What scientific developments can be attributed to the Qur'an?

[Hitman]

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.

"A non-coding RNA (ncRNA) is a functional RNA molecule that is transcribed from DNA but not translated into proteins. Epigeneticrelated ncRNAs include miRNA, siRNA, piRNA and lncRNA. In general, ncRNAs function to regulate gene expression at the transcriptional and post-transcriptional level. Those ncRNAs that appear to be involved in epigenetic processes can be divided into two main groups; the short ncRNAs (<30 nts) and the long ncRNAs (>200 nts). The three major classes of short non-coding RNAs are microRNAs (miRNAs), short interfering RNAs (siRNAs), and piwi-interacting RNAs (piRNAs). Both major groups are shown to play a role in heterochromatinformation, histone modification, DNA methylation targeting, and gene silencing."

Besides, it's quite obvious that our non-coding DNAs do not even change at the same pace. Sxb, move on from this crap already until you make yourself look like more of a retard than you already have.

Similarities in coding sequence is the only reason why we have corresponding genes and even those corresponding genes are largely distinct in their essence.

 

[supz]

"A non-coding RNA (ncRNA) is a functional RNA molecule that is transcribed from DNA but not translated into proteins. Epigeneticrelated ncRNAs include miRNA, siRNA, piRNA and lncRNA. In general, ncRNAs function to regulate gene expression at the transcriptional and post-transcriptional level. Those ncRNAs that appear to be involved in epigenetic processes can be divided into two main groups; the short ncRNAs (<30 nts) and the long ncRNAs (>200 nts). The three major classes of short non-coding RNAs are microRNAs (miRNAs), short interfering RNAs (siRNAs), and piwi-interacting RNAs (piRNAs). Both major groups are shown to play a role in heterochromatinformation, histone modification, DNA methylation targeting, and gene silencing."

Besides, it's quite obvious that our non-coding DNAs do not even change at the same pace. Sxb, move on from this crap already until you make yourself look like more of a retard than you already have.

Similarities in coding sequence is the only reason why we have corresponding genes and even those corresponding genes are largely distinct in their essence.

Classic strawmans argument. As I said previously the non-coding region plays a regulatory role. When did I say that the non-coding region rapidly changes. These genes that you are referring to ,are distinct due to coding degeneracy. I forgot to say this earlier sxb, are you seriously so retarded that you think that bacteria are the only organisms capable of of gene duplication? plants and other organisms such as yeast a fungi have indicated that they underwent gene duplication. Don't get so scared that you have to put words in my mouth. smh

 

[JohnDoe]

tbh...


beenta iska daa waryaa... you just wanted to create thread to spew nonsense about islam....you can't make blind man see the color of the sky....one can only say blue blue blue.... *sighs*... so you want us to post articles upon articles that you aint even gonna read,,, only so that it can give you a platform to post more nonsense without looking like lost lunatic having convo with himself..... 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???

personally I have no problem with atheists.... it aint my damn business what others wana do... but adigu all you do is hate hate hate... constantly hating.... constantly leaving trash here and there... hating so much to the point the word hate itself becomes love...


ah thank god for the ignore function..... .. i just regret I haven't put you in there sooner

Walaal, if you're not going to contribute to the thread why bother comment. I didn't even post this in the general section.

 

[Hitman]

Classic strawmans argument. As I said previously the non-coding region plays a regulatory role. When did I say that the non-coding region rapidly changes. These genes that you are referring to ,are distinct due to coding degeneracy. I forgot to say this earlier sxb, are you seriously so retarded that you think that bacteria are the only organisms capable of of gene duplication? plants and other organisms such as yeast a fungi have indicated that they underwent gene duplication. Don't get so scared that you have to put words in my mouth. smh

Lol are you still trying to defend a hypothesis? If you're trying to tell us macroevolution is a fact, why is it still considered a hypothesis by all scientists? you retard. Can you tell us that evolution is officially a law of science? I didn't think so, because of the lack of evidence.

As for the arguments you've made; what evidence is there to support that it was by these particular means that apes evolved to humans? Zero evidence. There's no known genetic mechanism that facilitates gene duplication.

Not to rain on your parade but, gene duplication is not backed up by empirical evidence either. It's not even considered a theory dude... This guy is spewing a load of hypotheses (scientific theories that are not accepted as facts, nor are they backed up by enough evidence to be considered theories in the first place).

For argument's sake, let's say there was empirical evidence for gene duplication, it still cannot be used to explain "adaptation" or macroevolution (which includes the idea that we have evolved from apes to humans.

