The Verdict
Evolution is false...and the Sun goes round the Earth

Evolution is false...and the Sun goes round the Earth

Evolution is a scam by evil scientists out to disprove Creation? Hardly. Its time to grow up and update our worldview.

Jahanzaib Haque September 30, 2011

The Express Tribune received this letter to the editor recently, and I have taken it upon myself not only to reproduce the letter in full, but to reply to it in full as well.

The letter

Dear Editor:

What evolutionists stumble over in their beliefs about evolution is, given enough time, any change is possible. The more time, the more plausible the theory. Sounds so reasonable, doesn't it? But that doesn't address the more important question that asks about the mechanism that causes change. There isn't a scientist in the world who can explain or demonstrate the step-by-step mechanism that evolved, for example, the intricate system of web production by spiders, the interlocking barbs and hooks that hold a bird's feathers in place, or the more complex components of DNA. Instead, they keep telling us their working on it as they try to market the world with “appearances” of evolution using fossils and similarities. But time is the real hero of evolution, and without it, theory dies violently. The objective of evolutionists, wittingly or unwittingly, is not so much to disprove creation, because it runs contrary to scientific wisdom, rather its Intelligent Designer/Creator to whom all men are accountable.

Your sincerely,

Hira Tariq

Mass Communication Department, Karachi University

A response

Dear Hira,

Since you have been kind enough to send over a letter, let me address it properly and suss out the matter at hand.

Let us look at some of the assumptions that you have made in this letter of yours:

Assumption one: “What evolutionists stumble over in their beliefs about evolution is, given enough time, any change is possible.”

No. That is not how evolution works. What evolutionists (which includes the vast majority of scientists across the world including 80 per cent of Pakistani doctors surveyed in the United States) know for a fact is that evolution is not a series of random, clumsy mutations in which “any change is possible”, but a meticulous selection of only the best traits that allow a species to survive and flourish. This very specific gradual selection is determined by the environment over time at the level of the gene. We are thus unlikely to see humans randomly grow an arm out of their head and flourish as your understanding of evolution suggests.

Assumption two: There isn't a scientist in the world who can explain or demonstrate the step-by-step mechanism that evolved, for example, the intricate system of web production by spiders, the interlocking barbs and hooks that hold a bird's feathers in place, or the more complex components of DNA.

You haven’t been keeping up with your science, or worse, your science is dictated by frauds like Adnan Oktar alias Harun Yahya who writes many popular books on Islamic Creationism (but is also a notorious character in Turkey, in and out of courts, in the news for harassment and blackmailing, conspiracy theorist extraordinaire, and – cherry on the cake for Pakistani mentality – gets the Turkish government to block sites for blasphemy).

If you are one of his admirers (as suggested by your choice of examples), you may as well stop reading now – sifting through evidence is not the forte of cultists. In case you aren’t however, and have merely been misled, let me direct you to some research that may get you up-to-date on the mountain of evidence in support of evolution:

1 The evolution of web production by spiders explained to school children

[[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdtYRJqNe9I]]

2 The evolution of bird feathers in all their complexity

[[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6kViYeDcmA]]

3 The creation of the complex components of DNA

If you are talking about how to actually create DNA or life, you are aware that scientists have made living cells in their labs using computers right?

[[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRzrYNVXF28]]

A couple of things you will note:

A: The sources of the videos are all well-accepted experts in their fields and well-recognized unbiased media, unlike say, mullahs and clergymen who (perhaps ‘experts’ in religion) suddenly leap over their expertise and have a go at science.

B: The extraordinary claims made in these videos are always followed up by rather boring, but rather good facts; examples and evidence to back those claims, rather than an empty “believe this because I say so and this is just how it has to be.”

Assumption three: they try to market the world with “appearances” of evolution using fossils and similarities.

Hira, if you skipped actually watching the videos above, I believe we have found the problem with your assumption of scientists using fossils as ‘false’ evidence i.e. you do not have the time and patience (or inclination) to actually sift through evidence and see how it works. I don’t blame you, most of us don’t. However, most of us are not rubbishing facts and data either, so if that is what you are preparing to do, please do your homework. You cannot challenge a position if you prefer taking the easy way out of simply ignoring all data that does not fit your world view.

Alternately (and this applies to many of us) we may not have the capacity to comprehend all the data as science is a very complex field with now thousands of branches and specializations. When faced with the challenge of comprehending the evolutionary process most of us just turn to layman answers and leave the actual science to the experts. If you are not comfortable with this, I suggest you pursue a degree in science and specialize in evolutionary biology and then take up this assumption again.

Assumption four: The objective of evolutionists, wittingly or unwittingly, is not so much to disprove creation, because it runs contrary to scientific wisdom, rather its Intelligent Designer/Creator to whom all men are accountable.

In this sentence I believe we have finally uncovered the real issue at hand i.e. science in itself is not objectionable (we hear no complaints about the periodic table or quantum physics), but it is objectionable in biology when it seems that science is eradicating the role of God as the creator of the universe, and us.

However, your argument is flawed in two critical ways.

One, it makes the assumption that evolutionists, knowingly or unknowingly are out to disprove a creator of the universe. This is incorrect, as the scientific mind (and method) is based on a very simple process of testing a hypothesis, attaining evidence to back the hypothesis and postulating a theory that can then be used to do miraculous things like travelling to the moon (courtesy the theory of gravity, now generally accepted).

Scientists are concerned with their field, just as a plumber is concerned with his clogged sink; they are both there to study and if necessary, fix. The question of whether that sink and the processes that make it work or make it choke are run and dictated by God is not what is being investigated, which leads me to the second very flawed, and frankly obnoxious assumption inside your arguments: do you really know all the processes by which God undertakes creation? If evolution is one of those processes, who are you to deny it?

To me it seems that a religious mind (which is ultimately the basis of your argument) should quite easily accept that there are fundamental laws governing the Universe and as humans investigate these further, all that is being uncovered is the mechanisms by which God acts. If anything, to a religious mind, the sophistication yet simplistic elegance of the evolutionary process should suggest the hand of God, no? Would you after all deny in this day and age that the Earth revolves around the Sun?

At one point in history, religious dogma did indeed dictate that the Sun revolved around the Earth, but Galileo set the facts right. He postulated a theory that the Earth revolved around the Sun, and was severely persecuted for this, but in the end we humans did indeed accept this to be true. To the religious mind of today, this one-time uncomfortable thought now sits as simply the way in which God created the universe.

Unfortunately, this is where my reply to your letter must come to an end, the rest is up for you to research, to ponder and perhaps change your mind, or more likely, as a dear friend of mine would say:

“As soon as you explain one misunderstanding to a creationist they come up with another.”

____________________________________________________

[poll id="89"]

COMMENTS (205)

Jack L. | 12 years ago | Reply I did a little plagiarism check. I searched on Google for the phrases "None of the mechanism of creationism seems appealing and" ; "human were dropped from the sky without a parachute from" and "only mechanism of creation of species that appears rational is a gradual transition of species from one kind". None of them gave any matches.

Naveed Salman | 12 years ago | Reply @ Foo Fighter It is all my own writing and I have not copied it from anywhere. That is why the writing style is so informal and casual

VIEW MORE COMMENTS

Foo Fighter | 12 years ago | Reply @Naveed Salman: Plagiarism check anyone?

Kamran Bangash | 12 years ago | Reply We cannot compare evolution with religion. Evolution is science. Scientists are carrying out research on it. With every passing day, they are finding new evidence. While religion is a collection of stories, which came to us from the forefathers of our forefathers. As they had no idea of whats going around they made stories as to how the world and universe has came into existence. They developed the concept of some supernatural deity.

Naveed Salman | 12 years ago | Reply Why Creationism/Intelligent Design is ridiculous Firstly creationism/intelligent design is not a science; it is theology, as no one can explain how species were created without invoking the concept of God or an Intelligent Designer. It cannot explain which came first, the egg or the chicken It cannot explain why Dinosaurs and humans didn't coexist. It cannot explain why we find the fossils of the species and their timeline of existence such, that it is fully consistent with evolution theory.- It cannot explain why we cannot see and visualize dimensions higher than three. It cannot explain why we see the light in the visible spectrum and why can’t we see infrared and ultraviolet light. All the above can be explained very well with evolution theory but creationists can't explain this except saying that God wanted it that way. Creationism/intelligent Design also don’t explain how and where first human was created on Earth or how and where they were dropped on Earth from Heavens. Assume God Created Humans on Earth If they were created by Intelligent Designer on Earth from basic constituents, then it would mean that they were created suddenly or in a relatively short span of time, since evolution takes a very long time. If that is the case then how do you imagine the basic constituents combining together to form a human (or living specie)?? Do you imagine angels descended from the sky and combined these constituents to create humans under God’s command?? Or you imagine that God just zapped his magic wand, and there was lightening and suddenly with a flash of light, basic constituents became humans?? Either way it doesn't seem science but a fairy tale. It is also inconsistent with laws of science and common sense. So creationists need some other mechanism of creation. Assume God created Humans from Heavens and send them on Earth Now let’s talk about another alternative that God created Humans (and other species) in Heaven and send them down on Earth. How weird it is to imagine that different animals came to Earth from sky in an ad hoc way at different times. (Since we have fossils of different species that lived at different times) Imagine, on 13:42 pm, 17th November, 20 Million BC, World had not seen any Rabbits then suddenly rabbits appeared on Earth at 13:43 pm 17th November, 20 Million BC. And human were dropped from the sky without a parachute from Heavens. Till 05:43 am on 13th April, 10,000 BC, there were no humans on Earth, then suddenly at 05:44 am on 13th April, 10,000 BC Adam and Eve appeared from the Sky. How absurd it sounds?? None of the mechanism of creationism seems appealing and rational. The only mechanism of creation of species that appears rational is a gradual transition of species from one kind (starting from simpler microbes) to another, changing very slightly and the difference only visible on a large time scale. That is the mechanism of evolution in a nutshell (leaving aside the details of mechanisms of evolutionary change like Mutation, Migration, Genetic Drift and Natural selection). To refute theory of evolution, in favor of creationism, creationists need a present a logical mechanism that could explain creation of species from its basic constituents other then this gradual change (which is the mechanism of evolution).

Peter Kinnon | 12 years ago | Reply Some of the many inaccuracies, misinterpretations and plain untruths advanced by creationists are identified here: http://sciencebasedlife.wordpress.com/2011/08/22/evolution-confusion/ This well presented article may be of great help in enabling the more reasonable and less committed to understand the realities of biological evolution. Those who have been thoroughly indoctrinated into the blind acceptance of superstitious myth, however, will continue to ignore what observations of our world have to tell us and cling to the fairy tales that are so dear to them. Sadly, it seems, that would include the majority of contributers to this blog,.

Gullible Nomore | 12 years ago | Reply @Yasir Anzar: I severely doubt that.

Yasir Anzar | 12 years ago | Reply @Cynical bystander I think Ignorant Rationalist is preparing for something big, and I hope, this time, he comes up with some substance and not an irrational prattling.

Gullible Nomore | 12 years ago | Reply @Cynical bystander: And with that can we safely assume that Mr. Ignorant Rationalist had nothing more to add to this debate? I believe so!

Cynical bystander | 12 years ago | Reply Evolution does not theorise about the origins of life, it simply explains how life once it originated, reached the present state it is in. . There are plenty of proming hypothesis out there explaining how life originated, they use available evidence to explain molecular recombination and the formation of complex organic chemicals which are necessary to life. . Technically speaking, life is a series of biochemical reactions at it most basic levels. This whole 'concept' of consciousness/soul comes in only when we discuss anthropic sentience and is not a scientific requirement. Biochemical reactions will occur in a certain way, given certain conditions and the first lifeforms on this planet were probably primordial organic molecules which formed in the specific conditions that existed on early Earth. This is mainly conjecture, as of now, but we can conclude that it is feasible by studying the nature of Poly Aromatic Hydrocarbons which about in comets and certain types of meteors, as well the nature of extremophiles existing in such taxing and primitive habitats like Oceanic volcanic vents. . http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080925102706.htm . This a hypothesis and needs more evidence to prove it, but provides a reasonably empirical approach to the question of how life arose. The true problem facing biologists right now is not whether life evolved or whether it had a natural origin. The prime problem right now is explaining the origin of multicellular lifeforms. They are working on that, but that's how science works. It is a process of cumalative iterations which work at constantly improving its veracity. . Magic however is the classical out of the blue viewpoint on such matters.

Ignorant Rationalist | 12 years ago | Reply @Shumaila: So you are saying that the initial trait of self-replication in order to survive was not driven by evolution? So somehow the first life, capable of self-replication and survival, came into being out of blue and then principles of evolution kicked in? Sounds quite fairy-tale like. Some proteins such as prion proteins have the characteristic to survive and replicate. They do not replicate in the sense that they have an elaborate machinery to polymerize DNA. Rather prion proteins "spread" by interacting with other proteins with normal conformation and resulting in formation of prion proteins. Just like how you need one infectious viral particle to get a full blown infection, you only need one prion protein molecule to get a prion protein disease as CJD or KURU.

Cynical bystander | 12 years ago | Reply Btw I do apologise for all the missing letters and words ending up in the wrong place, I have a wandering cursor with a mind of its own and I sometimes don't notice the fact that it's no longer where it's supposed to be.

Cynical bystander | 12 years ago | Reply @ignorant rationalist Before I start, I want to dwell on something of relevance to the debate on hand. The universe around us is absolutely averse to status quo. There is not a single phenomenon the universe that has remained static, so to believe that life is the exception to this norm is simply another form anthropomorphic conceit. Additionally there are no fossils of modern humans beyond a certain strata, which would either mean that we arrived into existence fully formed with all our current out of the blue (maybe an alien created us) or that we evolved to this state. Out of the blue= magic. . Quoting from his original paper (and not from some popular science website with incomplete info, as you did) . I shudder to think what would have happened if I had quoted from wikipedia. The "popular science" website you have so considerately sidelined with your condescending charm, provides links to peer reviewed articles. I rather consider the credibility of things than write them of at face value and peer reviewed do have a way of establishing credibility, nothing else comes close, especially not condescending write offs. "Most importantly, it took more than 10 years for this bacteria to “evolve” a new trait. Since Lenski has not shown, we do not know what mutations and at what locations were important for the emergence of this new trait. It might be very possible that this trait was already present in the starting E coli but was not being expressed and only one population was able to express it and in the presence of selective pressure it was able to grow." . Interesting. Your strawman now depends on the fact that this was not a 'natural' setting. I do note however, that you are not disputing the fact that this was evolution. I suppose that is start. Getting back to your objection, it is invalid because we are not debating about how evolution happens, we are debating about whether it happens at all. Therefore, no cigar. Also "natural" is not a scientific measure since there is nothing that can be objectively benchmarked as 'natural'. At the best we can argue that these are lab settings and may not reflect what happens outside, but that is not really an argument against the validity of the experiment itself. . "Moreover, the genome size of E. coli MG1655 is 4639675 bp (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/U00096). For simplicity’s sake, let us assume it is 4600000. The genome size of Homo sapiens is 3200000000. That is about 3195400000 base pairs larger. Assuming that Lenski’s bacteria gained 3 base pairs (since we do not know the mechanism, lets assume that three base pairs were added as part of 3 mutations which resulted in the emergence of new trait) in about 10 years, Lenski’s bacteria would need 10651333333.33 years (or rounding off 1.0 x 10^10) to reach the size of human genome. That is way longer than the age of earth. This calculation is very simplistic, since many traits arise by substitution of base pairs rather than addition, but it does provide a good estimation of time frames required to produce such huge changes. " . Yet more strawman, you seem to be under the impression that mutations are linear and function on basis of either a goemetric or arithemetic progression. Wrong assumption. Mutations can simulataneous, quick, slow whatever. Refer to metastasis of cancer cells. These mutations add up and are inherited and the selected to either survive or die out depending on whether they are beneficial or not. . "Another major concern with the experiment is that the emergence of citrate utilization does not mean E. coli has ceased to be E. coli. This experiment does not at all prove that human beings evolved in their totality through a similar process over billion of years from bacteria." . E-coli cannot utilise citrates, just like humans cannot breathe underwater because they have no gills. Before I go on, I must say that I am quite happy that you have not resorted to classical creationist responses until now, which is a change. Coming back to the discussion at hand, like I said before if humans grew gills, they would no longer be called human, they would be called something else. Especially if you are referring to bacteria where singular traits are of more importance than for larger and more complex organisms. For larger organisms, change adds up, and hundreds of millions of years can yield considerable changes. . *"And the experiment looked at only one trait, when we talk about thousands of proteins, the picture is even more complex. Such a simplistic experiment does not constitute a rock strong evidence on which one can positively claim “hey that is exactly how humans have evolved."* . I keep repeating this and I shall in probability continue to do so, evolution is not an instantaneous process, it is work in progress. If a control gene were to mutate, like it has happened for us humans, then it doesn't matter if it's thousands of protiens or millions, evolution is set in motion. There is "rock strong" evidence that control genes in humans have mutated.

Cynical bystander | 12 years ago | Reply @Ibrahim I can understand why you don't want to believe evolution, I am fine with it since it your personal belief and I have no right to comment on it, however, you appreciated ignorant rationalist's viewpoint on the matter which was an attempt at an objective rebuttal of evolution. That shows that you care about the fact that your viewpoint is objectively right. Now if that is the case, then you should subject your viewpoint to objective scrutiny too, else it would amount to double standards; evolution is required to objectively prove its claims but your beliefs are not. . I never said I am a retard who lives in a vacuum and thrives on ignorance. I am enjoying the debate and I WILL appreciate SUPERIOR intellect and arguments, which I am doing. . Neither have I am glad you at least enjoy debating about these things, you might not change your viewpoint, but you will at least be aware of alternate viewpoints. . The fact that you can’t recreate all those conditions either is the point that was being made….nothing but conjecture. . The fact that I cannot recreate that doesn't mean the answer is magic. The fact that I cannot recreate it simply means I as yet do not possess these capabilities. . “the alternative to creationism is evolution and only evolution” Exactly!!! Amlendu there is still trying to fool himself, maybe you can have a word with him. . Strictly speaking I find theological opposition to evolution amusing. It stems from an incorrect understanding of evolution where believers think that it is opposed to divine creation. Which is why creationism Vs evolution is a misnomer to start with. I don’t have to prove anything, because I admit to being a naive and humble little Believer, without the requisite knowledge to argue about evolution, which is really uncool for you. I, however, am am happy where I am and am only concerned with highlighting the contradictions in it with religion.

