Broad scientific consensus has it that relatively soon after the earth was formed chemicals began to act like small organisms that over millions of years evolved into loosely prokaryotic cells that continued to evolve into all the life we see around us today, the little organisms and fungi and plants and animals, from which last group we humans evolved.
There are variations in the theory (I recommend Margulis on symbiotic evolution - The Symbiotic Planet wasn't too difficult - but I don't have expertise, especially in her more controversial ideas and the relevant counterpoints) but I think the above paragraph should be vague enough to satisfy any proponent of evolution, and I have kept it that way because it is just enough to distinguish evolutionists from anti-evolutionists.
I'm not making this a poll because I don't think the easily scammable numbers would be as illuminating as reading opinions.
Here is a wikipedia page with more information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_history_of_life Of course there are lots of online sources that you can find depending on what you would like to understand, since this post isn't to educate but to enquire:
What do you think of the theory of evolution?
I have long believed that science exists to compliment faith, not to disprove it.
Secondly there are some modern muslim scholars who do not fully reject the idea of evolution and make references to various scriptures in support. Life will compete with life in order to survive, however there is still the creator behind all this. This is better known as Evolutionary Creationism. I dare say you could google it.
Back in BLACK
Theory of evolution, hmmm. I don't agree that we were once animals on four feet with bent backs, then our backs become straighter, even more straighter until we were able to stand on two feet and turn out to be what we look like today. Everytime i see the series of images, all in one line, it reminds me of a cartoon or something that i'd expect a film maker to create.
I also don't agree that every single living organism came from a common ancestor. I believe that the first human was Adam and likewise other organisms were created in a unique manner too. Don't you ever wonder why there has never in the history of history been ANY animal who has evolved into a human? All these years and no-one has discovered such a thing. This proves my point - Our ancestors were never chimps.
But that's not to say that i don't believe humans themselves can evolve and change over time - I agree that certain biological characteristics can be inherited from the generation before and natural selection sounds about right - that certain traits vary among individuals which leads to different rates of survial and reproduction.
We share 98% of our DNA with chimps and when you visit the zoo, chimps actually do very humanly things in my opinion. They're bothered about cleanliness, looking after each other, making sure they're eating sufficiently and they even have they're morning runs too.
But if i was to use that to believe that we evolved from chimps into humans because of our shared similarities, then wouldn't i also need to understand and comprehend that we share 55% of our DNA with bananas so we are actually very similar to a fruit that grows on trees? I don't think i should try compare myself to a banana anyway.
I certainly wudnt dismiss the theory entirely. We've all seen how babies learn to crawl on all fours before learning to walk. Wats to say mankind didnt do that all the time before. I certainly dnt thnk the human species has reached the pinacle of huma evolution. Always adapting & changing/mutating to survive.
Back in BLACK
i think we will soon evolve to only have 4 toes. that little toe really does have it hard with us wearing closed shoes all the time.
i dont tthink we evolved from monkey but i believe in the mutation and survival etc...
Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary?
Thanks very much for answering my question!
I do believe in evolution so I have some points and questions for Looking To See and Hummus.
That's always something of a straw-man reduction of the theory, which rather states that humans and apes share a comparatively recent common ancestor. Which doesn't necessarily change the gist of your opinion.
But if you accept competition, adaptability and genetic mutation are among the drivers of evolution why would it not add up to the evolution of humans from prehistoric mammals?
It usually is, to illustrate scientific consensus concerning the fossil record! Fossils are dated in numerous ways, one being consistency with prior finds, another being the rate of radio-isotope decay of surrounding and attached matter, and a third being the strata in which the fossils were discovered (each layer, all across the planet, bears the scars of major events in the earth's history). Eventually the most powerful evidence comes when a body of data emerges in which there seem to be no contradictions in the timescale (eg there are no human fossils from the Jurassic period, and no dinosaurs in the reign of Henry VIII).
This baffles me, could you explain why we would expect to see the same species evolve twice from different species and why we would expect such a significant evolution in the much-too-brief recorded history of human endeavours?