"the general validity of the adaptation by gene duplication hypothesis remains uncertain."
I'll link you to an academic scientific article:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4120088/

This individual makes excellent points that leads one to question the validity of macroevolution:

http://humansarefree.com/2013/12/9-scienctific-facts-prove-theory-of.html?m=0

You are trying to use a hypothesis that's not even accepted as a law of science (and never will be) to refute religion... I want you to think about that for a moment. How stupid can you get bro honestly?

Oh and next time you try to debate with us Muslims, bring facts only, not hypotheses. Get another hobby fool.

 

[supz]

Lol are you still trying to defend a hypothesis? If you're trying to tell us macroevolution is a fact, why is it still considered a hypothesis by all scientists? you retard. Can you tell us that evolution is officially a law of science? I didn't think so, because of the lack of evidence.

As for the arguments you've made; what evidence is there to support that it was by these particular means that apes evolved to humans? Zero evidence. There's no known genetic mechanism that facilitates gene duplication.

Not to rain on your parade but, gene duplication is not backed up by empirical evidence either. It's not even considered a theory dude... This guy is spewing a load of hypotheses (scientific theories that are not accepted as facts, nor are they backed up by enough evidence to be considered theories in the first place).

For argument's sake, let's say there was empirical evidence for gene duplication, it still cannot be used to explain "adaptation" or macroevolution (which includes the idea that we have evolved from apes to humans.


"the general validity of the adaptation by gene duplication hypothesis remains uncertain."
I'll link you to an academic scientific article:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4120088/

This individual makes excellent points that leads one to question the validity of macroevolution:

http://humansarefree.com/2013/12/9-scienctific-facts-prove-theory-of.html?m=0

You are trying to use a hypothesis that's not even accepted as a law of science (and never will be) to refute religion... I want you to think about that for a moment. How stupid can you get bro honestly?

Oh and next time you try to debate with us Muslims, bring facts only, not hypotheses. Get another hobby fool.

Lol are you still trying to defend a hypothesis? If you're trying to tell us macroevolution is a fact, why is it still considered a hypothesis by all scientists? you retard. Can you tell us that evolution is officially a law of science? I didn't think so, because of the lack of evidence.

As for the arguments you've made; what evidence is there to support that it was by these particular means that apes evolved to humans? Zero evidence. There's no known genetic mechanism that facilitates gene duplication.

Not to rain on your parade but, gene duplication is not backed up by empirical evidence either. It's not even considered a theory dude... This guy is spewing a load of hypotheses (scientific theories that are not accepted as facts, nor are they backed up by enough evidence to be considered theories in the first place).

For argument's sake, let's say there was empirical evidence for gene duplication, it still cannot be used to explain "adaptation" or macroevolution (which includes the idea that we have evolved from apes to humans.

"the general validity of the adaptation by gene duplication hypothesis remains uncertain."
I'll link you to an academic scientific article:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4120088/

This individual makes excellent points that leads one to question the validity of macroevolution:

http://humansarefree.com/2013/12/9-scienctific-facts-prove-theory-of.html?m=0

You are trying to use a hypothesis that's not even accepted as a law of science (and never will be) to refute religion... I want you to think about that for a moment. How stupid can you get bro honestly?

Oh and next time you try to debate with us Muslims, bring facts only, not hypotheses. Get another hobby fool.

Science does not deal with absolute proofs. Only mathematical expressions can be "proven". Regardless of how much evidence there is for a hypothesis. Science is dynamic. I would have thought that a highly esteemed erudite such as yourself would have known this. I cannot provide you with evidence of macroevolution. An analyst such as yourself has rejected morphological evidence, genealogical evidence, phylogenetic evidence, molecular convergence... I repeat this evidence highly suggests that we do have a common descent with all organisms. It is unfortunate that we cannot directly link our genetic material to our "common ancestor".

I don't think any evidence supporting that macroevolution took place will convince you.You are right on one thing gene duplication does not answer adaptation or macroevolution, however it is the most probable cause of the phenomena, no one has challenged this due to the great momentum behind the evidence. I swear it is like talking to a brick wall, open your mind. Feed on the information that is presented like a true analyst.
Links :
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/


http://biologos.org/blogs/archive/speciation-and-macroevolution

The fruitfully is an excellent example to study, It shows distinct morphological changes.

They don't share common descent kulaha. Some muslims actually don't believe in evolution at all, so I give you props for actually believing in microevolution. (I am not mocking). look at how closely related they look.