I AM EVOLVED | 12 years ago | Reply @Ignorant Rationalist: @Ibrahim Let me ask you guys few important questions, I hope someone will answer. (and if you are provoked enough to answer, please answer only YES, NO or MAYBE) Avoid to add personal comments on the questions, please keep it short. Thanks 1- Do you believe Islam is the only "TRUE" religion? 2- Do you believe ALLAH exist? 3- Do you believe there is something called SOUL and it doesn't die after we die, but in fact, it's destined to go to Heaven or Hell after day of judgement? 4- Do you believe Adam and Eve are the first humans? 5- Do you believe Quran is the only true words of GOD (and all the other heavenly books have been corrupted by human influence over time)

Shumaila | 12 years ago | Reply This is becoming more interesting :D @Ignorant Rationalist, I was under the impression that evolution per se only starts when there's replication/survival coming into play, so while it does apply to inert materials such as nucleotides, its only when those chemicals have formed themselves into a self-replicating structure. How they formed themselves into such a structure in the first place can't really be explained by evolutionary theory. Correct me if I'm wrong. Also agree with Gullible-NoMore, that its great to be skeptical (otherwise we wouldn't keep looking for evidence, which, as you've pointed out, is far from complete). But if you're actually rejecting evolution you'd need to postulate another, better scientific theory.

Gullible Nomore | 12 years ago | Reply @Ignorant Rationalist: Thanks for the reply. You're skeptical about theory of evolution, good for you, there's nothing wrong in being skeptical about stuff, this only gives rise to more studies/experiments etc. Keeping that in mind, why shouldn't there be an alternative explanation? You being a 'scientist' and a "lover of science" should know that you can't debunk a well established scientific theory just by saying, there isn't an alternative or there can't be one, can you? Hypothetically speaking, I can't just go out and say "hey big bang theory is a bunch of hogwash and the universe started by "I don't know and don't care to know." If I'm debunking it I have to come up with a better theory that fits the workings of nature and with empirical evidences to back it up. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidences." I know that "i don't know" is a good answer but we can't STOP there. If someone is stopping there, then the only thing that is satisfying them has to be dogma and nothing else.

Ignorant Rationalist | 12 years ago | Reply @Gullible Nomore: Why do you think there must be an alternate explanation? Just because I have qualms with many explanations derived from the evolutionary theory, it does not mean I have to have a dogma to believe in to feel all happy about knowing origins of human species. I just do not know how humans arose/created/formed. I try to remain agnostic, skeptical, always looking for a valid explanation, which I have not found yet.

Ibrahim | 12 years ago | Reply @Ignorant Rationalist: I am not really equipped to have an argument on that front so I will let you handle that....you are doing just fine on your own :D

Gullible Nomore | 12 years ago | Reply @Ignorant Rationalist: You sure like to ignore stuff don't you? Calling MJ a "fanboy" but had no qualms when Ibrahim went gaga over your comments. :) Anyway, I'm still waiting for your alternate explanation/theory/fact/dogma - whatever you may want to call it - to our existence. As I said above, don't get me wrong, we are talking science here and its been pretty informative thus far. I'm sure no one would mind hearing an opposing explanation, if any (albeit scientific), for the 10 billion+ species on this planet including human beings.

Ignorant Rationalist | 12 years ago | Reply I think my reply to Amlendu was not published. Here it is again: @Amlendu: If you are so right that theory of evolution only applies to living things, then Mr-oh-so-smart, can you explain to me how viruses, which are considered neither living things nor non-living things, mutate every year into newer subtypes? Evolution SHOULD apply to origin of life as well since evolution, as we know it, works on chemicals, nucleotides, genes and proteins. So why would not evolution work on chemicals that resulted in formation of life? Ribozymes have been hypothesized to evolve into proteins, you need to do more reading. Since ribozymes/proteins are chemicals with no life, they still show biological activity! And hence they are subject to evolution! @ Ibrahim: When talking to evolutionists or atheists, you should not bring God into the picture. Comments like "contradicting God" do not mean anything to atheists. It is always better to critique them in their own turf. @Mj: You must be really challenged. Moreover, your comment does not add any value to the discussion, rather than the fan-boy hoo laa laa.

Ibrahim | 12 years ago | Reply @Cynical Bystander: I said I would not waste my time pursuing the study of it myself. I never said I am a retard who lives in a vacuum and thrives on ignorance. I am enjoying the debate and I WILL appreciate SUPERIOR intellect and arguments, which I am doing. "Like I said before, life has had a headstart on us, recreate all those conditions and we might talk." The fact that you can't recreate all those conditions either is the point that was being made....nothing but conjecture. "the alternative to creationism is evolution and only evolution" Exactly!!! Amlendu there is still trying to fool himself, maybe you can have a word with him. I don't have to prove anything, because I admit to being a naive and humble little Believer, without the requisite knowledge to argue about evolution, which is really uncool for you. I, however, am am happy where I am and am only concerned with highlighting the contradictions in it with religion. @Amlendu: "Science wants to find answers to questions and if it goes against or along with the concept of God it does not care." You will never find your answers and will only work on conjecture and through probability. What is important and defines a person is what you are looking for...the fact that you are looking for only nature related evidence to the origins of man, along with studying evolution in general, and trying to equate us with a non-human ancestor, shows what you are looking for....THE THEORY WILL EVENTUALLY TALK ABOUT THE ORIGINS, WHICH IT ALREADY HAS BTW. Within the realm of this delusion, I appreciate the effort you people put into it. As opposed to this, there are people who learn the science of medicine and biology only to save lives and through the love of it, not to disprove God. Ignorant Rationalist seems to be one of these people and which is why I will put my money on him. My only point, which has been made, thankfully, is that a Believer would not go on a mission that is contradictory to what God has said. I don't really care what the rest of you do.

Mj | 12 years ago | Reply @Cynical bystander: That has to be the most intelligent, well thought-out, sourced, and rational comment to have been posted on this site. Bravo!

Ignorant Rationalist | 12 years ago | Reply Due to shortage of time, cynical bystander, I will only address one of the 4 experiments you mentioned. The one in which E coli evolved the ability to metabolize citrate. Quoting from his original paper (and not from some popular science website with incomplete info, as you did) @ http://www.pnas.org/content/105/23/7899.full "The long-delayed and unique evolution of the Cit+ phenotype might indicate that it required some unusually rare mutation, such as a particular chromosomal inversion, that does not scale with typical mutation rates." "In a long-term experiment, we propagated 12 populations of E. coli, all founded from the same ancestral strain, in a medium containing glucose, which is the limiting resource, and abundant citrate. For more than 30,000 generations, none of them evolved the capacity to use the citrate, although billions of mutations occurred in each population, such that any typical base pair mutation would have been tested many times in each one. It is clearly very difficult for E. coli to evolve this function. In fact, the mutation rate of the ancestral strain from Cit− to Cit+ is immeasurably low; even the upper bound is 3.6 × 10^−13 per cell generation, which is three orders of magnitude below the typical base pair mutation rate. Nevertheless, one population eventually evolved the Cit+ function, whereas all of the others remain Cit− after more than 40,000 generations." First of all, this was a controlled setting where bacteria were not allowed to die (glucose, the normally used sugar, was present in minimal amounts while citrate was in excess). I doubt nature is that kind for bacteria to divide for over 30,000 generations before it acquires a beneficial mutation. In open lands/seas, these bacteria probably would have been dead before they'd reach 30,000 generations. Despite the free opportunity to acquire the trait to utilize citrate, all other samples failed to do so. Most importantly, it took more than 10 years for this bacteria to "evolve" a new trait. Since Lenski has not shown, we do not know what mutations and at what locations were important for the emergence of this new trait. It might be very possible that this trait was already present in the starting E coli but was not being expressed and only one population was able to express it and in the presence of selective pressure it was able to grow. Moreover, the genome size of E. coli MG1655 is 4639675 bp (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/U00096). For simplicity's sake, let us assume it is 4600000. The genome size of Homo sapiens is 3200000000. That is about 3195400000 base pairs larger. Assuming that Lenski's bacteria gained 3 base pairs (since we do not know the mechanism, lets assume that three base pairs were added as part of 3 mutations which resulted in the emergence of new trait) in about 10 years, Lenski's bacteria would need 10651333333.33 years (or rounding off 1.0 x 10^10) to reach the size of human genome. That is way longer than the age of earth. This calculation is very simplistic, since many traits arise by substitution of base pairs rather than addition, but it does provide a good estimation of time frames required to produce such huge changes. Another major concern with the experiment is that the emergence of citrate utilization does not mean E. coli has ceased to be E. coli. This experiment does not at all prove that human beings evolved in their totality through a similar process over billion of years from bacteria. And the experiment looked at only one trait, when we talk about thousands of proteins, the picture is even more complex. Such a simplistic experiment does not constitute a rock strong evidence on which one can positively claim "hey that is exactly how humans have evolved."

Amlendu | 12 years ago | Reply @Ignorant Rationalist: You claim to be an MD?PHD and boast about spending 70% of your time in lab and being a huge lover of science BUT I fail to understand that why this small logic escapes your great brain, that no one is saying that theory of evolution has anything to do with origin of life. When you ask this question that what is the role of evolution in making improbabilty of life's existance in a probability, you forget that no one is claiming that theory of evolution has anything to do with origin of life it just explains origin of different species. One more comment for assorted creationists. Why do you think that the theory of evolution was deveoled by Darwin to assault your concept of God. This theory was not put forward to refute God it was a result of quest for knowledge. Science wants to find answers to questions and if it goes against or along with the concept of God it does not care. But why do you assume it to be an assault on God and start asking illogical questions like role of evolution in origin of life or big bang or working of universe. IT IS THEORY OF EVOLUTION NOT THEORY OF LIFE'S ORIGIN OR UNIVERSE. Get it. If you can logically debate the fossils and other evidence then argue or otherwise cling to your faith but do not masquarade as scientist.

Gullible Nomore | 12 years ago | Reply @Ignorant Rationalist: So you can oppose a theory that, so far, best explains the human existence but when someone asks you for a better explanation you rubbish their question by calling it a "red herring"? Interesting!

Ignorant Rationalist | 12 years ago | Reply @ Gullible Nomore: Maybe you are not aware, as a MD/PhD, I spend about 70% of my time in my lab and the rest of time is spent in the clinic. Hence, I can take time out, while sitting in the lab, to correct people's misunderstandings, or to shoot down egoistic boogies :) Plus, if you are passionate about something, you can always find time for it by sacrificing your sleep for it. I love science. And I love arguing about it. That being said, your argument was just a red herring.

