisms rejig to completely different organisms, this is what macroevolution is all about; they've merely mentioned the fact that they acquire traits.
There's no evidence to support the authenticity of macroevolution which is why it's not a law of science and never will be. NO SCIENTIST WOULD DENY THIS.
Why did you say that @Hafez has contradicted himself? I've read his most recent posts (around 200 of them), and not once has he contradicted himself. Lying about people to get an "edge", smh... That's very lowly indeed.
In before the fool (he knows who he is) says that "but we have corresponding genes with apes and other organisms" lol, all living things have been created from water and a few other substances hence why organisms that are apparently distinct share corresponding DNA but this in no way means that we share a common ancestor.
LOL I had a long debate about this topic with the atheists on this forum already. Wallahi these people are repetitive and boring, the failed to provide evidence the first time. They have nothing better going on for them.
Just to make things clear, I am NOT @Hafez as some people might want to believe...
@Zak Jingo and all the Muslims on Somalispot, STOP debating with atheists (lest you be led astray and become one of them), especially about issues pertaining to the natural sciences, I'm too busy and seldom have the time to refute them. Wallahi you can trust me when I say this, they are liars and cannot backup their claims with scientific evidence.
"And when you see those who engage in a false conversation about Our Verses of the Qur'an by mocking at them, stay away from them till they turn to another topic. And if Satan causes you to forget, then sit not you after the remembrance in the company of those people who are the Dhaalimoon - the wrong-doers".
Al An'aam 6:68
"And it has already been revealed to you in the Book that when you hear the verses of Allah being denied and mocked at, then sit not with them, until they engage in a talk other than that; but if you stayed then certainly in that case you would be like them."
An Nisaa 4:140
Macasalaam.
That's because we share over 90% of our DNA with some of these organisms you moron... We've had a debate about this already, you're just repeating the same thing in a different way, lmfao. "polygenetic algorithms", do you even know what polygenes are dude? I did not mean that water itself is the reason for our genetic correspondence per se, I just did not want to go in depth. Humans have similar features to certain organisms (I.e. the way we eat, defecate, sleep, etc), this is why we may have genetic correspondence which is undoubtedly a result of similar DNA coding sequence. I already mentioned to you that there's no correspondence in the non-coding DNA sequence (and this could pretty much be responsible for the reason why we have human traits). Corresponding DNA in no way means that we share a common ancestry. It's funny that he (Douglass L Theobald) thinks all organisms having a common ancestry is still one of the many hypotheses that are known to scientists loooool.
The 90% of genes that we share cannot have have occurred due to chance. That is all that i am saying. I am well versed in biological jargon sxb. So, I know what polygenes are. For a muslim you are very condescending, even immature
. My argument is that the chances of developing the same genes are very minimal statistically speaking. The reason as to why the non-coding region does not have much genetic correspondence between different species is because they serve as the regulatory regions for the coding region. They are are the main reason for degeneracy.