 

[Hitman]

Science does not deal with absolute proofs. Only mathematical expressions can be "proven". Regardless of how much evidence there is for a hypothesis. Science is dynamic. I would have thought that a highly esteemed erudite such as yourself would have known this. I cannot provide you with evidence of macroevolution. An analyst such as yourself has rejected morphological evidence, genealogical evidence, phylogenetic evidence, molecular convergence... I repeat this evidence highly suggests that we do have a common descent with all organisms. It is unfortunate that we cannot directly link our genetic material to our "common ancestor".

I don't think any evidence supporting that macroevolution took place will convince you.You are right on one thing gene duplication does not answer adaptation or macroevolution, however it is the most probable cause of the phenomena, no one has challenged this due to the great momentum behind the evidence. I swear it is like talking to a brick wall, open your mind. Feed on the information that is presented like a true analyst.
Links :
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/


http://biologos.org/blogs/archive/speciation-and-macroevolution

The fruitfully is an excellent example to study, It shows distinct morphological changes.

They don't share common descent kulaha. Some muslims actually don't believe in evolution at all, so I give you props for actually believing in microevolution. (I am not mocking). look at how closely related they look.

View attachment 3116 View attachment 3117

Let's stick to facts; there's no observable evidence regarding the idea that humans have evolved from primates or that one organism can completely transform to a different organism. Thus, evolution au fond, is a belief. That's plain and simple.

Everything you've made mention of only proved the authenticity of adaptation: morphological evidence, phylogenetic evidence, molecular convergence. For your information there's no genealogical evidence that can be observed to prove that humans and primates share a common ancestor.

DNA is made up of four chemicals, abbreviated as letters A, T, G, and C. The order in which our genetic coding are ordered determines the cell's actions. I'm astounded at the fact that you think an intelligent designer was not behind this; yet you have the audacity to call others irrational...

Every "evidence" you've made mention of is merely drawing conclusions by making comparisons, pretty unscientific if you ask me. This cannot in any way be used to disprove religion, if anything some of these concepts prove the existence of God e.g. the fact that our genetic codes are ordered in such a sophisticated that one would be silly to deny the existence of God. We also know that no code is "designed by chance", every code has a coder, this is pretty straightforward.

I cannot provide you with evidence of macroevolution.

That's all I was waiting for tbh. Thank you for being honest, you can go back to what you was doing now.

 

[supz]

Let's stick to facts; there's no observable evidence regarding the idea that humans have evolved from primates or that one organism can completely transform to a different organism. Thus, evolution au fond, is a belief. That's plain and simple.

The genetic duplication that was witnessed in bacteria has not in anyway altered the "kind", it has merely led to the bacteria acquiring new characteristics. This only proved the authenticity of adaptation (which is not contrary to Islamic teachings) that Muslim scientists have spoken of over a millennium ago. Everything you've made mention of only proved the authenticity of adaptation: morphological evidence, phylogenetic evidence, molecular convergence. For your information there's no genealogical evidence that can be observed to prove that humans and primates share a common ancestor.

DNA is made up of four chemicals, abbreviated as letters A, T, G, and C. The order in which our genetic coding are ordered determines the cell's actions. I'm astounded at the fact that you think an intelligent designer was not behind this; yet you have the audacity to call others irrational...

Every "evidence" you've made mention of is merely drawing conclusions by making comparisons, pretty unscientific if you ask me. This cannot in any way be used to disprove religion, if anything some of these concepts prove the existence of God e.g. the fact that our genetic codes are ordered in such a sophisticated that one would be silly to deny the existence of God. We also know that no code is "designed by chance", every code has a coder, this is pretty straightforward.


That's all I was waiting for tbh. Thank you for being honest, you can go back to what use was doing now.

Why would god create animals that look so similar to us? I've always wondered. Cool I respect your opinion, I guess its just the way you see it. Perhaps this is a dissension of spirituality.

 

[Hitman]

To make matters worse, you've clearly exposed that you don't know the difference between a theory and a hypothesis.

Regardless of how much evidence there is for a hypothesis.

When there's sufficient evidence to support a hypothesis, it becomes a theory. Macroevolution itself is only a hypothesis, every "evidence" that's used to prove the authenticity of macroevolution are all hypotheses. This is a fucked up theory with a bunch of loopholes if you ask me. You guys have the audacity to accuse us of mental gymnastics.