Cynical bystander | 12 years ago | Reply "It is ironic that you compare the probability of existence black holes that of the cell/life/organism. First of all, what makes you think that black holes are statistically improbable to exist?" . Let me start by being a grammar nazi. When you mean improbable do you mean impossibe or improbable? Because you are using improbable to connote impossible here, which is not the same thing. Things can be statistically improbable and exist, but not if it is impossible. Do make your mind up. Existence of life is similarly improbable, yet it exists. You attribute this to magic, I attribute it to natural processes. Your claim is impossible, while mine is improbable. . "The very fact that they exist means they are not improbable. Actually, there are black holes in every galaxy and there are billions of galaxies in the universe, and this means they are not improbable at all!" . Wrong again. There are roughly 300 to 400 billion stars in our milky way. The number of black holes in comparison numbers between the hundreds and thousands. Even if I was to take it as say 2000 black holes (Which is an abnormally high number http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.4262) it would work out to a probabilty of 0.00000005. I wonder if that number seems like statistically probable to you? Really? . "However, as far as we are aware, life as we know it, only exists on Earth. Searches for life on other planets are increasing day by day by means such as SETI. Every few months, new exo-planets are found which might harbor life but so far we do not know of any form of life elsewhere aside from Earth." . That life exists makes it improbable, not impossible. Again you fail to get the difference. Coming back to this line of reasoning, what would happen when life is found to exist elsewhere? Would you rescind this logic? . "But it all goes back to Fermi paradox. So your comparison of improbability of emergence of a functional first cell from primordial soup with that of a black hole is extremely misleading." . Not really. It is made to highlight the fact that statistically improbable does not equate to statistically impossible. In that context, it serves the purpose rather admirably. We could say that life existing is more improbable than black holes existing (which is again rather wrong if we consider the drake equation), not, as you are making it out to be, impossible. Going back to the Drake equation, it would mean the probablity (probability, I hope you do understand the mathematical context used herein) of life existing greatly surpasses that of black holes existing. . "What role evolution had to play in this improbability of life becoming probable, you tell us!" . Let me see. The incidence of magic occuring in the universe is exactly zero. The existence of magic existing has therefore a probability value of zero. Hence any process which will lead to existence of life has to be natural, this has a probility of exactly one since the alternative is a null hypothesis. The process being natural, we then only argue about semantics. We'll refer to it as evolution since that is the terminology we've been using to describe the natural progress of life. . "Believers believe that life was improbable yet it emerged because of Divine interference. You believe because of evolution, yet you have not provided any evidence that evolution, and only evolution, resulted in emergence of first life and the emergence of human species." . Claims made by evolution that have been proved contrary to your claim: . a) Genes exist- Proved b) Genes mutate- Proved c) Mutations lead to speciation- Proved (since you consider this a contentious point, I'll elaborate) All mutations we have observed in gene sequences until now have contributed to differences in appearances and physiology on the exact areas where these would differentiate species. Cause and effect. QED. I'll be happy to provide specific examples with specific mutations if you so wish. . "3 billion years is actually not heck of a lot of time for life to actually survive through the harshest conditions if it was just guided by natural selection and mutations." . 3 billion years is a long time by any yardstick you wish to choose. It works out to about one fourth the age of the universe. You think that's a small number, then I suggest you consult with a cosmologist. Going further, that life has done exactly that is proof to the contrary. This process is obviously not magically since I've outlined the fact that magic does not exist. It can therefore only be evolution. If you have a better alternative, I am all ears. . "Even if we go by the base mutation rates that RNA polymerase makes in transcripting or that DNA polymerase makes in replicating, we should have seen new lifeforms/traits to come into existence in our own life times." . Really, so you think we can recreate the millions of random events both in terms of weather and other cosmic phenomenon in our labs all in a span of our lifetimes? Simple example, around 450 million years ago, cosmologists propose that a GRB occured which lead to the Ordovician-Silurian mass extinction. Are you telling me that these lab rats (excuse the pun) have been successful in recreating this phenomenon since it occured and resulted in mutations and obviously changed the ecosystem of Earth? Really? This is news to me. Another example, we (life) have been receiving 3 billion years of solar radiation of varying intensity. Can you recreate that for me in a lab? Besides these, we have phenomenon that no one knows anything about, how will you factor that in? You recreate the exact conditions that life has been subjected to, and then come back to me with your objections. . "Actually, mutagenesis when is increased in the lab on experiments with Drosophila, we still do not see new species arising. Even if we did, it would not mean that first life evolved in such a way." . Seems like you have a misconception as to how speciation takes place. Speciation is not an instantanteous process. It takes a long time. Many cumalative mutations and many generations (for example the three spined stickleback took 10,000 generations to diverge). Like I said before, life has had a headstart on us, recreate all those conditions and we might talk. Let me get to human gene manipulation- micro evolution vs macro evolution if you will. Dogs are a very good example, they indicate that given enough mutations appearances and physiology change even within the same species. Given enough time, they will add and yes you will have a different species. Which is why we no longer call our dogs wolves. . "But you assumed that these are evolutionary principles at work." . It is just that and nothing else. . That is quite misleading, just because we are selecting cerain traits, we are not creating life de-novo" . That is a strawman. We are not discussing the origins of life here, we are discussing how it evolved (pun intended). . "and nor are we creating new species." . Actually we have done so. The jungle fowl from which we domesticated the chicked is a completely different species. . "Over thousands of years as you’ve mentioned, I’d expected to have seen some new species as a result of our breeding practices!" . You will find it if you want to look for it. . "You say that just because a bone looks different yet looks similar, it means it evolved over time. This just conjecture, once again." . Not really. We need to work on the principle of Ockham's razor here. If something is functionally different in a radical manner, it should not bear any, I repeat any structural resemblance to something else. Yet Whales have pelvic bones. Why would limbless ocean living mammal require pelvic bones? Oh creationists have a whale of time (bad pun) devising in alternative explanations and surprisingly some of them even make sense. However that does nothing to change the fact that these are pelvic bones and their purpose in every other animal is to move their limbs, which whales do not happen to have. Therefore we can either conclude that whales had limbs once upon a time (which is in sync with their other land animal attribute namely breathing air and not dissolved air) or that it is just a huge coincidence (huge because of the uncanny resemblance and functional appearance). If we consider ockham's razor here, then evolution is the answer. . "Two monozygotic twins of human species can show variation in height, anatomy, personalities. The variation in anatomy of such twins can be astounding, one might have slightly bigger skull, the other might have long femur. This only shows the effect environment can have on growth." . So you actually state that enviroment has a role to play in how animals might appear? What do you think evolution is? The answer lies in the fact that we possess control genes which are responsible for turning on or off a whole set of other genes, these rarely mutate and even when they do, they are rarely hereditary, so the genetic difference between the twins can be termed cosmetic, but it is still evolution at work. We do not possess as much body hair as our ancestors did, we are on average, taller than our ancestors. However we have had a mere 500,000 years or so in our present state. Yet today, there are many sub species of humans, in this very short evolutionary span. . "If there can be so much variability in 2 monozygotic twins, looking at fossilized bones from 2 million years of human-like creatures and then conjecturing from that “hey this must have been the primitive human-like species because the metacarpals seem shorter and wider compared to ours”" . There are certain basic traits between the two twins that will set them apart as humans, no matter what. If we find similar traits (the plurality is important, I'll come to it shortly) in ape like creatures, we must either attribute it to coincidence or something else. When we expand this to include many other traits across many other animals, coincidence no longer works. Ape like ancestors showed a lot of similarity to us, from increased cranial capacity to, opposable thumbs, the spinal structure and a bipedal limb structure amongst others. You be hardpressed to explain this as coincidence since many of these traits are still present in us indicating that we either were born with it since the dawn of our species (when god created us) or we inherited them from these ancestors.Since magic is not an explanation, evolution is the alternative. . "seems to be guesswork than real science, especially when within human species you can have many hands with shorter and wider metacarpals while others with longer and thinner!" . Science either works on the principle of inductive reasoning, or deductive reasoning. Both can be termed "guesswork" but aren't because they function on the principle of reasonable certainty. All science (even that you take for granted) works on the principle. Additionally, both inductive and deductive reasoning need to be supported by empirical evidence to prove their credibility. Genetics does this for evolution pretty much everytime. . "Your example of Darwin’s finches only highlights that you have had not sit down and thought about it." . On the contrary, I have. I claim this honestly, while I see what you are indulging is strawman nit picking. I shall address your concerns below. . "Just because Darwin found finches with different beak sizes on different islands of Galapagos, it does not mean they were the result of a single finch specie that had somehow flown to the main island and then spread over to others with different habitats which resulted in emergence of new beak sizes." . Woah, that is a very long sentence indeed! That they descended from a common ancestor is pretty clear from the genetic evidence http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1689686/). "Moreover, research shows that the beak sizes were not different because of mutations as you assert, but rather due to differential expression of the proteins Bmp4 and calcium binding Calmodulin." . Really and what does Calmodulin regulate? I would suggest a more thorough study of the matter would actually support my statement using in fact your assertions. http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2006/08.24/31-finches.html Excerpt- "Researchers at Harvard Medical School have taken the story one step further. Using modern genetic analyses, they found a molecule that regulates genes involved in shaping the beaks of Darwin finches. "Calmodulin is a protein that binds and activates certain enzymes, which triggers a signal that eventually turns specific genes on or off," explains Arkhat Abzhanov, an evolutionary biologist at Harvard. These signals alter the behavior of cells responsible for beak sculpturing." "Additionally, changes is average characteristics of a population, due to variation within it, over time due to selective pressures does not mean new species is going to emerge if such a change continued on for billions of years." . I agree, evolution doesn't say any such thing. Looks like another strawman. It does not say it will. It might. That is not the only way evolution works, this is the old Darwinian approach to it, something no longer considered accurate or relevant. . "I simply have not seen any evidence which actually demonstrates this." . Like I said earlier, evolution is not something that should happen before our eyes for us to explain it. We do not see black holes form before our eyes and yet we accept they exist. . "Your last point is about similarity in bone structure as well as genetic chirality (not sure what you mean by that? Are you referring to the chirality of amino acids used by eukaryotes in synthesizing their proteins?) and how it necessitates common ancestry." . All, I repeat every single living creature on this planet share homochirality when it comes to DNA and RNA transcription. There is no preference in nature for one chirality over the other, unless of course it originated from the same source . "Your claim assumes that common ancestry always results in some similarity in the offspring." . Before we go further, this statement needs elaboration. It depends on how many generations the offspring is removed from its ancestor and the traits under consideration. Cellular structure for example is almost the same for all animals and plants. A bold claim with no evidence to back it up." . Again, as has repeatedly happened, no. Refer to aforementioned concept of cellular structure and the process of Meiosis. They are almost the same for every living organism. The exceptions to the rule, still share other characteristics given the right conditions (Viruses for example). . "Moreover, just because things are similar, it does not mean common descent. That is just one type of perceptual understanding of it, among thousands of others!" . I would be happy to hear a few of these alternatives. . Your belief in the matter is a personal opinion, you need to demonstrate a scientifically viable alternative as method of proving your claim, are you game? . I have done a lot of proving until now. While I see zero evidence from you. Not a single strand of proof am I yet to see from you. Btw asking a question in return of one, is a best way to avoid answering that question if you have no answer. See, I have tried to provide you with evidence, while you have done what? . "Just like how it is your personal opinion that proteins/amino acids are a later step in evolution from ribozymes." . How is that related to the debate at hand? . "The scientifically viable other alternative is the explanation that they have no relation whatsoever." . Not if your apply ockhams razor, not if your apply the law of causality, not if you apply reasonable certainty. Your idea of vast coincidences however has no takers for it. None. . "Ribozymes are made up of nucleotides and proteins are made up of amino acids. Nucleotides and amino acids have totally different chemical properties, in free state, as well as in polynucleotide and polypeptide forms! There is no demonstrable evidence which shows that an actual ribozyme ever in history of universe somehow changed to a protein made up of amino acids." . Wonderful, do demonstrate however the relevance of this rather well thought out strawman to debate at hand. . "Again and again you commit the mistake of comparing forces of nature such as gravity with life!" . Again you make the mistake of thinking that life is not governed by physical or chemical processes and think that life can only be governed by magic. What do you think biology is? Magic? . "Biological life is not a force." . Yet another strawman. The point of the analogy is not to showcase Evolution as a force, it was to showcase the fact that it is a natural phenomenon. . "of attraction like gravity is! You had a really bad physics and biology teacher, or maybe you spent too much as a bystander without ever attending the class." . I will not bother with these petty ego games, I am tired of them. However, I'll thank you for your astute observation, I do note that you have no objections to the magic analogy. We can thus safely assume that you are not an ignorant rationalist as you make out to be. I am glad that you agree that magic has no place in science and life. "You again have to demonstrate that bacteria of one species evolve into a bacteria of another." . http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html "Despite widespread use of antibiotics by modern man, which means increased mutation rates, we have not seen a totally new species of bacteria." . We must be using antibiotics for millions of years. We must be. That is why evolution fails. It doesn't demostrate itself even over millions of years. Or maybe not. "Stap aureus ONLY became a more resistant pathogen which we call Methicillin resistant Stap aureus. It did not become something else." . It is becoming something else. Give it time. . "I do not know what creationism has to do with my objections since I never claimed I am a creationist." . I am glad to know that. However the alternative to creationism is evolution and only evolution. Maybe you are unhappy with the evidence at hand or the mechanism used to explain it, that however means that evolution has to work more to fill the loopholes. Just like the basic concept of gravity proposed by newton was right, so to is the fact that life changes naturally (that is evolution in all its basic gist). The explanations will change depending on the amount of knowledge at hand. . "I just happen to be an individual who does not believe in anything without seeing the evidence for himself." . Admirable, but there is also such a thing as reinventing the wheel. There is a reason why we do not try to take apart our TV's today because we want evidence of how it works. The reason is because someone has already proved it does, all we need to understand is the mechanism. No I am not arguing for a dumbing down of our understanding, the thing is as the internet grows, so too does our ability to process information and so too does the information available to us. At a certain point, we will need to function on axiomatic principles whether we want it or not if we are to not be swamped by information chatter. That we can still function on the basis of deductive and inductive logic can help us overcoming this problem. . "My current reading of evolutionary biology, of which I must say I have done quite a lot, has failed to answer my objections." . There are two books I would recommend if you are serious. Read the blind watchmaker and the selfish gene by Richard Dawkins (no I am not going to talk about the god delusion because it's pretty boring and has nothing much to do with evolution). You can also refer to Stephen Jay Gould's "punctuated equilibrium hypothesis" which is also pretty interesting. . "Maybe it did answer your objections and you became a believer in it," . I do not "believe" in things, the same way you believe in gravity. I understand them and then choose to follow their reasoning if it logically appeals to me. . "it just means that I happen to be a bit more skeptical than you are." . No it means you have no idea about me to be making such value calls on what I believe and what I don't. I rarely suffer stereotyping by strangers especially those I meet for a brief instance on the internet and as such do not tag others with such cliches. I suggest you keep your cliches to yourself. I am curious however, are you skeptical about the theory of gravitation as well? It has the same amount of proof that ToE does. In fact just about everything in mainstream science is culpable of this "shortcoming". . "No. I never said that just because it is hard to believe it means it is wrong. Rather I said, since no one has shown scientifically in a lab through experimentation that evolution can correct itself, it remains hard to conclude/believe that evolution could result in emergence and the diversity of life as we see it by trial and error." . We cannot create black holes in labs, yet you have no such problems with them. . "Regarding anatomy, you still have to convince me through evidence that the variation in current day human skeletons is way smaller than the variation we see in fossils of near-humans. And even if the variation in those fossil skeletons is way higher than that which we see in current humans, it does not mean we somehow evolved from them or that we somehow are related to them through a common ancestors, that is just an assumption made by you." . I already provided you the reasoning. One coincidence-ok, two-ok, three-hmm, four- waitaminit, five-doesn't seem like coincidence to me. A coincidence can only explain so much. Beyond that, it would take willful conjecture to ignore the obvious. . "Onus is on you to show exactly by every tiny detail of every single protein in human body that it is related to those of the ancestors and evolved over the last 500,000 years." . Actually, this requirement is a strawman. Do we need to prove that every single protein in your body is related to that of your parents for us to make this assumption? And if we do not, does it mean then that these people are not your parents? We only need to establish reasonable certainty. That has been done. . "It is not a straw man. I have never seen human evolution taking place so I will need to look at historic evidence to see if such an event occurred." . You have never seen atoms with your eyes, the historical evidence for them is nascent, yet you believe in it wholeheartedly. To me, what it seems like is that you are practising double standards. You have no issues with scientific principles of other fields which function on the basis of similar concepts, yet you do have problem only with evolutionary biology even though it works on the same basis. I would question the motive behind this bias. If you are a scientific person as you claim to be, you should explain this contradiction from a scientific perspective. I promise you that, I will disprove the reasons whatever they might be. . "So far the historical evidence is unconvincing. Maybe you can be convinced easily, I am not." . I see evolution happening everywhere, I see evolution as the basic scientific explanation for how life changes, I see it providing answers in sync with observations, I see it sticking to the same scientific principles that other science works on, I see peer reviewed journals providing proof substantiating every observation made. You might not find that convincing, in lieu of which I am yet to see anything of substance from you, but I am happy with what I see. It is work in progress, we still have a lot to understand, but it is and it will always be better than magic did it or god it. . "As much as an argument from authority as Mr. Jehanzeb’s when he claimed to present some videos by the “experts.” . The video contains statement by evolutiobnary biologists, supporting statements made by him, therefore it is permissible and not a logical fallacy. Your Phd and MD is not in evolutionary biology and does not provide any proof apart from your increduility, so therefore your claim is a logical fallacy. . "You committed a logical fallacy of ad hominem here by attributing creationism to me as a way of mockery to tell others to not take my comments seriously since I am a creationist." . I did not call you a creationist. Yet another strawman argument. You are however defending the creationist viewpoint, I am debating that viewpoint here. You can quote me verbatim if I am wrong. . "Not so sharp I must say." . Since we are talking about Ad homs here let me point one right here. Let us not go back to the debate about my biology teacher either since that was not an ad hom either was it? Those who live in glass houses... so the saying goes. . "I never said I am a creationist." . The either provide proof for your claims and do stop defending creationist viewpoints and stop using creationist logic. That will help. "That is wholly your assumption, like many others thing you assume, and a totally wrong one, like many other of your assumptions." . A strawman as already pointed. Also the only one doing any assuming about everything ranging from the other person's "skeptical outlook" to his educational competence is you. I suggest some honest introspection is in order. . "Not sure what you are babbling here, but irrelevant to any of my claims." . Your tirade against let me see "the blog starter's highanded attitude to creationist claims" I think. I repeat again, moderate your language and make it more civil, I have been pretty patient and civil with you. My level of tolerance with rude people is lower than prostrate limbo dancers. . "The most telling of all statements is that fact that evolutionists have exactly zero evidence to support their claims." . In this article alone I've provided you with four peer reviewed research links to support my claims. You are yet to start so another fail. PS- Do excuse the typos.

Cynical bystander | 12 years ago | Reply I do hope my reply to ignorant rationalist's post is published, as far as I know, it contravenes no house rules, if it does, I'll be happy to edit whatever objectionable bits and republish it.

Cynical bystander | 12 years ago | Reply @Ibrahim On one had you say you are not bothered with any evidence or scientific approach, but on the other hand you say- "@Ignorant Rationalist: You are the man…" Seem like you are bothered, you just don't want to show it. I can understand if this your personal belief, but if you are going to claim this is an objective phenomenon, you need to then prove it objectively. Otherwise your claim is objectively untrue.

Ibrahim | 12 years ago | Reply @Ignorant Rationalist: You are the man...

Ibrahim | 12 years ago | Reply @Gullible Nomore: Adam didn't have a belly button either, so maybe he didn't have nipples either!!! Did you meet him? In fact, as far as I know, through religion, Adam and Eve's privates weren't visible either till they ate from the forbidden tree. @Yasir Anzar: As a Muslim, I believe that the Quran came from Allah! Therefore, telling me that it was picked up from mesopotamia and then added to Islamic culture as well shows what your thinking pattern is towards religion. Once again, my point was not to prove your theory right or wrong. My purpose was to let you know that we come from virtually different worlds. Meaning, that you scientists who are dearly clinging to this materialistic worldly life need to stop imposing your views on the rest of us! Really, live and let live! @Ignorant Rationalist: You the man! ....or woman :p

Shumaila | 12 years ago | Reply First of all, what makes you think that black holes are statistically improbable to exist? The very fact that they exist means they are not improbable. I trust the cynical bystander to counter your points, but I'd just like to point out regarding this one that the same argument could be used for life - the very fact that life exists means it is not improbable for it to have arisen. Even if we were to never reproduce it in a lab, that would not refute the point. As for the other arguments, the point remains that considering the evidence existing at the moment, evolution is the most applicable theory. We can and of course will wait for more evidence to emerge, and sooner or later the picture will clear out entirely. But putting forward another scientific theory that explains as closely or better the current material evidence, or producing new evidence that directly contradicts evolutionary theory - that is something no one has yet been able to do - or we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place. Until then, evolution rules the roost :P

Gullible Nomore | 12 years ago | Reply @Ignorant Rationalist: So you claim not to be a creationist, then what is your theory of human existence? How did humans come about if not evolved? Don't get me wrong I'm just trying to wrap my head around all of this. You talk about people making assumptions but when you said "What role evolution had to play in this improbability of life becoming probable,...You believe because of evolution, yet you have not provided any evidence that evolution, and only evolution, resulted in emergence of first life..." you lost your credibility. Biological evolution does not explain the emergence of life, it only explains the emergence of different species after the fact. As far as I know, no one here claimed that it does. By the way, for an MD/PhD you have awful lot of time to write such huge comments on an online blog post.

Ignorant Rationalist | 12 years ago | Reply @Loneliberal PK: Then Lionelliberal PK, why not do an experiment, take a chimpanzee sperm and egg, make all the necessary alternations in the DNA of both gametes such that it is exactly similar to that found in the human sperm and egg, and then let them fertilize and see if a human baby is born or not? That would be much more valid evidence then the conjecture you want me to believe in!

Ignorant Rationalist | 12 years ago | Reply @Shumaila: If you found my criticism/judgment offensive, I am sorry I cannot help you. But I can suggest you to help yourself by not taking any offense to what others have to say or by deflating the inflated ego.

Ignorant RationalistIgnor | 12 years ago | Reply @ Cynical Bystander: Never knew that bystanders can claim to be all-knowledgeable about things. Q1- ""It is probable, not impossible, but what are the odds? I do not know. But I know they are not much. ” . That is not a scientific argument. That is an argument from perceptual ignorance. That statistically improbable events occur in this universe is proven by the occurence of phenomenon like the okla nuclear reactor or the existence of black holes. 3 billion years is a pretty long enough time to consider statistical quirks as more than quirks. We’ve been doing our own bit of genetic manipulation with domesticated animals and plant cultivars since thousands of years. That is nothing but evolutionary principles at work." A1- It is ironic that you compare the probability of existence black holes with that of the cell/life/organism. First of all, what makes you think that black holes are statistically improbable to exist? The very fact that they exist means they are not improbable. Actually, there are black holes in every galaxy and there are billions of galaxies in the universe, and this means they are not improbable at all! However, as far as we are aware, life as we know it, only exists on Earth. Searches for life on other planets are increasing day by day by means such as SETI. Every few months, new exo-planets are found which might harbor life but so far we do not know of any form of life elsewhere aside from Earth. But it all goes back to Fermi paradox. So your comparison of improbability of emergence of a functional first cell from primordial soup with that of a black hole is extremely misleading. What role evolution had to play in this improbability of life becoming probable, you tell us! Believers believe that life was improbable yet it emerged because of Divine interference. You believe because of evolution, yet you have not provided any evidence that evolution, and only evolution, resulted in emergence of first life and the emergence of human species. 3 billion years is actually not heck of a lot of time for life to actually survive through the harshest conditions if it was just guided by natural selection and mutations. Even if we go by the base mutation rates that RNA polymerase makes in transcripting or that DNA polymerase makes in replicating, we should have seen new lifeforms/traits to come into existence in our own life times. Actually, mutagenesis when is increased in the lab on experiments with Drosophila, we still do not see new species arising. Even if we did, it would not mean that first life evolved in such a way. Regarding genetic manipulation with domesticated animals, who denied that! I am fully aware of it, and am aware of sexual selection among humans too. I married a blue eyed woman because I considered her to possess "better genes" which will help my progeny to survive. But you assumed that these are evolutionary principles at work. That is quite misleading, just because we are selecting certain traits, we are not creating life de-novo and nor are we creating new species. Over thousands of years as you've mentioned, I'd expected to have seen some new species as a result of our breeding practices! Q2: You raise vague objections about anatomy- “But just because we have found many fossils which are very similar to ours yet are also different, it is not a proof of divergence and speciation” but that is exactly what it is, a bone which is similar yet dissimilar ours points to speciation and divergence. It indicates that this bone was once upon a time used for something similar but evolved over time to accomodate the animals evolutionary progress and this is why it looks different. . Do mutations pass on to offspring? Sure they do. Does this result in speciation? Sure it does, refer to the revesby island Tiger snake or the finches in the galapagos. Therefore evolution happens, whether you think it’s statistically improbable or not is besides the point. . Fossil records show a remarkable similarity in bone structure and constitution, that probably begs the question as to why, if we aren’t related. Additionally genetic similarity alongwith its chirality points to a common ancestor and not an intelligent creator. A2: You say that just because a bone looks different yet looks similar, it means it evolved over time. This just conjecture, once again. Two monozygotic twins of human species can show variation in height, anatomy, personalities. The variation in anatomy of such twins can be astounding, one might have slightly bigger skull, the other might have long femur. This only shows the effect environment can have on growth. If there can be so much variability in 2 monozygotic twins, looking at fossilized bones from 2 million years of human-like creatures and then conjecturing from that "hey this must have been the primitive human-like species because the metacarpals seem shorter and wider compared to ours" seems to be guesswork than real science, especially when within human species you can have many hands with shorter and wider metacarpals while others with longer and thinner! Your example of Darwin's finches only highlights that you have had not sit down and thought about it. Just because Darwin found finches with different beak sizes on different islands of Galapagos, it does not mean they were the result of a single finch specie that had somehow flown to the main island and then spread over to others with different habitats which resulted in emergence of new beak sizes. Moreover, research shows that the beak sizes were not different because of mutations as you assert, but rather due to differential expression of the proteins Bmp4 and calcium binding Calmodulin. Additionally, changes is average characteristics of a population, due to variation within it, over time due to selective pressures does not mean new species is going to emerge if such a change continued on for billions of years. I simply have not seen any evidence which actually demonstrates this. Your last point is about similarity in bone structure as well as genetic chirality (not sure what you mean by that? Are you referring to the chirality of amino acids used by eukaryotes in synthesizing their proteins?) and how it necessitates common ancestry. Your claim assumes that common ancestry always results in some similarity in the offspring. A bold claim with no evidence to back it up. Moreover, just because things are similar, it does not mean common descent. That is just one type of perceptual understanding of it, among thousands of others! Q3. But again, it remains hard for me to blindly believe that ribozymes were the prequels of protein/amino acid evolution. . Your belief in the matter is a personal opinion, you need to demonstrate a scientifically viable alternative as method of proving your claim, are you game? A3. Just like how it is your personal opinion that proteins/amino acids are a later step in evolution from ribozymes. The scientifically viable other alternative is the explanation that they have no relation whatsoever. Ribozymes are made up of nucleotides and proteins are made up of amino acids. Nucleotides and amino acids have totally different chemical properties, in free state, as well as in polynucleotide and polypeptide forms! There is no demonstrable evidence which shows that an actual ribozyme ever in history of universe somehow changed to a protein made up of amino acids. Q4. *Well, that is one aspect of evolution. . What makes you think we are governed by something different? Biologically all life on this planet share the same basic characteristics, what is applicable to one is also applicable to the other. If bacteria evolve, then so do other life forms; the only difference is the rates at which they evolve. It’s like saying gravity is only applicable to the Earth and no other heavenly body. Natural phenomenon do not take your religious preferences into consideration. . Lastly, The alternative to evolution is not magic, the alternative to evolution is still evolution. Darwin’s theory which had no idea of genetics had to evolve in order to accomodate this new knowledge. As we fine tune out understanding of evolution so too does it evolve. Every single objection raised by you here is more than doubly applicable to creationism, don’t see you having any problems there. A4. Again and again you commit the mistake of comparing forces of nature such as gravity with life! Biological life is not a force.of attraction like gravity is! You had a really bad physics and biology teacher, or maybe you spent too much as a bystander without ever attending the class. You again have to demonstrate that bacteria of one species evolve into a bacteria of another. Despite widespread use of antibiotics by modern man, which means increased mutation rates, we have not seen a totally new species of bacteria. Stap aureus ONLY became a more resistant pathogen which we call Methicillin resistant Stap aureus. It did not become something else. I do not know what creationism has to do with my objections since I never claimed I am a creationist. I just happen to be an individual who does not believe in anything without seeing the evidence for himself. My current reading of evolutionary biology, of which I must say I have done quite a lot, has failed to answer my objections. Maybe it did answer your objections and you became a believer in it, it just means that I happen to be a bit more skeptical than you are. Q5. Your argument boils down to a couple of logical fallacies- . a) Personal increduility- Eg: you get a picture which is so convoluted that it is hard to believe that over billion of years evolution has had time to successfully correct itself to result in the formation of a cell which could eventually survive and thrive. I think I can reasonably say from my experience that variation within human anatomy is so huge that it becomes hard to evaluate the variation in the fossilized skeletons and that of present-day humans. A5. No. I never said that just because it is hard to believe it means it is wrong. Rather I said, since no one has shown scientifically in a lab through experimentation that evolution can correct itself, it remains hard to conclude/believe that evolution could result in emergence and the diversity of life as we see it by trial and error. Regarding anatomy, you still have to convince me through evidence that the variation in current day human skeletons is way smaller than the variation we see in fossils of near-humans. And even if the variation in those fossil skeletons is way higher than that which we see in current humans, it does not mean we somehow evolved from them or that we somehow are related to them through a common ancestors, that is just an assumption made by you. Onus is on you to show exactly by every tiny detail of every single protein in human body that it is related to those of the ancestors and evolved over the last 500,000 years. Q6. . b) strawman- Eg: spend time on the bed-side with patients dying from horrible failures of their internal organs. I never observed/witnessed/measured the emergence of the first human being(s) from its/their very immediate ancestors . A6. It is not a straw man. I have never seen human evolution taking place so I will need to look at historic evidence to see if such an event occurred. So far the historical evidence is unconvincing. Maybe you can be convinced easily, I am not. Q7. c) Argument from authority- Eg: Being a MD/PhD myself, . Maybe if you first pointed out the scientific evidence for creationism we could start taking it seriously? A7. As much as an argument from authority as Mr. Jehanzeb's when he claimed to present some videos by the "experts." You committed a logical fallacy of ad hominem here by attributing creationism to me as a way of mockery to tell others to not take my comments seriously since I am a creationist. Not so sharp I must say. I never said I am a creationist. That is wholly your assumption, like many others thing you assume, and a totally wrong one, like many other of your assumptions. Q8. Lastly, no idea is sacrosanct, so to demand respect for any idea, much less one that has no proof to it, is the hallmark of intolerant bigotry. Even evolution is open to being questioned, so you cannot expect religion to be exempted from this requirement. A8. Not sure what you are babbling here, but irrelevant to any of my claims. Q9. The most telling of all statements is that fact that creationists have exactly zero evidence to support their claims. For all their problems with evolution, they atleast have proof which they can look to refute, but no such luck with creationism. If they were half as demanding about their own beliefs, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. A9. The most telling of all statements is that fact that evolutionists have exactly zero evidence to support their claims.