This prompts me to ask you the same thing I asked Looking To See at the top of this post.
That does suggest we are related to chimps.
I do think you are somewhat bananas (no offense)! If we share 98% of DNA with chimps and 55% with bananas then we are not very similar to bananas and we are very similar to chimps, but the 55% tells us we are all organisms that inherited these bits of DNA from earlier organisms. It is as if you are listing all the evidence for evolution but sticking to your guns because it is a great affront to traditional models of creation.
With Peace & Love,
JdeV
Good point Titanium, although adapting through coupling, according to Margulis, can eventually result in merging. For instance the plastid organelles in plant cells that allow for photosynthesis essentially are modified prehistoric cyanobacteria that have taken up residence in plant cells to the benefit of both plant and plastid. Likewise the mitochondria that power human cells and have their own DNA are little different from bacteria. So by this theory, over time species can adapt by way of circumstantially apt incorporation. This is fairly widely accepted.
Another thing for Hummus: while bananas don't have brains and chimps and humans do, in the 55% of DNA we share with bananas and most other eukaryotic organisms we find code for replication of nucleated aerobic cells containing the DNA and having in common chemical processes including a very similar tricarboxylic acid cycle (how our cells break down the earth's nutrients). The similarities between any two living things are indeed reflected in DNA similarities.
Bear in mind that even in a given species, eg humans, even very small percentage differences in DNA result in marked idiosyncrasies, so really 55% is not a terribly close relationship.
Joie i shall reply to you soon. Don't think i've ignored you.
Easy Hummus, take your time, I know what that's like.
This seems relevant:
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Mohamed-Ghilan/347684525261845
And he has written other stuff on evolution alone, but I haven't read it:
http://mohamedghilan.com/tag/evolution/
"How many people find fault in what they're reading and the fault is in their own understanding" Al Mutanabbi
I go with the traditional view that humans were just created separately but I agree with "Let's just for a second say that Adam peace be upon him evolved. So what? Is it beyond God's powers?"
and for this reason I probably won't read too much into it because I'm not bothered about it and it doesn't affect me. Even if evolution is true I will still see it as something done/allowed by Allah and it will not affect my belief.
"How many people find fault in what they're reading and the fault is in their own understanding" Al Mutanabbi
Hey Joie. After a jam packed week of non-stop exams, i have decided that i will reply back to you like i said. Hope i didn't keep you waiting for too long though. Just keep in mind that I don't have much knowledge on this topic and neither have i researched it. It was merely my opinion on the theory of evolution, so if i do manage to confuse you somehow, please excuse me.
Thanks for that information. I am aware of what fossils are - the remains of prehistoric organisms and i do know a little about what carbon dating is used for too. I just don't think that we as humans have evolved from animals, hence why i think that the cartoon image is artifical. There weren't dinosaurs in the reign of Henry VIII because they were extinct by then. They died out. Can you explain the relevance of mentioning your last sentence, please?
That's something i should be asking you. Chimps are still alive, they're not extinct so why has the theory of evolution stopped with them? But I don't expect to see humans evolving from chimps, 'again', because i don't believe we were evolved from them in the first place. Humans have been around for long, very long, why have we not magically evolved into a new species? Why has there not been a case of a human changing into another organism? Is this because humans are last in line? Do you think that one day we will evolve into something else?
I accept competition, adaptability and genetic mutation. For me it doesn't add up because i think that humans are a unique creation. My Lord has said that he created Adam, the first man from dust/clay/soil, and not from another animal or species and for that reason i don't believe that we evolved from prehistoric mammals.
They do similar things to humans because they're taught to. They were taught by their parents and siblings, just like we are taught by our parents and teachers. Both species learn from the environment. If two behaviours are similar, that does not suggest that one evolved from the other.
That makes you a banana too. I find comparing me to a banana really funny actually. I'm amused by it. I fail to see how we are similar to a fruit that can be peeled to reveal a soft starch-ness. It has no heart, no lungs and none of the complex systems that humans have.