P.S. I edited my previous post as I wanted to write about genetic mutation instead of genetic duplication. We already know that genetic duplication does not prove adaptation but genetic mutation might and this only proves the authenticity of microevolution.

Why would god create animals that look so similar to us? I've always wondered. Cool I respect your opinion, I guess its just the way you see it. Perhaps this is a dissension of spirituality.

Why would God create animals that look similar to us? It doesn't matter how they look. Like I said, all you Darwinists do is draw conclusions simply based on observation when the same material that's been observed can be used to draw conclusions for almost anything.

A hypothesis that is further supported by hypotheses (with no scientific method that can be used to determine their legitimacy) to explain one of the many loopholes in this idiotic concept called evolution... Lmao.

I think we're done here.

 

[supz]

To make matters worse, you've clearly exposed that you don't know the difference between a theory and a hypothesis.


Why would God create animals that look similar to us? It doesn't matter how they look. Like I said, all you Darwinists do is draw conclusions simply based on observation when the same material that's been observed can be used to draw conclusions for almost anything.

A hypothesis that is further supported by hypotheses (with no scientific method that can be used to determine their legitimacy) to explain one of the many loopholes in this idiotic concept called evolution... Lmao.

I think we're done here.

So, what you are trying to say is that a large number of similar genetic mutations in humans happened in Apes? No, I think we are done here. That is so dumb. The creationist argument is one based purely in ignorance. You are so intelligent, I know you don't truly believe that bullshit.
Also, I made a human error. I am well aware of the differences between a hypothesis and a theory.
I hope you see the truth someday.

 

[Hitman]

So, what you are trying to say is that a large number of similar genetic mutations in humans happened in Apes? No, I think we are done here. That is so dumb. The creationist argument is one based purely in ignorance. You are so intelligent, I know you don't truly believe that bullshit.
Also, I made a human error. I am well aware of the differences between a hypothesis and a theory.
I hope you see the truth someday.

I did not say the same large number of genetic mutations in humans happened in apes.


Apparently even mutations cannot be responsible for the formation of new genetic information (per se) and the observable adaptations in some organisms were pre-determined in their DNA sequence. Wallahi this seems wayyy more plausible.

This is a very interesting article:

http://creation.mobi/mutations-new-information

This is another L for the evolutionists. Their strongest "evidence" (which by the way is nothing but a hypothetical conclusion) has been dismantled.

Lol @ this part: "Can mutations produce new information? Yes, depending on what you mean by ‘new’ and ‘information’. Can they account for the evolution of all life on Earth? No!"

Yet this guy is going around calling people irrational on this forum.

 

[supz]

I did not say the same large number of genetic mutations in humans happened in apes.


Apparently even mutations cannot be responsible for the formation of new genetic information (per se) and the observable adaptations in some organisms were pre-determined in their DNA sequence. Wallahi this seems wayyy more plausible.

This is a very interesting article:

http://creation.mobi/mutations-new-information

This is another L for the evolutionists. Their strongest "evidence" (which by the way is nothing but a hypothetical conclusion) has been dismantled.

Lol @ this part: "Can mutations produce new information? Yes, depending on what you mean by ‘new’ and ‘information’. Can they account for the evolution of all life on Earth? No!"

Yet this guy is going around calling people irrational on this forum.

Trust me we can do this all day. You are the one who is irrational.

 

[Bahal]

Hitman so when are you gonna collect your Nobel Prize for disproving evolution

 

[JohnDoe]

@Hitman Macroevolution is merely microevolution over exponentially long periods of time so as long as time is in the equation then you can't reject one and choose the other. Now let's turn the tables since you have such a desire to see evidence. What evidence is there a man originated from a clot of blood moreover what evidence is there for Adam and Eve?

 

[Hitman]

@Hitman Macroevolution is merely microevolution over exponentially long periods of time so as long as time is in the equation then you can't reject one and choose the other. Now let's turn the tables since you have such a desire to see evidence. What evidence is there a man originated from a clot of blood moreover what evidence is there for Adam and Eve?

Did you not understand any of the issues being discussed? There's no evidence to support macroevolution or that it's an accumulation of microevolution.
coolio
Btw, our religion is based on faith, I'm sure @Hafez mentioned this to you before... You're trying to discredit religion by using hypotheses that are not (and will never be) accepted as laws of science. Your the one claiming to have evidence (which you've failed to provide) and our friend here @supz has clearly admitted that there's no evidence for macroevolution.

Hitman so when are you gonna collect your Nobel Prize for disproving evolution

When are you going to claim yours for proving it? (Which is impossible to do by the way).