Gullible Nomore | 12 years ago | Reply @Ibrahim: No you don't have to ask God for answers, you can find answers to those in science, well for most of them any way, not all mind you. In any case, to answer the "men having nipples" conundrum, the most prevailing explanation is that all fetuses are developed as females at the beginning and whether a fetus remains a male or female occurs later (during gestation process). Therefore, nipples come before the determination of gender and that is why men have nipples. But what's the explanation in religion for it? I believe according to religious doctrine, women were created after men, so it begs the question, why did Adam have nipples?

Yasir Anzar | 12 years ago | Reply @Ibrahim "No problem with evolution itself….only the origin of humans and the common ancestor theory. I would prefer to take the Word of God for it and not try to find ways to disprove Him." Ok Ibrahim, I'll keep it short and after that I will leave you alone so we can subscribe to "live and let live" policy. You are a guy with faith and its not easy to let go of Faith you were born with and cherished with your family through out your life. It defines your life, gives you purpose and you want to defend it. Here is the deal, For you, humanity started with Adam and Eve and however god created them first. You don't want to put this belief to test because its impossible to prove it in the first place. Second, Adam and Eve story was developed during mesopotamian era and has lingered ever since. Through out history, this idea perpetuated to understand our existence, especially became prevalent in Tribes of Arabs such as "Bnu Hashim, Bnu Israel and Bnu Quresh." Since islam's origin was from Bnu Quresh, its no surprise that story of Adam and Eve prevailed in Islam and in Prophet's primiive mind. In today's physical world with understanding of science we have now, you can just tell (with as little of brain as 3rd grader) that story of adam and eve is just stupid and a fairy tale (it's as real as disney's stories on disney channel) but its ok if you believe in it without any empirical evidence. I have come to understand that human mind is an amazing thing where imbecil ideas can become doctrine to ones life. You have a good life!

Ibrahim | 12 years ago | Reply @Shumaila: My limited knowledge about it is intentional as I don't find any need to pursue it. It would be as productive for me as studying about the tooth-fairy!!! The decision to even bother studying it is based on a very basic question which you refuse to answer. Would I have to give up my faith to pursue it and believe in it? The answer is a YES which is why I am not interested. The details of how valid it is or not is something for you guys to worry about. My only purpose is to let Believers know that when you say a person can believe in the theory and have faith in God at the same time is false and misleading lies. The medical technicalities are your headache. You, however, refuse to answer my question and want me to engage in a technical debate with you for which I have no desire. I know exactly where I stand I have find no need to compete with you scientists in this monkey race! Best of luck!

Shumaila | 12 years ago | Reply @ Ignorant Rationalist - It is not my job to educate people like Ibrahim, who hold an opinion on evolutionary theory while possessing only limited knowledge regarding it. Despite that, I have personally attempted to address any queries he came up with. I also simply insisted he read more about it. In a healthy debate especially on scientific grounds, it is not customary to accept the others' point of view unless they provide evidence. My "arrogance and denial" are based on the evidence that backs up my views. His arrogance and even stronger denial, which you seem to have missed, has not been backed up by any evidence in this debate, only one query after another, all of which could have been answered by simply opening a book. Pointing out criticism in the opposition's theory does not make the evidence for your own stronger. I hope you know that. . Your judgement of my suitableness as a medical student I find both offensive and irrelevant. This is not a clinical setting, and I am speaking here as a scientist (science lover, anyhow) and not a physician.

Cynical bystander | 12 years ago | Reply The most telling of all statements is that fact that creationists have exactly zero evidence to support their claims. For all their problems with evolution, they atleast have proof which they can look to refute, but no such luck with creationism. If they were half as demanding about their own beliefs, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Cynical bystander | 12 years ago | Reply @ignorant rationalist- . The crux of your objections comes down to- . "It is probable, not impossible, but what are the odds? I do not know. But I know they are not much. " . That is not a scientific argument. That is an argument from perceptual ignorance. That statistically improbable events occur in this universe is proven by the occurence of phenomenon like the okla nuclear reactor or the existence of black holes. 3 billion years is a pretty long enough time to consider statistical quirks as more than quirks. We've been doing our own bit of genetic manipulation with domesticated animals and plant cultivars since thousands of years. That is nothing but evolutionary principles at work. . You raise vague objections about anatomy- "But just because we have found many fossils which are very similar to ours yet are also different, it is not a proof of divergence and speciation" but that is exactly what it is, a bone which is similar yet dissimilar ours points to speciation and divergence. It indicates that this bone was once upon a time used for something similar but evolved over time to accomodate the animals evolutionary progress and this is why it looks different. . Do mutations pass on to offspring? Sure they do. Does this result in speciation? Sure it does, refer to the revesby island Tiger snake or the finches in the galapagos. Therefore evolution happens, whether you think it's statistically improbable or not is besides the point. . Fossil records show a remarkable similarity in bone structure and constitution, that probably begs the question as to why, if we aren't related. Additionally genetic similarity alongwith its chirality points to a common ancestor and not an intelligent creator. . But again, it remains hard for me to blindly believe that ribozymes were the prequels of protein/amino acid evolution. . Your belief in the matter is a personal opinion, you need to demonstrate a scientifically viable alternative as method of proving your claim, are you game? . *Well, that is one aspect of evolution. . What makes you think we are governed by something different? Biologically all life on this planet share the same basic characteristics, what is applicable to one is also applicable to the other. If bacteria evolve, then so do other life forms; the only difference is the rates at which they evolve. It's like saying gravity is only applicable to the Earth and no other heavenly body. Natural phenomenon do not take your religious preferences into consideration. . Lastly, The alternative to evolution is not magic, the alternative to evolution is still evolution. Darwin's theory which had no idea of genetics had to evolve in order to accomodate this new knowledge. As we fine tune out understanding of evolution so too does it evolve. Every single objection raised by you here is more than doubly applicable to creationism, don't see you having any problems there. . Your argument boils down to a couple of logical fallacies- . a) Personal increduility- Eg: you get a picture which is so convoluted that it is hard to believe that over billion of years evolution has had time to successfully correct itself to result in the formation of a cell which could eventually survive and thrive. . And . I think I can reasonably say from my experience that variation within human anatomy is so huge that it becomes hard to evaluate the variation in the fossilized skeletons and that of present-day humans. . b) strawman- Eg: spend time on the bed-side with patients dying from horrible failures of their internal organs. I never observed/witnessed/measured the emergence of the first human being(s) from its/their very immediate ancestors . c) Argument from authority- Eg: Being a MD/PhD myself, . Maybe if you first pointed out the scientific evidence for creationism we could start taking it seriously? . Lastly, no idea is sacrosanct, so to demand respect for any idea, much less one that has no proof to it, is the hallmark of intolerant bigotry. Even evolution is open to being questioned, so you cannot expect religion to be exempted from this requirement.

Umair | 12 years ago | Reply Jahanzaib, you are being too rational and logical. And neither of these are traits our people can relate to.

Amlendu | 12 years ago | Reply @Ibrahim and all other creationist masquerading here as scientist: After seeing so many of your comments and repeated reference to "monkey ancestor" I have figured out what is your problem with the theory of evolution. It hurts your ego. You believe so much in centrality of human beings in universe. You need creationist fairy tales to sooth your ego that the whole universe, earth and all the life was created by God keeping humans in mind and humans were created in God's image so they are superior to all other life forms and somehow above other animals. You want to be comforted that there is a purpose in your life and you are not just another stage in evolutionary life cycle. For your ego to e intact humans have to be central cause of universe and you cannot even imagine that we are not the final product and life is still evolving and there may different type of life may be much more evolved than us somewhere else in universe. Theory of evolution brutally bursts this super ego. It tells us that we are just another species of life form not different form animals leave alone monkeys just with slightly more evolved frontal lobes in our brain; which allows us to have consciousness and develop language. It tells us that universe or even earth was not created for us, we just happen to be more adapt in survival to last few million years as species but may be in another few million years we'll not survive and there would be other species on earth. This realization that we are nothing but accidental speck of conscious dust in this vast universe without any special purpose hurts our massive ego so we refute the theory of evolution even if it has a massive weight of evidence behind it and put forward fantastic theories in its place. One another comment: somewhere in this chain I saw a comment referred to Shumaila on her being a medical student, "If you can nit respect others point of view, you cannot be a good physician." To that person I'll ask a simple question, "If you go to your doctor with pain in your stomach and he prescribes medicine but at the same time takes advice from a sorcerer, a voodoo practitioner, an occultist and then asks you to spend a night in graveyard pinning voodoo dolls while hanging from a tree in your underwear. Will you trust this kind of doctor because he respects everyone's point of view about your illness or run away at the first chance."

Ibrahim | 12 years ago | Reply @Ignorant Rationalist: There should be a "super like" button for your posts!

Ibrahim | 12 years ago | Reply @Yasur Anzar: We have already covered the common ancestor part...still a monkey, if it's not human in this form. Science does work on guesses till a new theory/research comes up. About a month back Einstein's theory of relativity was in danger with the possibility of the particles traveling faster than light! The fact that the gene of chimps has not been mapped and people try to claim that we are 98% based on tests on a few common proteins is a pretty big guess. Vaccinations have nothing to do with the theory of evolution. It has to do with biology and medicine itself. If someone doesn't believe in the theory, they can still work on vaccinations. It is not a prerequisite! I have already said I do not have a problem with evolution itself. My only bone of contention is the origin of humans. Please stop with the circuitous arguments, we have already covered this stuff...AND I am not against science, I also live in this world...I just think that we humans are still discovering a lot and it is good, but a little humility would not hurt us. The second we have a half-baked theory we start challenging God. There is a mental problem that we need to address...no need to outlaw science or do science bashing. @SHUMAILA: Same point for you...please stop with the circuitous arguments. No problem with evolution itself....only the origin of humans and the common ancestor theory. I would prefer to take the Word of God for it and not try to find ways to disprove Him. @@GULLIBLE NOMORE: Those are questions you should address to God. I don't waste my time thinking of such stuff and I have told you that I am not an expert in the field. I have never denied the similarity in design. All I am saying is that similarities do not necessarily mean there was a mutation process taking place. We all could be distinct instances with similarities. None of you actually saw the mutation take place, you are only guessing. The only way to be sure is to build a time machine and see it happening. As for the downs syndrome and natural disasters, God has different ways to test different people. Maybe he is testing the parents with a form of hardship. Once again, these questions are for God to answer. Even if you attempt to answer these questions, there will still be a great deal of conjecture involved. My job is not to fight with you about these questions; my only point is that for a Believer, it is understood that Adam was the first man, made from dust. I believe in it, all of it, because it has come to us from our Lord. The pre-historic homo-sapien must have been a descendant of Adam then. No amount of questions or smooth talking is going to make me change my mind about that. You may pursue the business of trying to prove God wrong and/or that He doesn't exist. FINALLY THE MOST IMPORTANT AND FINAL POINT: For you to get someone like me to believe in the theory of evolution regarding the creation of man, you will have to get me to reject my faith first. There is no other way for me to believe in that. This is the point I have been making, which some of you are sneakily trying to cover by saying that you can believe in both at the same time!!! You cannot! Argue with me about this, if you must argue with me. You may laugh at me for being gullible by choosing faith over being an atheist, but I have faith that I WILL have the last laugh!

Ignorant Rationalist | 12 years ago | Reply @Shumaila: I cannot believe that you are a medical student and will one day be providing care to humans like myself and others. Your arrogance and denial of others' views is simply unbecoming of a physician. You have not addressed Ibrahim's points yet you questioned how much years he has spent in studying biology. That is a logical fallacy itself, if you are aware which I doubt you are. You are asserting non-sensical things to Ibrahim's character and then refuting them and that is supposed to somehow make us believe that Ibrahim as been refuted. I have to yet to see you address the point Ibrahim raised when he said similarity does not mean descent through modification.

Ignorant Rationalist | 12 years ago | Reply Ah the irony of the internet! It provides access to information in such a seamless way yet it also deludes one into thinking that he/she is an expert of the ulterior kind, descended from heaven with all the hoopla, and you get the idea. Mr. Jahanzain Haque, your condescending attitude towards other members of human species, no matter how idiotic they are and no matter how much they make fun of your dearly held belief in evolution, makes you just like them, a pathetic waste of evolutionary resources. I hope you will try to not be a waste of Mother Nature's resources which invested so much in you by creating you, but rather you will give something back to Mother Nature through love, respect and composure during times of distress. At the moment, I think you might be a neanderthal, due to your shallow morals and etiquette, and are just using mimicry, a strategy employed by animals as a part of evolution, to get benefits that Homo sapiens get! As regards to evolution, I am skeptical about the assertion that the first human being emerged from its very immediate ancestor through an evolutionary naturalistic process. Being a MD/PhD myself, I have had the opportunity to invest lots of time to study biological evolution and also to spend time on the bed-side with patients dying from horrible failures of their internal organs. I never observed/witnessed/measured the emergence of the first human being(s) from its/their very immediate ancestors, and hence I try to neutrally analyze whatever proposition is forwarded in regards to that. Regarding the fossil evidence being extensive, I do not doubt that at all. But just because we have found many fossils which are very similar to ours yet are also different, it is not a proof of divergence and speciation. I am not a paleontologist, anthropologist or an anatomist, but I did have a good exposure to human anatomy in medical school and I think I can reasonably say from my experience that variation within human anatomy is so huge that it becomes hard to evaluate the variation in the fossilized skeletons and that of present-day humans. I am sure paleontologists have their own techniques to correct for this "noise" in the data but I am still not convinced the methods are fool-proof. That was at gross level, at a DNA/nucleotide/gene level, it gets even more complicated. You get one mutation in proto-oncogenes or suppressor genes, and all hell breaks loose in the form of a malignant tumor which almost always results in the death of that individual. Yes, there are silent mutations which can be transmitted to the new progeny but it is so complex of a system that it is hard to map out at the moment if such mutations can result in life de-novo. Then throw in epigenetics which turn genes on/off in addition to the regular transcriptional control, you get a picture which is so convoluted that it is hard to believe that over billion of years evolution has had time to successfully correct itself to result in the formation of a cell which could eventually survive and thrive. It is probable, not impossible, but what are the odds? I do not know. But I know they are not much. Now maybe you will remind me of ribozymes and viruses as how they probably were the oldest form of "life." Perhaps. Ribozymes show protein like catalytic activity. But again, it remains hard for me to blindly believe that ribozymes were the prequels of protein/amino acid evolution. Rahman: You mentioned that medical doctors who do not believe in evolution, their license must be revoked. You really do sound desperate, do not you? As long as a physician can diagnose, treat, manage, refer, empathize and heal patients in an ethical and scientifically guided way, you do not have the right to revoke his/her license based on what he/she believes in. If you insist then may I suggest that humans as a whole should revoke your license to be called a human because of the collective misery you will bring on humanity by limiting their resources to provide health care to each other?! Someone else here mentioned that how can physicians be competent when they do not believe in evolution since they are not even aware of the resistance to antibiotics etc. Well, that is one aspect of evolution. Just because bacteria evolve and become resistance to antibiotics, it does not mean they evolve in more complex new species. Despite high selective pressure on Staph aureus, the methicilin resistant stap aureus is still a streptococcus bacteria. All that has happened has that those staph with the ability to resist antibiotics thrived in the face of selective pressure and today we have to deal with the resistant pathogen. No rocket science. I think this much actually even Prophet of Islam believed in when he said that his army should be well-armed and well-prepared because the fittest will survive. So they prepared for the war by changes, just like how staph aureus did, and they won the battles, just like how MRSA did. In short, I am not convinced by your superficial argument that evolution is the best explanation of all the traits we see in living things. Regards.