This quoting has tired me.
Salam
Evolution begins from life in water. I accept that. No problem.
Ofcourse God created us from water. God told us so in the Quran.
The biologists were a bit late in discovering this fact, but never late than never.
Today they have finally admitted that God was right all along.
Thank you very much.
Omrow
Always a pleasure to hear from you Omrow! I hope you're doing well, and enjoying the fine weather.
You along with Seraphim have taken an approach that I have long respected, that there is no point in using religion as a counterpoint to science, but that they can either be reconciled or else held to describe the truth in ways that are appropriate to their context. If someone proposes a dogma that contrasts with information that I can test, I can reject the dogma within the context of my purpose in testing information, and accept that it has another value. In this case you are seeking meaning in dogma that dovetails what has become manifest by empirical means.
Thanks for bringing this thread back to the fore, I had missed Hummus's reply... Sorry Hummus!
No worries, but it is far more sensible to research a subject at least somewhat before you commit to an opinion. Vital if you want your opinion to be credible and not riddled with assumptions. Having said which I ought to make an apology myself, because in the Peace and Love thread I raised ecological objections to some construction that, on inspection of the proposals, may actually be a positive force for the environment. Hopefully by the time Friday rolls around I will be better informed (I have asked the developers to contact me then) and in the meantime I shouldn't have shot my mouth off. I did so because I am passionate about the environment and was a tad misled, and because I can be stupid. If you didn't see that post I have now deleted it.
Yes, it was an example extreme enough to make my point clear (I hoped), of there being no contradictions in various approaches across scientific disciplines to confirming evolutionary theory. I could have mentioned that there are no neanderthal remains found coexisting with either dinosaur or human remains, and that the strata in which they have been found suggest a chronology consistent with the DNA markers and carbon dating. The "eg" bit was to indicate that it is an example of the points made in the paragraph, so that you needn't feel I was trying to teach you something new in that line but to provide evidence, which happily you didn't dispute. In summary, by pointing out that nothing is geologically placed where it would contradict the conclusions of biologists, chemists and physicists, I am showing the evidence stacks up soundly.
Everything is always evolving from one generation to the next, and the greater the timescale the more manifest the differences. Nobody has ever proposed that humans descended from chimps (and I have made this point earlier in the thread) but we share a comparatively recent common ancestor with chimps. You won't ever see anything evolve into anything very different (unless you study fast-reproducing microbes) because a human lifespan is minuscule in evolutionary terms. You also asked why evolution would not support the same process twice. To some degree it can - creatures can share genetically marked tendencies to evolve in one way or another - but the evolution of a species from very different ancestors is so complex and takes so long that it will never happen in the same way twice. It is not impossible that chimps will evolve intelligence, unless the environment (including humanity) is not apt to support that development. Bear in mind that a lot of evolution can be better understood as coevolution, even including the interaction of our cells and their organelles.
Please forgive me this very challenging response but: "My [s]Lord[/s] theological document has said that (God) created Adam, the first man from dust/clay/soil..." Nobody can honestly say they know about God, but I would hope God supports intellectual rigour.
None of that rules out design, but it does suggest relatedness. Again let me clarify that no scientist ever claimed humans descend from chimps, that is not a part of evolutionary theory.
Touché. So it does.
Which is why we are so distant from a banana as opposed to a chimp. But the similarities if we are comparing such distantly related organisms are at a cellular and intra-cellular level, and they are many. I do think if you want to discuss this you should first read up. If you use the internet some good keywords to start with are prokaryota and eukaryota, because then you are studying some of the earliest divergences and cellular commonalities that still persist. Cells are very complex so it is very interesting, and helpful to understanding how all life evolves, that the DNA recipes for banana and human cells have much in common. Of course, at a macroscopic level they show massive differences, but, per what I was really saying (tongue in cheek), that approach to comparing the two is somewhat bananas when you have so much more data available under a microscope than the features you can most readily observe.
Take your time.