Trust me we can do this all day. You are the one who is irrational.

For someone that claims life originated from nothing, you have no legs to stand on when it comes to determining who's rational and who isn't. And yes, we can do this all day (you going round in circles and failing to provide evidence when required, heck even admitting that there's no evidence to backup your claims).
obamadatazz

 

[Zak Jingo]

@Hitman Macroevolution is merely microevolution over exponentially long periods of time so as long as time is in the equation then you can't reject one and choose the other. Now let's turn the tables since you have such a desire to see evidence. What evidence is there a man originated from a clot of blood moreover what evidence is there for Adam and Eve?

My friend all you do is comment, but never take in.

 

[Zak Jingo]

Giants existed, and something your atheist, evolution loving brothers in the west won't tell you. The moment everyone finds out giants existed, then we can all agree the evolution theory was bullshit.

 

[Bahal]

Brother, you misunderstand. I wish nothing more than to see a Somali become a Nobel laureate, the pride and joy you would bring to our people is immeasurable. Since you've discovered something that will so radically change the scientific consensus on evolutionary biology, why don't you submit your research, btfo of the entire lying branch of evolutionary biology, and bring da ting home.



Next you can prove humans can reach 950, survive being swallowed by a whale, and being burnt at the stake for your next award

 

[JohnDoe]

Did you not understand any of the issues being discussed? There's no evidence to support macroevolution or that it's an accumulation of microevolution.
coolio
Btw, our religion is based on faith, I'm sure @Hafez mentioned this to you before... You're trying to discredit religion by using hypotheses that are not (and will never be) accepted as laws of science. Your the one claiming to have evidence (which you've failed to provide) and our friend here @supz has clearly admitted that there's no evidence for macroevolution.


When are you going to claim yours for proving it? (Which is impossible to do by the way).



For someone that claims life originated from nothing, you have no legs to stand on when it comes to determining who's rational and who isn't. And yes, we can do this all day (you going round in circles and failing to provide evidence when required, heck even admitting that there's no evidence to backup your claims).
obamadatazz

Horta, what does that say about you if you're willing to base your life on something you have no evidence to confirm it's truth but instead compensate this with faith? Evolution is a fact my friend there are countless books that have been written about it. If the creation myth was the truth as you claim then that is what biology lecturers would instead be teaching their students about, but one is taught and the other isn't because of evidence.

 

[supz]

Did you not understand any of the issues being discussed? There's no evidence to support macroevolution or that it's an accumulation of microevolution.

Btw, our religion is based on faith, I'm sure @Hafez mentioned this to you before... You're trying to discredit religion by using hypotheses that are not (and will never be) accepted as laws of science. Your the one claiming to have evidence (which you've failed to provide) and our friend here @supz has clearly admitted that there's no evidence for macroevolution.


When are you going to claim yours for proving it? (Which is impossible to do by the way).



For someone that claims life originated from nothing, you have no legs to stand on when it comes to determining who's rational and who isn't. And yes, we can do this all day (you going round in circles and failing to provide evidence when required, heck even admitting that there's no evidence to backup your claims).
obamadatazz

Two words fossil evidence. I have also provided a plethora of evidence for microevolution. This has far more weight than the quran. God made hawwa from the rib of of adam, how unscientific.
In 1954 stanley miller and harrey urey demonstrated that amino acids could naturally form in the environment of the early earth, they replicated the atmosphere and the chemicals in addition to electric sparks, they found new amino acids in the primordial soups. Research is still ongoing. its looking promising.

 

[Hitman]

Brother, you misunderstand. I wish nothing more than to see a Somali become a Nobel laureate, the pride and joy you would bring to our people is immeasurable. Since you've discovered something that will so radically change the scientific consensus on evolutionary biology, why don't you submit your research, btfo of the entire lying branch of evolutionary biology, and bring da ting home.



Next you can prove humans can reach 950, survive being swallowed by a whale, and being burnt at the stake for your next award

Horta, what does that say about you if you're willing to base your life on something you have no evidence to confirm it's truth but instead compensate this with faith? Evolution is a fact my friend there are countless books that have been written about it. If the creation myth was the truth as you claim then that is what biology lecturers would instead be teaching their students about, but one is taught and the other isn't because of evidence.

The only consensus regarding the evolution hypothesis is that it's still considered an unproven hypothesis by ALL scientists. The truth may be a bitter pill to swallow... @Bahal I've noticed that you consider me Somali, many Somalis don't. I'm a Somali national.