Gullible Nomore | 12 years ago | Reply @Sanity: There's a very simple scientific reason behind, but i'll wait for Ibrahim's response first before I give you the answer.

Sanity | 12 years ago | Reply @Gullible Nomore: This is turning out to be a very knowledgeable discussion. Dear, Gullible Nomore, could you explain your point #2 in more detail. 2) Why do men have nipples? Men certainly never use them in any productive way. Many thanks in advance.

Yasir Anzar | 12 years ago | Reply @ibrahim "I do think God dropped us here one-by-one or in any order that he chose! When God sent humans down to earth, as the three major religions believe, the earth already existed." This is a claim (or statement) you are making based on your faith, but remember that extraordinary claims required extraordinary evidence. Evolution via natural selection is an extraordinary claim backed by extraordinary empirical evidences. But, your claim is far-fetched and extremely capricious. It holds no ground, primarily suggestive and philosophical in nature. "The fact is, it is possible that humans just recently arrived on earth relative to its actual existence with other life forms in stages." (if that is the definition of FACT for you, then brother, you need some serious understanding of difference between FACT and OPINION) You said the "The fact is, its is possible" so you basically contradicted your own self within once sentence. Please understand science is rigorous and harsh on unverified claims.

Gullible Nomore | 12 years ago | Reply @Ibrahim: A modern day homo-sapien is no different from pre-historic day homo-sapien. In any case, us evolving from similar life forms is not a "guess." We have genetic and fossil evidence to back it up. Since you're asking questions, I would like to ask you a few also and please answer wisely no "belief and faith" BS. 1) If God is so perfect and our genetic similarity suggests that its His hand behind our creation, then why did the Perfect one leave the "tail gene" in us? We definitely don't need a tail but we still have the genes for it, heck! we even have the tail bone. 2) Why do men have nipples? Men certainly never use them in any productive way. 3) If indeed god is perfect and all his perfect creations suggests that, then why do we have children with down syndrome? Or children who are born with terminal illnesses? 4) Why do a gazillion innocent people die off of natural distasters every year?

Shumaila | 12 years ago | Reply So He deliberately dropped us down in evolutionary order but doesn't want us to accept evolution? ROFL. Dude, I'm not going to convince anyone. Everyday, people read, research and study this, see the truth, appreciate the concept, and accept it themselves :) believers included. Go on denying it if you like. But if I were you, I would start looking for Quranic verses that support the theory, cos thats what believers will be doing before long :P

Yasir Anzar | 12 years ago | Reply @ibrahim "Can you really say with a certainty that we had to have evolved from them? I don't think you can because either thing can be true with the existing evidence." Just want to clarify that we are not evolved from chimpanzees but we share a common ancestor from which we both are evolved. "It is just a matter of what we want to believe, which is dependent on whether we are believers or not. There is no "fact" as far as these things are concerned, only guesses." Science doesn't work on guesses. We won't be launching a probe around the solar system on the guess "that according to theory of gravitation, the probe may get the gravitational pull from other planets" (It's done on certainty basis since its testable) If we don't hold evolution as fact, then we won't need to keep creating enhanced vaccinations for immunity every year to counter bacterial resistance. Bacteria has very short life span and they reproduce exponentially so its easy to observe micro-evolution as new variation in DNA is adapting to given environment. Human or any other animal's DNA work on the same basis, but since they have slower (longer) reproduction period, it's hard to observe the same phenomenon within our life span. Evolution Works! Any microbiologist, geneticist, paleontologist, astrobiologist, zoologist would verify that EVOLUTION is fact and it WORKS!

Ibrahim | 12 years ago | Reply @Shumaila: So what you're saying is that I need to become a scientist in order to even ask you guys questions? Lovely! And, yes, I do think God dropped us here one-by-one or in any order that he chose! When God sent humans down to earth, as the three major religions believe, the earth already existed. Is it possible that God prepared the earth, before sending us down, with all those eras that you mention for which you have fossils? The fact is, it is possible that humans just recently arrived on earth relative to its actual existence with other life forms in stages. I would study all that you are asking me to, if you people were able to answer my question in my last post to Jack L. The fact of the matter is that you cannot change that and it is a matter of belief versus non-belief. A Believer has no need to pursue the theory of evolution because IT DOES CONTRADICT FAITH!!! There is no premiss to pursue evolution if you believe in God as the Creator!!! In other words, for me to believe in the theory, I have to deny what I believe God has said to us, which means throwing my faith out the window. Belief in God and humans in stages through evolution cannot go hand-in-hand. Please stop trying to convince Believers. You people have the right to pursue anything you want as atheists but do not try to misguide Believers. I will thank you from the depths of my heart!!!

Shumaila | 12 years ago | Reply @Ibrahim, like I said, you need to read up on the evidence for Evolution. This question of yours, as well as your earlier one about natural selection, show that you simply have not read up enough about it and base your opinions on invalid creationist arguments. Read "Why Evolution is True" by Jerry Coyne or "The Greatest Show on Earth" by Dawkins. It will blow your mind, honest :D . Please answer something for me. Does the fact that apes, monkeys and humans have a similar design mean that we evolved from them or is it a possibility that because we share the same Creator, we have been designed in a similar fashion? Can you really say with a certainty that we had to have evolved from them? I don’t think you can because either thing can be true with the existing evidence. . What do you know of the existing evidence that gives you the confidence to make that claim? :P Anyhow, let me explain why your theory is not valid. You know that fossils exist in layers on the crust of the earth. And you know that carbon dating etc can be used to know the age of any fossil. If, as you say, all species were created at the same time, then say human skulls should also be found in older layers of rocks. But this is not so. In older layers you only find primitive animals, simpler species. In fact, the fossil record is so perfectly matched to the theory of evolution, with simpler primitive species found in older rock, then more later, developed fossil species found in "recent" layers of rock. One old lady once asked the biologist JBS Haldane, if there was one piece of evidence that would make him reject the theory of evolution, and the biologist snapped out "Yes, a rabbit in the pre-Cambrian!". Rabbits are warm blooded mammals that come quite later in the evolutionary tree, and he meant a fossil rabbit in the pre cambrian layer would completely refute evolution. Yet a single fossil that does not fit in the timeline predicted by evolution has not yet been found. So either God dropped species one by one over millions of years according to their evolutionary order onto Earth, so as to create such a fossil record, or evolution is true :P take your pick.

Ibrahim | 12 years ago | Reply @Jack L.: Is that so? Hmmmmmmm!!!!! Well, okay, let's suppose for a minute that what you are saying represents the evolutionist point of view, then it leads me to a question. I agree that everything has gone through evolutionary stages as can be seen from observing things. When you look at the specific case of humans, as there are similar creations, the view of evolutions is that we too have gone through this process. However, when you read, even a little bit of Judaism, Christianity, or Islam, you realize that God has informed us that He created us up there in heaven and in the form that we have now. Mr. Haque might have posed that question to us, but when we have the Word of God telling us (combined view) that He created us from clay and in the best mold before He sent us down to earth as a punishment, then why on earth would I, or any Believer, attribute evolution to God, in the manner that Mr. Haque has stated, when I know that it would directly contradict what the Almighty has informed us of? I would prefer to believe in the Word of God than Mr. Haque there, if you don't mind? Either you guys think of us Believers as morons, or you yourselves cannot seem to see the contradiction!!! I assure you though, we are not retards!

Cynical bystander | 12 years ago | Reply If we were created and we did not evolve, why do we get cancer (oh yeah it could because we sin too much but that's what children would believe)? Doesn't seem like any divine handiwork to me. To believe inspite of evidence is a personal matter, do not showcase it to be an objective fact, there will be no difference between you and those people who claimed the world to be flat 500 years ago. PS- to the person who says that evolution should not be taught in medical school, how many people do you want to kill with your fanatic insistence- Modern medicine is mainly evolutionary biology, where do you think antibiotics come from? A fairy tale?

Sanity | 12 years ago | Reply @Abu Bakr: Very well said. I agree with you 100%. Discussion should be conducted in order to learn and enhance the knowledge, and as a result rectify each others mistake with a constructive mindset.

Jack L. | 12 years ago | Reply Eh.. Ibrahim, as mr. Haque writes: "do you really know all the processes by which God undertakes creation? If evolution is one of those processes, who are you to deny it?" In other words: your statement "Evolutions [?] say that we are all stages and we evolved from one organism without any interference from God" is incorrect.

Ibrahim | 12 years ago | Reply @Donkey Kong: I think you need to think things through a little deeper and you will realize that they do cross each other out!

Ibrahim | 12 years ago | Reply @David: And, by saying that we had a common ancestor, you do not change the fact that it was a monkey. Ape/monkey/pre-historic homo-sapiens are all monkeys if you ask me if you compare them to humans.

Ibrahim | 12 years ago | Reply @David: You can't have your cake and eat it too...I have also repeatedly said that! The point with monkeys is, have we been created by God as stated in the three religions or are we a freak of nature? Let's keep it simple. For believers, we have been created by God in this specific mold intentionally and because He has created the other creatures as well, there is a similarity in design. Evolutions say that we are all stages and we evolved from one organism without any interference from God. Both these view points are very different and cannot co-exist in one person's mind. The confusion arises when evolutionists try to claim that it is in harmony with religion. Why don't you people admit that you want nothing to do with religion and neither does the theory. Maybe then the believers you guys have fooled into accepting the theory will actually have to think again!!

David | 12 years ago | Reply @Ibrahim: We did not "evolve from apes and monkeys", this has been pointed out repeatedly. We share a common ancestor. It's been made clear a number of times already.

Ibrahim | 12 years ago | Reply @Shumaila: I have no doubt that things have evolved and have a similar underlying design. It is the ape theory which I do not agree with...and if Adam and Eve were just stories then so is the evolution theory. @Gullible Nomore and Shumaila: Please answer something for me. Does the fact that apes, monkeys and humans have a similar design mean that we evolved from them or is it a possibility that because we share the same Creator, we have been designed in a similar fashion? Can you really say with a certainty that we had to have evolved from them? I don't think you can because either thing can be true with the existing evidence. It is just a matter of what we want to believe, which is dependent on whether we are believers or not. There is no "fact" as far as these things are concerned, only guesses. We as humans are just aware of the similarities and we do not have enough to refute the idea that though we are similar, we were created distinct. How about you believe in what you want and I will believe in what I want.

Gullible Nomore | 12 years ago | Reply @Ibrahim: You said: "Because of which I have decided, that you guys seem to have a story which you can believe" I'm sorry, but didn't quite understand which part of my answers did you thought to be as "stories?" I gave you scientifically tested and verifiable answers. I would love to hear a better explanation for it if you can provide one. By better explanation I mean something that is testable and falsifiable. Thanks!

Mn | 12 years ago | Reply @Abdul Momin: "All science can be found in the Koran" Please find me something about dark matter or string theory so that I may claim Nobel prize.

Donkey Kong | 12 years ago | Reply To relate belief in evolution to belief in God is kinda dumb, especially if evolution is seen as a threat to one's faith. One does not cancel out the other.

lancegeologist | 12 years ago | Reply The theory of evolution does NOT deal with the origin of life! What is so hard to understand? Nothing in Geology says there is or is not a God.Look at the world around you, look at the millions of year of its history,be awed by the beauty of it all. This includes the changes through time.The world changes, the universe changes and organisms change-FACT. All of the mechanisms are not yet known, however humans are making progress understanding the changes.There does not need to be conflict between science and religion. One is based on observation and the other belief.If one believes that God created everything as it is today and has a hand in everything ,then there is nothing to learn.Why not instead believe in your God and say God does not manage all the details. God started the ball rolling and life goes on.Maybe God gives a nudge every now and then( who can really say?). Still the result is change through time.

Abdul Momin | 12 years ago | Reply Allah is all powerful but evolution works by trial and error and it says humans are not Allahs creations. This contradicts everything we know. Evolution is Haram and it should not be taught in schools. All medical schools which teach this must change their teachings. All science can be found in the Koran, and evolution is therefore not science.

Cynical bystander | 12 years ago | Reply Man evolved from monkeys- when people say that, they have basically killed any credibility their argument might have possibly had. Evolution does not say man evolved from monkeys, that is what apologists use to confuse the gullible, Evolution states that man evolved from ape like creatures. The evidence is plentiful. Genetically speaking man resembles the apes more than he resembles any other creature on this planet. The reason why we look different is simply down to genetic mutations. Hair, jaw structure, cranial structure, thumbs etc all differ from the apes due to mutations in gene sequences governing these attributes. In fact these genes are mutated just enough for these changes to be applicable. The whole evolution was false argument and the objections made therein in support of this perspective is patently false. We have moved a long way from the strawman rebutalls to Darwin's theory (which itself is now as applicable to evolution as is Newton's theory to gravity). Genetics proves evolution beyond any doubt whatsoever. If it didn't, you shouldn't resemble your parents, genes shouldn't exist, speciation should not happen; all these exist and do happen so there.

Dr. A,K.Tewari | 12 years ago | Reply Ibrahim = Abraham = Abrahmanic , means thinking just opposite ,what Brahman thinks . Brahmans are those who knows BRAMHA i.e. The Intricate knowledge , So Mr. Ibrahim don't try to understand the intricate knowledge of evolution . It would be sheer waste of tìme for you .just think about of the world that has been created by creationists.,,.. Adam Ki Aulaad . Evolutionists are few in number , mostly the Bio-Scientists . Createnists in dominant position to decide our destiny . But Brahmans are above all and can never be defeated even by the mightiest army , Truth can never be defeated ,After all it will prevail . Evolutionists are few in number , mostly the Bio-Scientists . Createnists in dominant position to decide our destiny . But Brahmans are above all and can never be defeated even by the mightiest army , Truth can never be defeated ,After all it will prevail .

Shumaila | 12 years ago | Reply Ibrahim, those who reconcile their faith to the ideas proposed by evolution aren't schizophrenics, they're the sensible ones. Evolution is a concept that is here to stay, and as far as the evidence up til now is concerned, it is not going to be refuted any time soon. Rejecting it, especially without proper evidence, is to simply push people into a state of denial that is highly stupid and unscientific. But I'm not going to argue more. I tried my best. Maybe you don't have enough of a scientific background to understand the validity of my points, or maybe you're too fixed in the creationists' propaganda against the theory, or maybe youre way too inflexible to realise that the creation story in religious books is really just that - a story. In any case, your denial does not matter. Evolution is a pretty valid theory and your insistence otherwise will not change the science on it LOL :)

Speak for yourself | 12 years ago | Reply Not believing in evolution is outrageous? Ok.. but then so is believing that life is sacred, and all the following actions, including this blog, that claim to serve humanity. To all my atheist friends here who are striving for justice, and ending oppression and enlightening people for the greater good, please realise that all your notions of good have origins in religious beliefs that you denounce. So stop fooling yourselves. Or, go ahead, keep the drama running, it's your life. I just wanted to make a point. P.S. I am not implying that the author is an atheist. I am not familiar with his beliefs, and my comment is not aimed at him. It is just a friendly reminder for those friends who do not belief the 'mumbo jumbo' I believe in. :P

Abu Bakr | 12 years ago | Reply @Fil Salustri: You make no sense. There's scientific theory, and fact. There's no middle ground or 'hard fact'. The Darwin vs Genesis debate is as useless as the Athiest vs Theism debate. Even the most compelling evidence will not ever complete disprove the argument. My only contention was that when responding to something, writers tend to look down upon whom they are replying to. "Your argument is flawed" "You haven't kept up with science" "No." These are unnecessary in my opinion. You blame condescension on poor questions. That is also condescending inherently and does not make you any different. By already judging the questions as 'easily answerable' you again dont treat the opinion respectfully. IF, IF someone is misinformed according to you, answer properly, because its never right to fully believe you are correct. That never leaves space for argument.

Dr. A,K.Tewari | 12 years ago | Reply @Dodo . The God delusion ? Its a reality . Alzabra . Has a.b.c as God ,so we should to solve the problums of our life .

Dr. A,K.Tewari | 12 years ago | Reply @ Agreed dear , .Brian ,

Dr. A,K.Tewari | 12 years ago | Reply @ Mikey ..Our root extent to the idicated time span as a SANATAN Dharmi at least , no other is even in a posion to put a false claim .! No ?

Fil Salustri | 12 years ago | Reply @Abu Bakr: It's not just "opinion" here. It's hard scientific theory. The condescension is a result of the creationist/ID tendency ask questions easily answered by doing some background reading. It's boring and ridiculous for us to be answering such questions over and over and over. Another ridiculous habit of creationist/ID is to demand respect even though they do nothing to earn it.

Dodo | 12 years ago | Reply @Tizi: In that video he did not mention religion its plainly a scientific documentary. Therefore him being biased about religion does not hold water for the content of that video alone and that was my argment. He is a scientist and knows what he's talking about plus other biologist give the same explanation. As far as his books are concerned I have not read all his work but have read his most important one "the God Delusion"

Cynical | 12 years ago | Reply @ A. Would you be comfortable with a hypothesis that 'humans-were-fish' instead of 'humans-were-monkeys'. Actually all life forms that exists today started from a single cell. Millions of years of mutation,adaptation and dramatic climate change has brought all the variety that we find today. What matters is that we came from something monkey or some other form of life. Not from adam and eve. You say, I think evolution is REAL' . Then ask yourself how we humans evolved. You seem to belive in evolution in part. There lies the problem.

Gullible Nomore | 12 years ago | Reply @theot58: Dude do you know the end result of Kansas Evolution Hearing?? Yea, the Intelligent Design folks (aka discovery institute) lost tge case. Court ruled that what they're propogating is nothing more than dogma.

Fahadullah | 12 years ago | Reply To be fair to the 'religious mind', the geocentric model of the Sun being the centre of the Solar System as some would know to be founded by Copernicus was actually borrowed by the Islamic comologists of that time such as Al-Tusi. So it was actually the 'Islamic mind' which was behind many of the scientific achievements known today. So one must differentiate the 'religious mind' of the Dark Ages in Europe and the 'religious mind' of the Golden Age in the Islamic Civilization. Regarding evolution, I believe people confuse evolution with darwinism. Evolution is the descent of species consisting of 'natural selection' and other changes whereas Darwinism is arguing that all these changes happened by no Intelligent Will. The very famous Islamic sociologist Ibn Khaldun also spoke of micro-evolution in species well before Charles Darwin's time. However, it should be rememberd that although science has helped to achieve much tangible progress and advancements in the 21st century, the question relating to God's existence can simply CANNOT be answered by science itself

A. | 12 years ago | Reply ps. I think that it was SO RUDE of you to mention your friend's thoughts of "As soon as you explain one misunderstanding to a creationist they come up with another." it was totally unnecessary. and unprofessional. sup with the hate?

A. | 12 years ago | Reply I am a Muslim, I wear hijab, I try my best to pray 5 x a day (there's still room for improvement) and read Quran regularly. I believe 100% in Islam. I ALSO think that evolution is REAL. By evolution I mean cells evolving to become more complex and sort of adapt to the environment. I DON'T believe in Darwins humans-were-monkeys theory. ALSO to the writer: you're so harsh. CALM DOWN, did you even ask Ms Hira if you could publicly post her email and even her full name on the internet in one of your articles? lol. calm down, you're so condescending and rude.

Speak for yourself | 12 years ago | Reply I guess Tribune was losing audience and blogs about Mathira or Qadri were just not cutting it..

Hassaan Warsi | 12 years ago | Reply This blog article did it for me on Tribune. The standards of their blogs had been dropping considerably but posting someone's private letter, which was written in a respectful manner, online and then to have it replied online as well in such a condescending manner shows not just the 'ethics' of Jahanzaib Haque as an ''editor'' but also the failing standards of Tribune- disgusting!!!

Sanity | 12 years ago | Reply I would also like to add that science should also stop behaving like religions, that is 'we know everything now' attitude. I am a researcher myself, we start our work knowing and expecting that there is something wrong in current state of knowledge, which i need to improve. If I say I know everything and science is complete, there is no more room for research and newer thought (saab g! hamaree rozee roti issee pe chaltee hai).

Sanity | 12 years ago | Reply This is tough time for world religions, and no doubt it it going to get tougher. On one hand, science is progressing very fast, while on the other, religions, in general, are trying to prove science wrong with irrational and illogical arguments. Moreover, misuse of religions to create divide among the society and cause wars have weakened their case further. Being a believer in God myself, my advice to adherents of religions, in particular those who deliver lectures, is that they should believe and speak truth only. Kindly, don't prove science wrong with irrational arguments. Let science do its work, God has gifted us with brain to explore the diversity and logic of this beautiful universe. Don't be afraid of science, if what you believe in is right, it will be proven right eventually.

Dr. A,K.Tewari | 12 years ago | Reply Both Brahmenic and Abrahmenic faith are now converging and are ready to accept the ancesters of monkey/gorilla as our ancester , Its the good out come of ýour initiative , Keep it up till we start to believe the concept of OUR EXTENDED FAMILY . which is very much required for the Biodiversity conservation . Thank you

Ibrahim | 12 years ago | Reply @Brian: I completely agree with you. My only issue is whether the creation of humans was a part of it or a specific process. For me, humans were not a part of this process. Adam (pbuh) was created from dust and we are ALL his children. We may be similar in design, because we have the same Creator, but we are pretty distinct species from one another. @theot58: Point number 2 in your post is definitely there, I agree. I have no problem if someone does not wish to believe in God and wants to believe in evolution instead. My only problem is with the people who try to claim that you can do both. The theory definitely does discredit God and I just want believers to realize that. You have to give up of faith and God to believe in it. @Asif: There is no mention of civilized or uncivilized men. If you ask me, we still have uncivilized people on earth! Adam was the first man because he was created from dust. Eve/Hawwa was created through Adam. Jesus (pbuh) was the only other man to have been created from dust, but he had a mother. The rest of us have been born through two parents....therefore, Adam was the first man. @The people who say chimps and humans have 98% similarities: In order to make this claim the genome of the chimps also has to be mapped and then compared with that of humans, however, so far, only the DNA of humans has been mapped. This shot-in-the-dark claim is based on the similarity of amino-acid sequences of a handful of proteins found in both man and chimps. This is not very different from saying that Iraq had WMDs!!!! Your science is not as evolved as your faith (read gullibility) in it. However, you have the right to pursue whatever you want.

Ibrahim | 12 years ago | Reply @GULLIBLE NOMORE: (Apologies, I was replying to you last night and fell asleep in the middle :p) Thanks for the accurate answers!!! Because of which I have decided, that you guys seem to have a story which you can believe, and I will not try to convince anyone that it is ridiculous after hearing your answers. This leaves me with only one conclusion though, that these two states, God or evolution as creator, are definitely mutually exclusive so a person must choose one and only one! (Faith or lack of it being the primary factor.) You can't have your cake and eat it too..right? I have another question for you, which confuses me. According to the concept of natural selection, generally speaking, doesn't the one with the more pure genes get selected? For instance with humans, people with more symmetrical bodies tend to be more attractive, smarter, etc., like an alpha male. So the question: If you need the more pure gene for natural selection, then the second one of the monkeys mutates and becomes a different version (read retard), wouldn't that monkey get rejected by the rest? That monkey would never be able to get laid :D Doesn't that make mutation and natural selection mutually exclusive as well?

Brian | 12 years ago | Reply Evolution is so elegant, so perfect, so filled with the internal ring of truth that is must be the work of God.

Dr. A,K.Tewari | 12 years ago | Reply Thank you Editor for initiating such an interesting debate . Both Brahmenic and Abrahmenic faith are now converging and are ready to accept the ancesters of monkey/gorilla as our ancester , Its the good out come of ýour initiative , Keep it up till we start to believe the concept of OUR EXTENDED FAMILY . which is very much required for the Biodiversity conservation . Thank you once again ,

Adil | 12 years ago | Reply Generally, mainstream Muslim speakers equate believing in the theory of evolution with heresy and/or atheism....The damage by the materials of Harun Yahya has already been done and I am afraid that millions of Muslims continue to fall in his trap not knowing about what he has always been upto. Rationality is required in many Muslim nations, if one doesn't believe in the theory of evolution then he/she at least show some courtesy and tolerance, and allow people to form their own opinion(s); rather than raising his/her eyebrows calling the other person an infidel. We really are in need of personalities like Sir Syed Ahmed Khan,Allama Iqbal,Ghulam Ahmed Pervaiz and Jawed Ahmed Ghamdi. A student of Pervaiz named Dr. Sayed Abdul Wadud also wrote books explaining how the teachings of The Holy Quran are in agreement with the theory of evolution.

theot58 | 12 years ago | Reply The scienttific method demands clarity and precision in the definitions. "Evolution” is a vague word which needs increased definition. Micro evolution is minor changes within a species, this is real and observable and uncontested. The conflict pertains to Darwinian/Macro evolution asserts that: 1) all living things had a common ancestor. It 2) The observable world has come into existence by totally natural, unguided processes and specifically WITHOUT the involvement of an intelligent creator. 3) Your great ..... great grandfather was a self replicating molecule The evidence supporting Darwinian/Macro evolution is very weak. Do a YouTube search on “kansas evolution hearings” to hear real, credible scientists, present powerful arguments which debunk Darwinian/Macro evolution. Dr John Sanford (Geneticists and inventor of the GeneGun) said . ” The bottom line is that the primary axiom [of Darwinian/Macro evolution] is categorically false, you can't create information with misspellings, not even if you use natural selection.” Prof. Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research said "Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless." Dr. Newton Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission said: "Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever! In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact." Hence lets get our terminology right.

Yasir | 12 years ago | Reply @Tizi: The videos that you see in this articles are quite old actually, and it is from the time when Dawkins wasn't in the business of upbraiding religion and its superstitions. And, I can verify that information from credible source upon request.

Cynical | 12 years ago | Reply What nonsense! Evolution!! My foot. Everything and I mean EVERYTHING was created by Almighty God, the creator of all things and depository of all wisdom, whose words as we all know are sacrosant. Don't ask who heard or read those words.If you want proof just watch UK based channel Islam. They say that theory of evolution is flawed.For me that's proof enough.

Asif | 12 years ago | Reply Adam (A.S) was the first civilized man, not the first man. He evolved enough to become a 'Khalifa on Earth' (which requires a predecessor) and was the first messenger to lead the rest of the uncivilized 'men'. He was granted intelligence and the ability to socialize by God, to understand obedience to Him and to distinguish between right and wrong and this he taught to the rest of his people whose existence did not start with him. Now is that so hard to swallow?

Peter Kinnon | 12 years ago | Reply There is actually an alternative to the distinction between "designed" and "designoid" entities. That is to instead regard not only biological organisms but also the artifacts that arise from human activities as "designoid". We like to consider ourselves as designers. From an everyday standpoint this has merit and, indeed, seems self-evident. But if we look more carefully at the development of technology we see that this, too, is an evolutionary process and that while our species is the medium through which this is effected, it is not truly dependent upon the individual. This is part of broader evolutionary model advanced in "The Goldilocks Effect: What Has Serendipity Ever Done For Us?" (free download in e-book formats from the "Unusual Perspectives" website)

you would love to know what my name is | 12 years ago | Reply @Zaid Hamid: Nobody knows what the first religion was.

Ibrahim | 12 years ago | Reply Woh, you guys have been busy! @SHUMAILA: I agree with you about the apple bit, but eating from a tree is close enough...Islam does not specify the type of fruit...i doubt they ate the bark though :p But you're right. However, a Christian believer is still a Believer and I will accept that. Experts! No, I don't trust any experts unless they make sense. If a Jewish, Muslim, or Christian tries to believe in both then he/she is a schizophrenic :D (forget not your humor). The only way evolution can be compatible with any one of these three religions is if you leave the creation of humans out of it. Everything else does show patterns of it. The point of contention is the origin of humans. Since the theory states monkeys, you can be sure that only a con-man or woman will pretend to do both. And in all honesty, to understand this concept, we don't need to get into the complications of evolution. It is either God who created us or it's the monkey theory...they are mutually exclusive. So for this, I have to agree with amlendu about evolutionists being atheists. @IBNE KHULDUN: Please repeat the question. I cannot seem to understand. I will be glad to answer it though. @MIKE de FLEURIOT: You don't have to respect anyone or anything, but if you want that person to respect you back then you might want to give it a try. @MJ: Thanks, I shall watch it. And, yes, knowledge is recommended...all views. @AMLENDU: My doctor trying to cure my illness is not the same as someone trying to claim they know what happened with micro organisms billions of years ago. My doctor can talk out of his hat, but an evolutionists cannot...and are you trying to tell me that DNA does not have a code which can be calculated through mathematics? However, I will not be able to argue with you guys related to mathematics or biology as I am not an expert in those. My only concern is the view of the origin of humans according to the theory. If God is being replaced then I want none of it. If not, then I might be open to it. Fight about the rest with each other but clear this one for me.

Gullible Nomore | 12 years ago | Reply @Tizi: Quite the contrary actually. Ridiculing something/someone without looking at the evidences is plain prejudicial, as was the case with people ridiculing or banishing Galileo. However scientists ridiculing (which a majority don't, by the way) creationists who don't look at the evidences favoring evolution is totally the opposite.

Yasir Anzar | 12 years ago | Reply Evolutionary changes in living things are OBSERVABLE FACT. It can be observed in tiny species (as small as mosquitoes) which has smaller life span within our life time. But, no one was able to explain it until Darwin came along and explained via Natural Selection as mechanism behind evolutionary changes. Unfortunately, Darwin never had the backing of Genetics to solidify his claims and had to resort to only Fossil records and his imaginations. But, thanks to Gregory Mendel who came along and created genetics which finally put the final nail to coffin of any doubt against evolution and natural selection. Evolution and Natural Selection is still the best explanation for understanding the existence of all 10 billion species that we see now. However, Lets consider that Natural Selection is not the driving force for Evolutionary changes in living things, especially humans, then what are you left with? Two divine being came from heaven, reproduced kids and those kids (brothers and sisters) had sex with each to have more kids. That's scientifically and genetically impossible to keep reproducing in such small gene pool. And, what about the other 10 billion species? Its the most bizarre explanation I have ever heard. Evolution works to understand Mammalians evolution from Reptilians; Reptiles evolved from amphibians; Amphibians evolved from Marine multicellular organisms, and Multicellular organisms evolved from single cell animals. Genetics verifies it. Again, EVOLUTION WORKS!! deal with it, or do whatever it takes to accommodate this fact in your brain, because that the reality!

Zaid Hamid | 12 years ago | Reply @M Ali Khan Greeks, Persians, Egyptians and Indus valley, Chinese and all other civilizations were always Islamic. They just did not know that they were Muslims. But now we can teach the young generation the true and the glorious Islamic history.

Tizi | 12 years ago | Reply @Loneliberal PK: just like people who claimed the earth was round were treated (even killed) when the obvious general consensus was that it was flat. It proves nothing but arrogance.

Asad | 12 years ago | Reply Just one correction: it's shouldn't be, wether we we believe in "theory of evolution" or not but "we understand it and accept it to be true". Belief is accepting without evidence.

Tizi | 12 years ago | Reply @Gullible Nomore: the point that you don't seem to get was that Dawkins is far from being 'unbiased media'. If you disagree with that, then you really are gullible. Goes to show you really haven't read much of his recent literature that reads more like an 'atheist manifesto' and fails to address the more poignant questions in any reasonable manner. His knowledge of religion is severely limited (no one is questioning his quality as a biologist) and it shows. Therefor, please try to analyze what someone is trying to say before being a smart alec :)

Loneliberal PK | 12 years ago | Reply Ali Tanoli, Human and chimpanzee DNA differs only by 2%. Is that "similar" enough for you?

Ali Tanoli | 12 years ago | Reply @ writer if evolution did happend then why we are not simelar to those animals???????? or its just lie lie lie

Loneliberal PK | 12 years ago | Reply Would you not automatically assume the same condescending, snarky tone when addressing a bloke who doesn't believe in the gravitational theory? People who deny established scientific information because of their personal convictions should be treated in no other way.

A Centrist! | 12 years ago | Reply @Jahanzaib Haque: "..outrageous claims should be met with clarity and without holding back for fear of hurting ‘sentiment’.." This sounds just as lame as when it comes from a conservative. And yes, this is exactly the same conservative approach that drives liberals nuts.

Loneliberal PK | 12 years ago | Reply One question: Do you really expect creationists to actually read the whole article?

M Ali Khan | 12 years ago | Reply @Ibrahim: "Even if you give me a hundred years of studying biology….I will still never give up my faith!" reminds me of those who put their fingers in their ears, close their eyes, and yell LALALALALALAALALA I cant hear you LALALALLALALALA Faith is doing something repeatedly to the extent that it just becomes an example of arrogant ignorance.

Jahanzaib Haque | 12 years ago | Reply

Dear all, thanks for the interesting comments. I would just like to add that my use of the term 'best traits' in the article is perhaps misleading to an extent, as evolution is indeed driven by random mutations. The reason I used the term 'best' was in our human ability to look in hindsight and judge one random mutation to be more useful than another.

Also, to those arguing that my response has a rude, condescending tone: you are quite right - it does, and I am under no delusion that this blog post will convince Hira of anything. I strongly feel that outrageous claims should be met with clarity and without holding back for fear of hurting 'sentiment'. That is the need of the hour.

Said Chaudhry | 12 years ago | Reply Re: Shumaila, thanks for your reply. You may have gathered from the first part of my earlier response that I do agree with the theory of evolution & that it explains how generations of life have succeeded one another; the proof of which we see all around us. Of course, the big bang theory & the evolution theory are separate, but I think the point I was trying to make (which may not have come across the way I wanted it to), is that even for the process of evolution to begin, it has to to have started somewhere or by something. That been said, is the big bang theory not the most widely accepted when discussing the origin of the planet and there by the species within it? I am probably digressing by including the origin of the planet in this debate so I'll stick to evolution. Also, I have read the Primordial Soup Theory some time ago and correct me if I'm wrong, it failed in proving the hypothesis? They were able to create amino acids in vitro but failed to create proteins (necessary for life). Also, if you study the evolution of three-domain system there are many morphological and genetic differences that have not been settled. In fact, every few years there are new classifications that leaves everyone scratching their heads. The scientific body is divided quite heavily on the various theories of where exactly the common lineage falls between the three. Though, of late, prokaryotic and eukaryotic evolution has become clearer; archae are still regarded to have an independent evolutionary history & stark differences in their biochemistry as compared to other forms of life. My personal belief, again, is that in time we'll probably find the missing links that connect the three-domain systems but in reality we are far from it as of now, hence the theory of evolution is still just a theory. Re: Amlendu The Big Bang theory may not have anything to do with the theory of Evolution, but in theory it has everything to do with it. To understand the origin of life on this planet, it is important to understand the origin of the planet itself. The Big Bang theory provides the most closely related theory that interlinks with the theory of evolution. The widely admired RNA World hypothesis and Abiogenesis talks in detail about high energy chemistry reactions creating the first single species molecule. So what exactly are you trying to sell me in your post? The study of astrophysics, biology and chemistry are all necessary in understanding the 'origin of life' on this planet so I really can not tell what the point of your reply was other than repeating definitions of the study of chemistry etc. I am more than open to discuss the various links connecting the Big Bang Theory to the Theory of Evolution, but at the expense of you lowering your condescending tone first.

Gullible Nomore | 12 years ago | Reply @Ibrahim: I'll try to explain/answer some of your very good questions, I can't answer all of them of course because I'm still a student of science rather than an expert. 1) Why do we have an urge for sex which goes far beyond the need for procreation? A)We are not the only ones who enjoy sex beyond the need to procreate. Dolphins are another species who engage in casual sex without needing to procreate. It is a recorded fact that many animals engage is homosexuality (http://tinyurl.com/mk629n), which we all know, cannot be for procreation. 2) Why do we communicate with each other in an intellectual manner…? A)It is because we developed a larger cerebral cortex than other primates. This gives us the ability to rationalize things, to find reasons, short and long term memory, differentiate between good and bad etc. etc. This is something that evolution provided us and made us survive better than other species. 3) Our conscience level goes beyond stealing and adultery! The basic fact that we even question our origin and wish to purify ourselves physically and mentally makes us extremely different. The fact that people like Edhi and Imran Khan who build facilities for their fellow human beings to get treatment like charity makes us very different. Other animals don’t do that for each other. A) This question can be divided in two parts, one - our cognitive ability and two - altruism As mentioned above, we get our cognitive ability due to a larger cerebral cortex that gives us the power to think and reason. As far as altruism is concerned, we are not the only animals to be altruistic (http://tinyurl.com/66gyvbw). There have been instances of animals helping other animals in times of need, even at times when the other animal is of a total different specie. 4)I think gorillas have larger brains than ours. I believe that our wiring and blue prints are completely different. A) Brain size is not directly related to cognitive ability, if that was the case then bigger people with big heads should be more intelligent than others. As mentioned above it has to do with the cerebral cortex and the way neurons are connected in the brain. Yes, gorillas, chimpanzees and other lower primates are differently "wired" than us but the blue print isn't too different (genetically there is only 2% difference between us and them). This shows that we descended from common ancestors. 5) ...What about us, if not monkeys/apes/neanderthals? In scientific/anthropological/biological terms we're still considered Apes. Monkeys, modern day apes (us included), neanderthals all descended from common ancestors. We did not descend from monkeys nor neanderthals. As a matter of fact, there was a period in time where Homo-sapiens and Neanderthals lived side by side. You have asked some very good questions i have to admit. This only suggests that you have the urge to learn and are seeking good answers. To that I say, keep it up!

Mj | 12 years ago | Reply Something to lighten up the mood... "Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory." — Scott D. Weitzenhoffer

rational | 12 years ago | Reply @HST I don't know if I can agree with that, I've worked with skulls of smilodons, to study them obviously, and that thing was a BEAST. Every time you say Giant mountain lion all I can think of is the cat itself or the brand puma.. I still say Saber-toothed Tiger wins, it has the word Tiger in it, just that much more bad-ass :D

David | 12 years ago | Reply @Said Chaudhry: The Big bang theory has absolutely NOTHING to do with evolution, so take your foot out of your mouth, and realise you have no idea what you are talking about. No idea at all. They are completely unrelated to one another, no matter what you might be telling yourself. The only thing you've done is highlight your own ignorance.

Gullible Nomore | 12 years ago | Reply @Tizi: Yea what does Richard Dawkins know? He's only a renowned Evolutionary Biologist, who also happen to hold a professorial position at one of the most prestigious universities in the world, Oxford University from 95-2008. Of course what does he know about science...

amlendu | 12 years ago | Reply @Ibrahim: That is the blindness. The argument I put forward is called paradox. Try to think it this way. You say that since life is complex it can not happen due to chance and there must be creator. If we accept you argument then we have to assume that the said creator would be much more complex than life to be able to create it. Now by going by your earlier argument something that complex can not come by chance or be just there and has to be created by something. This now creates an endless chain of creators and there is no last creator because that also has to be created. @Shumaila Now I am not here to get into argument about existence of God. I am agnostic but that is for me. What I was trying to do is to refute the logic that everything was created by God and hence evolution is wrong. There may be a God or may not but just to justify the existence of God we should not shut our minds to logical discourse and deny overwhelming logic and evidence in support of a scientific theory. We should leave the discussion of God to theologians and while speaking about science should stick to logic, evidence and disprovable hypothesis (I assume that you understand importance of dis-provability of an hypothesis in science)

Gullible Nomore | 12 years ago | Reply I love the explanation, which is plain and simple. However, I have two objections to it. One - the name of the person who sent the letter should not have been used in this context because it is just impolite and close to ridiculing her. Two - I agree with one of the commenters above that the author used a rather harsh tone for his response. In any case, Evolution through natural selection is a fact whether you agree with it or not. The arguments I get are usually, "well even if it is a fact, it doesn't effect my life anyway so who cares." Valid point, however, if a majority of people look at the facts and agree with the theory they can at least lose their superiority complex and see themselves as mere homo-sapiens instead of Muslims, Hindus, Pathans, Whites, Blacks, Christians, Jews etc etc.

amlendu | 12 years ago | Reply @Ibrahim: So according to you science = mathematics. So biology is not a science as nothing in biology has a mathematical proof. Have you heard of logic and verbal reasoning. Every logical argument does not have to be mathematical. Theory of evolution based on the evidence we have can logically explain evolution of development of complex organism from simple organism. If you can provide a logically coherent theory which can explain all the evidence we have about the living organisms on this planet then you can publish that and believe me if it stands the scrutiny, you'll be hailed as a great scientist and theory of evolution will be a past. And seriously expand your horizons biology and mathematics do not mix, do you ask your doctor for mathematical proof that the prescription he gives you will work or you believe his biological reasoning.

Mj | 12 years ago | Reply @Ibrahim: Please spare two hours of your time to watch BBC David Attenborough's First Life for an elegant explanation of how life came to be. Even if you disprove of it, you will be better educated for it and doesn't god and his messenger command of us to gain more knowledge? You can find the above mentioned documentary on thepiratebay, recommended in HD.

Imran Kamyana | 12 years ago | Reply "Too stupid for science? Try Religion"

Mike de Fleuriot | 12 years ago | Reply What is meant by respecting someone religion? Well reading between the lines, it means for the religious that they can say whatever they like about anything, and if one criticise it, then they claim that you are disrespecting religion. Do you hold the same views for another person choice of wife or political party, or favourite food? No you do not, so why should religion get respect?

The Forbidden Fruit | 12 years ago | Reply More like "One more word Hira Tariq and my head's going to explode!" Seriously!

Shumaila | 12 years ago | Reply @ Ibrahim - As for your other statements, such as the faculty to create, and what you've called an excessive sex drive (do we really have that? More than other animals? Not sure of the biology on that). That can all be explained by evolution too. They have all evolved in us over time. And they can have higher, ulterior religious motives too. As one of the commenters above mentioned, there is no contradiction. We can have evolved to have higher intelligence (or more sex drive, or to create things), according to the plan of a Creator, and also developed the facility to distinguish right from wrong and stuff like that on the basis of his Plan. He could have let us evolve a higher sex drive to eventually test us out with it, etc etc. What tools the creator uses, whether evolution or any other, who are you to determine? . Do you think its insulting God to say that it is gravity that holds the planets in an orbit, rather than his hands? Then why would you think it an affront that He uses the process of evolution to bring about our unique existence? . Forget the association of atheism with evolutionary biologists such as Dawkins. Dawkins is just one of the many scientists that accept evolutionary theory. There are many that see no contradiction in the metaphorical account of Adam and Eve and that account that evolutionary theory provides.

Ibne Khuldun | 12 years ago | Reply @Ibrahim: Then why are you arguing mate? You are saying that you will say Islam is science and science is Islam, even if a thousand proofs prove contrary to that. So why argue in the first place? Just asking ;)

Shumaila | 12 years ago | Reply @ amlendu, please stop associating atheism with evolution. Plenty of believing, practising religious people also accept the theory of evolution and other scientific theories. This is not the time or place to put forward arguments against a creator.

The Forbidden Fruit | 12 years ago | Reply The girl's arguments were weak but she was polite while the author for some reason went completely ballistic over her little letter. There could've been a much better way of explaining things! I would encourage the author to calm down - that's a part of being Rational.

Shumaila | 12 years ago | Reply Ibrahim, I'm not sure you're actually listening to me. What you've stated as the origin of humans, could very well be a metaphorical, or poetical story to illustrate that man gained learning over time, or that man was chosen to be more learned. It does not have to be taken literally. Moreover, the quran at least does not give such a detailed story about the origin of man, and the apple incident of which you spoke, original sin, is actually a christian concept and not an islamic one. Moreover, it has been stated in the Quran that everything was created in steps, which, if you need proof, could be a reference to evolution. I just want you to go beyond the Quran for a second and think about this. There are muslim, christian and jewish scientists all over the world who accept evolution and find it has no contradiction with their faiths. Are we to take the word of these experts in their field, who reconcile both ideas and are fine with it, or are we to take the word of those who do not understand evolution and thus misinterpret it as a weapon against faith? I read somewhere, that both Richard Dawkins and Harun Yahya say the same thing - that evolution is not acceptable to a religious mind. And yet, that is completely incorrect. Saying that just sends the religious into a state of denial and makes them look incredibly stupid. Moreover, even if the majority of scientists are not muslim, there are some and if they had a problem with evolution they surely would have researched and brought up the scientific evidence against it. The fact that there is none is quite evidence of the fact that once you get to a professional level in biology, heck, even in science you cannot deny the evolutionary process. A true believer neither abandons his or her faith because of evolution, nor does he deny the evidence for it. A true believer incorporates both into his/her worldview.

Ibrahim | 12 years ago | Reply @amlendu: The last Creator you can possible imagine in that list (meaning the first one) is Allah/God! :)

Ibrahim | 12 years ago | Reply @amlendu: Yes they do!!!! Reason being that as a Believer, I am claiming to believe without seeing, which is called faith. You think we are naive for doing that, but at least we are not claiming anything different. Evolutionists, on the other hand, claim to be scientist who are very logical and who need evidence for everything. So when someone, who claims to be all that and makes fun of us, believes in a theory without the actual mathematical proof, he/she looks very hypocritical and naive at the same!!! If you still believe in it and wish to be naive, then it looks more like an excuse to not believe rather than an actual belief in something.

amlendu | 12 years ago | Reply @Ibrahim: So "evolutionist wannabes" have to provide mathematical proof for a biological theory for not being foolish but creationists do not need to provide any mathematical proof for their belief. Good argument.

amlendu | 12 years ago | Reply @Ibrahim: OK, agreed that leaving it chance is a long shot. Then lets come to the alternative that it all was created by a creator. Then logically the creator has to be much more complex in nature to be able to create something as complex as living beings and humans. Who created this creator. Everything flows from simpler to complex in nature. If we take this creator then the logic demands a creator for the creator and it will be endless quest unless you stop in theology and take shelter under belief rather than logic.

Ibrahim | 12 years ago | Reply @amlendu: I was not asking for the mathematical proof so I could start believing in it. I was asking for it so that evolutionist wannabes would realize how foolish they are.

Ibrahim | 12 years ago | Reply @Shumaila: Having a common ancestor means monkey/ape/neanderthal...not human. In other words, monkey! :) How do I know that it was not Allah's plan for us to evolve this way? Well, because Allah created us from clay and taught us the names of everything and then told everyone to bow to us because He knew He created us superior to the rest to be His vicegerents in heaven. However, it was His decision that we actually earn the honor of being His vicegerents, rather than giving it to us on a silver platter. Which is why we have been sent down to Earth, after the apple incident, so that we can be sorted into different ranks....the two main ones being: those worthy of being His vicegerents as opposed to those who want to be monkeys instead!!! All of this happened to our real ancestors, Adam and Eve, not in a mutated or monkey form, BEFORE they got down here to earth to live through an awful experience to see which ones come out of it with their heads still screwed on correctly. The rest of us from the assembly-line WILL be scrapped. That's how I know God did not want us to evolve that way. Our conscience level goes beyond stealing and adultery! The basic fact that we even question our origin and wish to purify ourselves physically and mentally makes us extremely different. The fact that people like Edhi and Imran Khan who build facilities for their fellow human beings to get treatment like charity makes us very different. Other animals don't do that for each other. I think gorillas have larger brains than ours. I believe that our wiring and blue prints are completely different. We speak thousands of different languages. Try to convince each other about our origin, etc. There has to be more to it than just developing a larger brain by chance. We even come up with and believe in conspiracy theories...which other animal does that? The ability to invent things and/or discover them makes us highly creative, similar to a Creator, but very different from the rest of the animals. What about the crazy sex-drive going far beyond the need for procreation, not having any particular seasons for procreation, and in many ways being obsessed with it 24/7 (relative) from the time we hit puberty? It seems more like a test rather than a biological need. No amount of evolution would need to test us this way, unless there was a NEED to test us. To test if we are more likely to give into our carnal desires or do we have the self-control to actually be Allah's vicegerents!!! If you tell me that through survival of the fittest our sex drives have become over-developed to be able to compete in breeding then I am sorry but that would just be an excuse to indulge in the carnal desires, which would ensure our failure as a vicegerent. I believe God created us for a better and more important purpose, and He is just using this phase as a filtration mechanism. Help me out with these things.

amlendu | 12 years ago | Reply @Ibrahim: OK you want mathematical proof for evolution before you can accept it. SO it seems that you do not accept anything without mathematical proof. In one of your earlier comments you mentioned that nothing can move your faith in Allah. Now the only logical question for you is that you show the mathematical proof for your faith in Allah or accept that you are hypocrite.

Ibrahim | 12 years ago | Reply @amlendu: Okay, then where did that first single cell organism come from? How did the simple organisms turn into a complex one to create that organism? What was the catalyst? To leave it to chance and that soup theory, is not believable.....that is such a long-shot that there is a better chance of aliens putting us here if you really don't want to believe in God as the creator.

Tizi | 12 years ago | Reply and I'll have to continue having read the other feedback. I am Muslim. I believe in evolution because it seems to make logical sense to me- however, if a more poignant theory to explain our origins and that of the other living species were presented, I don't think I would hesitate to switch allegiance. However, the different aspects of evolution theory themselves keep evolving- the recent discovery of a fossil that predates most others and that seems to belong to our ancestry directly has ruffled quite a few feathers and a reevaluation of the skeletal data and the conception of the 'missing link'. I am utterly comfortable in the belief that God has His methods be them through Evolution or otherwise. In fact, if you are to believe in evolution, it is hard to accept Adam and Eve as THE very first humans. Surely there were more than just two. A closer examination of the Quran should reveal to you that no such categorical claim is made within it. So where do people get their religious and scientific opinions from?

amlendu | 12 years ago | Reply @Ibrahim: Why stop at monkeys. All life form evolved from single cell organism. Why it did so? Because it helps preserve the gene. With all those added features, humans have more chance to preserve there species even in the case of catastrophe like one hitting the dinosaurs.

Lost treasure | 12 years ago | Reply I feel the name should not have been revealed. It shows an unprofessional approach to journalism.

HJ | 12 years ago | Reply @writer , shumaila and all other "enlightened" ex-monkeys: ...i was born human just like my parents and their parents and their parents......to adam.

Tizi | 12 years ago | Reply That he describes Richard Dawkins as one of 'The sources of the videos are all well-accepted experts in their fields and well-recognized unbiased media, unlike say, mullahs and clergymen who (perhaps ‘experts’ in religion) suddenly leap over their expertise and have a go at science.' makes this guy lose all credibility. Dawkins is well known to be what can best be described as a clergyman for Atheism. Also, a lot of your 'facts' on evolution are not well explained. The 'best' advances in body structure etc. take shape over time by trial and error- thus completely random. So a person may develop an arm out of their head as part of the trial and error of evolution and if it turns out to be useful for life, that is how the human race may proceed- so on and so forth. However, under no circumstances does that rule out Creator. This is a problem for Christians, not Muslims. Our belief system does not say anything about the world being created 6000 years ago (which we clearly know to be false). However, why do we ascribe our definition of a year to that which is used in the Bible? Its high time we started to show some humility for those that came before us. There are lost arts and sciences that we are yet to discover. A whole dimension that we as humans are mostly unaware of- the supernatural world is something science has hardly scratched. You can be a denier- like those that have blind faith- or you can keep looking, keep searching. How many of you have actually seen Genes randomly mutate and align with other genes under a microscope? Yeah, thought so.

amlendu | 12 years ago | Reply @Said Chaudhry: Are you talking about science, science fiction occult or hotch-potch. Big bang theory does not have anything to do with evolution or catalysts. Big bang theory is part of astrophysics and space-time continuum. Actually it is a singularity in space-time continuum like black holes and it has nothing to do with evolution which is a biological process. No scientist worth his or her salt will mix these two. Similarly catalysts are part of molecular chemistry where chemical reaction between different materials based on their chemical bonding is studied. Where as big bang is concerned about fundamental particles and their formation in early universe, study of catalysts is concerned with chemical reactions between atoms and molecules. Just because you qualified your statement by saying that you generally like evolution and natural selection, does not mean that this mixing of astro-physics and biology will be accepted. Stop listning to pseudo scientists who mix big-bang and evolution. Try to remain in biology and conter evolution if you want. Who knows that you may be able to come up with a theory which logically negates evolution but you'll have to prove it logically not by invoking some crap about big-bang.

Shumaila | 12 years ago | Reply @ Ibrahim - @Evolutionists: I have questions: say, hypothetically speaking, we did evolve from monkeys and not according to Allah’s plan for us, why then are we different from monkeys and all other mammals? I am not an evolutionary biologist (which is what I suppose you mean by evolutionist) But I shall still try to answer your questions. First of all, NO ONE IS CLAIMING WE EVOLVED FROM MONKEYS. We have a common ancestor. And how do you know that it was not part of Allah's plan for us to evolve in this way? How do you know that he did not mean for us to develop from common ancestors, and yet develop us ust those few evolutionary steps more and give us the power to rule the earth? How do you knowwww??? :P - Why do we have a conscience? Why do we ponder over our actions so much, feel guilty, and then try to fix ourselves? Why do we have an urge for sex which goes far beyond the need for procreation? Actually, as far as a conscience is concerned, it has been demonstrated even in other animals that they will not for example, 'steal' things, or commit adultery with fellow animal's partner, or so on and so forth, and that if they do they suffer 'punishment' at the hand of other animals. So we're not alone in having a conscience :) - Why do we communicate with each other in an intellectual manner…why did we develop the ability/mechanism to speak when monkeys can communicate with each other just fine without it? The simplest answer to this is that we have developed a little more and have a larger brain, which allows us to do things like rationalise and engage in long pointless debates over the internet and try to outyell the other person using our language skills :P Was this God's will? To elevate a specie above all the others, make us the most developed of all the makhlooq? I don't know, you tell me.

Ibrahim | 12 years ago | Reply :D Then enlighten me. What does the theory state about where we originated from? The rest I too believe came through an evolutionary process. What about us, if not monkeys/apes/neanderthals?

Just one word... | 12 years ago | Reply FANTASTIC! Well done. I love reading pieces like these. Great effort on part of the Author, though I doubt if any of what he said made sense to Ms.Hira Tariq :D I'm just waiting for some 'creationist fanatic' to scream 'blasphemy' :P

Ibrahim | 12 years ago | Reply @Shumaila: Where is the mathematical equation to prove evolution....you guys still don't have one and with it, it cannot be real proof!

Shumaila | 12 years ago | Reply @ Ibrahim - okay, I just saw your other comment. Obviously you haven't spent enough time studying evolution if you think it claims we came from monkeys XD what science book have you been reading man? Throw it in the trash :P

Shumaila | 12 years ago | Reply @ Ibrahim Oh. Well isn't it a good thing then that evolution doesn't contradict your faith? Or have you been duped enough by creationists into thinking it does? All that happens is the glory of God to the religious mind, after all, and as Mr Haque clearly points out, the real miracle lies in the simplicity of the process of evolution. You should be delighted that evolution, to the religious mind, reveals a Creator that uses such elegant processes, in keeping with the natural laws of the universe (that he himself created) :) Also, you might want to look up Francis Collins. A devout christian as well as the head of the Human Genome Project. He doesn't seem to find a contradiction between his faith and evolution. Why do you?

Dee Cee | 12 years ago | Reply Evolution attracts its strongest critics from the Abrahamic religions because they share the "creation" story as part of their religious tenets. But, since most religions do not value reason as much as scripture, it will be very difficult to reconcile religions with evolutionist perspectives. However, there is an emerging notion of "personal God", who is more powerful and consistent with reason and science primarily because he is not required to "manage" the material world, unlike other notions of God. Notions of a "creating" God is, however, very comfortable for the masses because they want to believe that they are not alone, somebody, somewhere is looking after them and loves them. That's why God is needed less as a scientific explanation for creation than an emotional support structure. Since the need for God is primarily emotional, one needs to consider that fact in arguments for evolution. One can still have an emotional support structure in the form of God is he is made more abstract and less in the brick and mortar business of creation. By doing that, evolutionists can argue against creation while still retaining the notion of a personal God, emotionally comforting to people, but keeping his hands absolutely away from messy business of genes and fossils. Evolutionists will have greater acceptance by "creating the notion of a personal God" than by doing away with the God business completely. Remember, it is a battle of fictions. You have to make yours reasonable, yes, but nobody likes a story that is not comforting. The hero and the heroine have to marry and there must be a God.

Ibrahim | 12 years ago | Reply @Shumaila: Even if you give me a hundred years of studying biology....I will still never give up my faith!

Talat Haque | 12 years ago | Reply Well written!

Shumaila | 12 years ago | Reply @ Ibrahim. I wonder how many years of studying biology has gone into your opinion :) @ Noman A Yahya fan is actually almost as funny as the phrase sounds. Or at least, their arguments are. They delight in the pseudoscientific rhetoric Harun Yahya publishes every now and then.

Ibrahim | 12 years ago | Reply @Shumaila: It is very evident from fossils and a study of things that things are evolving. That is not a problem with Islamic thinking as even Ibn Khuldun mentioned this about half a millennium before Darwin. The only problem we Muslims have with this is the notion that we evolved through monkeys, which contradicts the Quran. There is no real proof of that and pointing out similarities does not prove that! In the end, it is still a guess and not real proof. Denying Allah as the Creator on the basis of a guess or hypothesis only exposes one's rebelliousness. Similarities between homo-sapiens does not mean we evolved from one another...maybe it is just variety and some are decoys from God for fooling the weak in faith into throwing away their faith!

MBN | 12 years ago | Reply We still have a lot to learn about the scientific field for us to categorically state what is right and wrong. We're still not even at the stage where we have practically proven most of the theories of science itself, so I think understanding the various point of views is NECESSARY, but proclaiming one or the other to be the absolute truth is a major failure on our part.

Noman Ansari | 12 years ago | Reply @Shumaila: I have no idea what a yahya fan is but it sounds funny.

Ibrahim | 12 years ago | Reply @Hazrat Nakhuda: Sure they do! I kinda like the word evolutionist because it rhymes with the word delusionist....and what a coincidence, the words are almost interchangeable!!! :)

Shafiq Chaudhary | 12 years ago | Reply "We should all worship Darwin. He is a god" - Richard Dawkins Source: Uncyclopedia

Ibrahim | 12 years ago | Reply @Evolutionists: I have questions: say, hypothetically speaking, we did evolve from monkeys and not according to Allah's plan for us, why then are we different from monkeys and all other mammals? Why do we have a conscience? Why do we ponder over our actions so much, feel guilty, and then try to fix ourselves? Why do we have an urge for sex which goes far beyond the need for procreation? Why do we communicate with each other in an intellectual manner...why did we develop the ability/mechanism to speak when monkeys can communicate with each other just fine without it?

HST | 12 years ago | Reply @Rational Giant Mountain Lion sounds more badass :P

Haroon Yahya | 12 years ago | Reply This is stupid. There is no argument. You just repeat Darwin theories. I tell you, our science is superior. We know all science. If you want, I can send you my book with islamic science containing glossy photographs and funded by rich Saudi Sheikhs. I send it to everyone, even to Dawkins. He had no answer so he didnt reply. And yes evolution is false. Americans didn't go on the moon, that was recorded in a studio. And Darwin implanted all those evidences all across the world to lead the coming generations astray from the truth. I invite Richard Dawkins to embrace Islam. Or even Christianity. He should read my best friend Maurice Baucielle's book. It answers all things from Quran and it's awesome, plus Baucielle was also funded by Arab Sheikhs so his efforts are favoured by the most pious Muslims.

obscurantist | 12 years ago | Reply u mentioned almost a 100 times how stupid the student is. Well you dont hafta offend someone like this.she does have the rights to hold an opinion and as far as your proofs are concerns you might rather try to convince her than to insult her for how immature and stupid she is. This is like ridiculing someone.other than that your jjustifications are truly amazing.but i did not like the insulting way u tried to disprove her oblivion knowledge of evolution.

Shumaila | 12 years ago | Reply @Said Chaudhry - I just want to clarify a point you mentioned in your comment, and along with it a more general mistake that even those well versed int he arguments of evolution make. You said: But the evolution theory has short comings, the major one being the big bang theory which forms the basis of evolution. Evolution is a process that explains the development of complex species from simple, replicating structures. It has got absolutely nothing to do with the big bang theory, the latter being a theory that explains how the universe came into existence. The big bang theory is a contested theory, and it also lies in the realm of physics. Evolution is a pretty well-established biological theory that explains how life developed on earth. It does not explain how the universe came into being. It does not explain how 'life' originated. (That is explained by the abiogenesis theory, also known as the primordial soup theory). People often say, "evolution can't be true because it says we came from nothing". That is conceptually incorrect. Evolution explains how simple organisms developed into complex organisms. It does not attempt to explain anything else. That is all.

M Ali Khan | 12 years ago | Reply @Zaid Hamid: sure they did Mr Red Hat. the same way Islamic science was "inspired" predominantly by the science done by the Greeks, Romans, Persians, and Egyptians of many centuries before Islam even emerged?

Hazrat Nakhuda | 12 years ago | Reply @Ibrahim: Evolutionist don't believe .... they know. Evolution is not a fairy tale that is to be believed or not. It is a scientific fact. And to be honest i don't like the term evolutionist. We don't have Gravitationist for people who believe in Gravity. So there is no use for the term Evolutionist in my dictionary.

Rational | 12 years ago | Reply @HST was there ever really a thing such as a giant mountain lion? Last I checked the Saber-toothed Tiger/cat (smilodon) was the top cat back in the day.. now that's what I would want to be, except I still want my thumbs though. Damn those two thumbs just changed the game.

Rational | 12 years ago | Reply Dear JH, I'm going to make this simple to read and therefore write this using bullet points While yourself and several others condescendingly laugh at the person who has written the letter and mock her institute, let me take out the time to laugh at you for being so pathetically unprofessional and laughing at whatever institute you went to. Have you not been taught that when writing a piece in the same manner that you have written you don't make the person on the other side public? This isn't a personal conversation anymore as you've printed it on the internet for the world to see. (For those who don't get the gist, Imagine if this was an email and the author just pulled this out of his inbox) Doesn't feel too good to be in her shoes now does it? Neither one of you is an authority on any of this subject matter, so please don't present yourself as one. I agree with you overall, most people who bring up the creationist aspect of things haven't paid much light to science because they've believed all along that the game somehow has always been science versus religion, while you didn't explicitly mention this it's fairly simple to figure out that's the point you were trying to get to, specially with your last quote. Be careful of what you label as a 'fact', one of the greatest things about science is that because it is all knowledge gathered by humans, there's always room to change or accommodate better information, what is fact today may very well be garbage tomorrow. That is science at its best, take for example Newtons third law of motion, once upon a time there were people who used to think of that as factual information as well. Last but not least I would like to close this on a better note, the reason why I have written point number 1 in the style I have is not to offend you, or because I have a personal agenda against you. No. It is just (In case you ever read this) a reminder that you are a professional, and one of the very few bright individuals who end up writing sections in Pakistani newspapers, specifically digital sections, that you must be careful in the way you present your argument. Your argument (which I might add is very well constructed) loses when you reply as if you're counter attacking, regardless of the way she had written the letter to you, you should have never compromised professionalism. I wish you the best for the future and hope more talented young individuals come out of Pakistan, Allah tumhara khayal rakhay. Yes I am a strong believer of my deen and my science, it never was religion vs science in the first place.

HST | 12 years ago | Reply @Abdul Rehman Gilani You're one step closer than the others to reality :). However you should remember that Darwin's work was not the last significant work in the field of evolution. Infact it was the first. Evolutionary biology has moved on to a great extent since then bro. What Darwin suggested for humans was an hypothesis...an intelligent guess if you may..based on extrapolation of his observations from birds. We are beyond that point now. So if evolution does not happen for humans, are you suggesting that we are not a life form like others with a set of our own individual traits? Don't we have a brain (albeit more sophisticated), a torso, heart, lungs etc like other mammals? Don't we have DNA like horses and sheep and onions and rats? If not, how does medical experiments on rats and hamsters help us fight diseases and disorders? Or maybe you're suggesting that we evolved but we were not apes? And this follows the classical creationist argument. If we evolved from apes then why are apes still there. Well we did not evolve from apes that you see today and no scientists claim that. We shared a common ancestor thats all. Sometimes I wish humans had evolved from lions and tigers instead of sharing ancestry with apes. It would have been much easier for people to digest the concept with all the symbolism that is connected with the king of the jungle. Part of the problem is cultural, apes and monkeys are seen as dumb and stupid banana eaters. It hurts our ego to be associated with them. But what if it was a giant mountain lion... :)

Proud Atheist | 12 years ago | Reply Well... Evolution of life is a proven fact now. :)

Ibrahim | 12 years ago | Reply Let the evolutionist believe what they want, it is their right. However, I think they will get their wish in the end, except in reverse order. They will probably be turned into monkeys after being human!

Javeria Mahmood | 12 years ago | Reply Commendable job Jahanzeb

Said Chaudhry | 12 years ago | Reply Evolution theory is quite beautiful. I agree with a lot of it, mainly natural selection, genetic drift, bias mututation, gene flow, survival of the fittest; mainly because we can see examples of that all around us and through out history. But the evolution theory has short comings, the major one being the big bang theory which forms the basis of evolution. For all scientific reactions between two substrates you need a catalyst to induce the reaction and of course you need the substrates. The big bang theory claims that infinite amount of nothingness exploded into stars and dust and all the matter we see around us today. That to me is difficult to believe, because even at a molecular level you do not see something like that happen. Then again, there is so much humans are still learning and do not know. As a medical doctor, the intricacies of the human embryology and physiology always fascinated me and the perfection with which different systems in our body work together is truly amazing and the idea that all of this happened by chance over a period of time is somewhat difficult to conceive. A very deep study of science is necessary in debating evolution vs creationism, reading Origin of Species or a few youtube videos are not enough but then again...whatever helps people go to sleep at night is just fine because it's a question that has dogged humans for a very long time and there's no clear answer. In the end, we have to use our learnings and draw our conclusions. A theory is a theory because it has not been proven, that been said; humans should respect all theories and beliefs equally.

Adil Mulki | 12 years ago | Reply The letter and its reply point to much more serious issues in our society. The inflexibility and intolerance of different views. Unfortunately, apparently the more educated, moderate and liberal are also "extremist" in their liberalism and would do better than to scoff at difference of opinion.

Nabeel Khalid | 12 years ago | Reply Couldn't have responded better myself. If you believe, you can't question the existence of God and his disciples, but everything else, you can - only to understand more. The classic example of the drowning man rescue where he sends the rescue team away because he believes God will save him. He still needs a 'means' to get through to you - be it DNA or "Allah" written in Arabic through trees. (Of course, he drowns!) Ignorance should be prosecuted - just because faith is blind doesn't mean you become blind with it. You need to see, hear, and try to understand even more, until you have conviction about every topic that interests you, even if the slightest bit.

Abdul Rehman Gilani | 12 years ago | Reply Evolution maybe a reality, but claiming humans were once apes isnt. But its funny to see atheists and agnostics giving vehement references to the monkey tales by Darwin.

Babar | 12 years ago | Reply Bravo Jahanzeb. But its like hitting your head against a brick wall..

Khattak | 12 years ago | Reply WOW! EPIC reply sir... good job!

Hasan | 12 years ago | Reply Bravo! I just get so pleased when I see that there still are sane voices among our society. The writer is spot on about the fact that the clergymen of today have diluted the minds of our people, the result of which have made many of them 'narrow' minded. I admire your knowledge and your bluntness.

Maryam | 12 years ago | Reply and by the way i dont even believe in evolution....and the picture above. we are muslims and we know there is no such thing as evolution!

Maryam | 12 years ago | Reply Dear J.Haque, i totally appreciate you replying to the letter with detail. but PLEASE try to respect other's view aswelll. even if u completely disagree with evidence it just doesnt mean u just stop respecting other opinions. kindly check out the difference between her writing and your reply . use a softer tone! Regards!

Rahim | 12 years ago | Reply Excellent article! Unfortunately, I expect the naysayers will soon be all over it, livid in their collective ignorance. Also, any Doctor that refuses to believe in Evolution, ought to have his or her license revoked.

Mikey | 12 years ago | Reply EVOLUTION IS WRONG!!! Yep, it's true. Try to thing outside your little ideological bubble, and acknowledge the fact that Christ could not have started evolution! Does the idea of us being created in six days fit with us coming out of the primordial soup at three billion years ago? NO!!!

gt | 12 years ago | Reply Dear Mr. Haque, I am a cell biologist. I am not interested in the arguments of Hira Tariq, other than to point out that a KU graduate in Mass Communications either cannot write a coherent, grammatically correct, tract or does not edit her (his?) work before publication. However, I AM concerned about the conceptual inaccuracies in your "defence" of evolution: "that evolution is not a series of random, clumsy mutations in which “any change is possible”, but a meticulous selection of only the best traits that allow a species to survive and flourish." I urge you to read the works of Stephen Jay Gould, particularly, "The Spandrels of San Marcos or a Critique of Adaptionism". Please try to understand the concept of Darwinian Fitness, W, a purely quantitative and stochastic measure comparing any 2 populations, A and B. Specifically, W is the ratio of of number of offspring surviving to the age of reproductive fitness for population A over the number for population B. Nowhere does the notion of "best" traits figure into this. WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. You had a bad science teacher. One more thing distinguishing science and religion. Science continually questions the very basic elements of its foundations and strives to overturn these whenever possible, and move to another plane of understanding. This is called a "paradigm shift", jn the word of Kuhn. For example, the "Central Dogma" of Molecular Biology has seen quite a few somersaults in my own scientific career: DNA, then the RNA revolution, now the many details being uncovered by prion proteins. In 1909, the term "gene" was coined to indicate "a unit of inheritance". Now, 100 years later, after unimaginable activity, we have come to the point where we are back to the place where we cannot define the operational unit of inheritance in all its complexity. Does this define our ignorance? Not at all. Those, like Tariq, who parade their "faith", indulge in an auto-erotic orgiastic profanity of the sacred; that is what public prayer, ritual and religiosity all are: the basest, most horrific perversions of the holy, the intimate and the private. Wherever piety is flaunted in public, it is sure to be desperately depauperate within. Hence, the continual, evil need publicly to reaffirm piety and attack another point of view. Who has asked Tariq to become a vakeel for God? Where is that vakalatnama? That same question can be asked of all the Salafis & takfiris.

Joginder | 12 years ago | Reply Religion is dogma. It makes people behave unreasonably (and even commit all sorts of atrocities on each other). There's no such thing as a "God". If there is indeed some such thing then who, or what, created the same? Some Super-God? It is just the natural laws which we revere as God. And retorting, "And Who created these laws?" is an argument which won't get us anywhere. Theologians and scientists have gone over this one ad nauseum. Basically energy and matter are interchangeable (E=MC squared, remember?). That's all the god there is. Energy has its laws and so does matter.

Loneliberal PK | 12 years ago | Reply Why have we fostered the idea that science can be dismissed as "just another opinion"? That it's okay for average-Hinas from mass communications to question the word of 98.85% of all biologists around the world (according to last Gallup poll) that evolution through natural selection is a reality? Hina's assertions are absurd. And it's not that the scientists haven't been able to explain the step-by-step evolution of complex mechanisms and anatomical parts, it's that Ms.Hina hasn't bothered to seek out these explanations, or indeed, even understand the very basics of how natural selection works. In this regard, she is not alone. Most Pakistanis are woefully uninformed about evolution.

Hameed | 12 years ago | Reply You wont find any sane human being denying the current structure of our solar system,but unless you are in self denial,you cant deny there are thousands of well qualified scientists who call Darwin's bluff.Just google for discovery institute. 80% Pakistan doctors are said to be endorsing Evolution according the poll you have cited but the same poll says 90% of people in Turkey don't believe in Darwin's theory of evolution,I feel this primarily due to the works of Harun Yahya. Can you now stand up and assert Turks are idiots,unscientific and use the same insulting words which you used against Harun Yahya? Your videos about the so called synthetic cells are in the same league as Life in bottle experiments done by Miller–Urey and we all now know what happened to Miller experiments?

Faz | 12 years ago | Reply Life has evolved on earth, what has it to do with religion? Does religion(read Islam here) or God deny evolution? The conflict is between Christian understanding of religion or church and scientists- why didn't the author posted the reply privately to the letter writer - why others have to go through the torture of reading a flawed letter and a useless commentary on it-

John Lowen | 12 years ago | Reply great article and not condescending at all..keep up the good fight.

John B | 12 years ago | Reply Now I know why pak media is full of irrational anchors with mullah politics. They all must have come from U. Karachi school of mass media communication. Evolution is the product of surviving with best possible traits for continuation of species that includes humans. That is the reason the world is predominated by heterosexuals, in case he wonders. All species even today are undergoing evolution. For evolution to happen three aspects are essential: migration, mutation, and selection . In the absence of any one these , attrition of species happens. Eg: Taliban

Zaid Hamid | 12 years ago | Reply This is all western propaganda....they stole Islamic Science.

H Javed | 12 years ago | Reply Lol @ pwned! She really did. Good job, Jahanzeb and I hope you helped sparked change in many minds including Miss Hira's!

Nida Haque | 12 years ago | Reply Wonderful job Jahanzaib! Finally an argument without a plethora of fallacies :)

Shumaila | 12 years ago | Reply This was absolutely fantastic. I've used the last few arguments myself so many times in my attempt to convince creationists/Yahya fans. Its often hopeless, but I commend you on this superb effort :D

Confused | 12 years ago | Reply You're using difficult words. Hence you're being deliberately vague. It's all God. And he doesn't like evolution. (No, I'm completely serious here. Utterly so)

Saira | 12 years ago | Reply Great job man!!! Couldn't agree more!

multani mango | 12 years ago | Reply writer must feel ashamed while mentioning this statement ( 80 per cent of Pakistani doctors surveyed in the United States). can writer tell me, what 'studying in the usa' gives to ppl, r they becoming superior? mostly the ppl from 3rd world countries go usa for studying, and what do they think themselves after studying there? ppl from developed nations don't do the same. i claim that most of developed countries don't even care about evolution theory, this thing run just by ignorant copy paste scientist...

multani mango | 12 years ago | Reply evolution is all fake, there is no single real evidence of evolution. most of pakistanis believe this theory and they are one of the most ignorant nations of the world, because they mostly don't have their own scientific knowledge, just copy paste from west!!!

M Ali Khan | 12 years ago | Reply For our tech-savvy geeks around I recommend seeing videos from these youtube users to better understand evolution and how it actually works and how ridiculous creationist arguments tend to be: potholer54 AronRa (esp his "Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism" series) Thunderf00t ("Why Do People Laugh At Creationists") TheLivingDinosaur QualiaSoup ExtantDodo and many more. in fact just start with this QualiaSoup video about evolution: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vss1VKN2rf8

Noman Ansari | 12 years ago | Reply I don't like using internet lingo, but ummm... Ms. Hira Tariq... You just got PWNED!

Abu Bakr | 12 years ago | Reply Okay dude I believe in evolution, I agree with most of your arguments and in my opinion evolution is the work of the Lord. But why is your reply so condescending? No one is going to respect your opinions if you don't learn to respect their's. Sorry, but the argument is fantastic but unprofessional. The point of an argument should never be to stand out and disprove the opponent, but rather to together find the answer you both look for through discussion.

Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ

Evolution is false...and the Sun goes round the Earth

FOLLOW US