islam is growing in the west

[Syed]

who evolved us or what evolved us?

are we evolving NOW?

No, we are not currently evolving. Our children and their children and so on, however, will evolve slightly from us as we evolved from our ancestors.

why do we evolved ?

why do any living thing evolve ?

 

[bilby]

No, we are not currently evolving. Our children and their children and so on, however, will evolve slightly from us as we evolved from our ancestors.

why do we evolved ?

why do any living thing evolve ?

Imperfectly inheritable traits exist, and so does death.

With those two things, evolution is inevitable.

Tall fathers have tall sons - but some may be slightly shorter or slightly taller than their fathers. Short fathers have short sons, but again, some may be slightly shorter or slightly taller than their fathers. Not every son has the same number of children; and one of the many things that influence how many sons someone has, is his height. While this is true, evolution is inevitable. And the same thing applies to ALL inheritable traits.

Of course, you fail to understand this, because you don't actually understand what evolution IS - you have a deeply flawed mischaracterization of evolution in your mind, which prevents you from grasping how real evolution really works. The only solution to that is for you to learn. But you have repeatedly shown that you are unwilling or unable to even attempt to do so. So you doom yourself to eternal misunderstanding and ignorance.

 

[Syed]

there was NO DNA when earth form

so who created DNA to form life?

can form without DNA?

The question of exactly how DNA arose (and how many times) is not yet resolved; There are a number of hypotheses that have supporting evidence, and that have not yet been shown to be incorrect, all of which involve simpler chemical precursors. None of them include a 'who', much less a God, as there is exactly zero evidence for such a thing, and to postulate one would raise far more questions than it would answer.

Our best hypotheses for the origin of DNA is that it evolved from RNA precursors:

The first step in the emergence of DNA has been most likely the formation of U-DNA (DNA containing uracil), since ribonucleotide reductases produce dUTP (or dUDP) from UTP (or UDP) and not dTTP from TTP (the latter does not exist in the cell). Some modern viruses indeed have a U-DNA genome, possibly reflecting this first transition step between the RNA and DNA worlds. The selection of the letter T occurred probably in a second step, dTTP being produced in modern cells by the modification of dUMP into dTMP by thymidylate synthases (followed by phosphorylation). Interestingly, the same kinase can phosphorylate both dUMP and dTMP. In modern cells, dUMP is produced from dUTP by dUTPases, or from dCMP by dCMP deaminases. This is another indication that T-DNA originated after U-DNA. In ancient U-DNA cells, dUMP might have been also produced by degradation of U-DNA.

The origin of DNA also required the appearance of enzymes able to incorporate dNTPs using first RNA templates (reverse transcriptases) and later on DNA templates (DNA polymerases). In all living organisms (cells and viruses), all these enzymes work in the 5' to 3' direction. This directionality is dictated by the cellular metabolism that produces only dNTP 5' triphosphates and no 3' triphosphates. Indeed, both purine and pyrimidine biosyntheses are built up on ribose 5 monophosphate as a common precursor. The sense of DNA synthesis itself is therefore a relic of the RNA world metabolism. Modern DNA polymerases of the A and B families, reverse transcriptases, cellular RNA polymerases and viral replicative RNA polymerases are structurally related and thus probably homologous (for references, see a recent review on viral RNA-dependent RNA polymerases.) This suggests that reverse transcriptase and DNA polymerases of the A and B families originated from an ancestral RNA polymerase that has also descendants among viral-like RNA replicases.

(source)

The emergence of DNA is therefore a result of progressively more simple precursor molecules, via simple chemistry. DNA comes from RNA, which comes from simple Phosphates and simple sugars, such as Ribose. Phosphate is just Phosphorous and Oxygen, and will form spontaneously if these two elements are present; similarly Ribose can form spontaneously where water and carbon are present, particularly in reducing conditions where energy is available, but carbon is relatively scarce. Both Phosphate and a variety of simple monosaccharides, including Ribose, have been observed in interstellar dust clouds - they form by atoms simply sticking together. The atoms themselves are generated by nuclear fusion in the cores of stars, from Hydrogen. So the origin of DNA is:

Hydrogen -stars-> Carbon, Phosphorous, Nitrogen and Oxygen
Phosphorous, Oxygen and Hydrogen -simple chemistry-> Phosphates and simple sugars; Amino acids
Phosphates and simple sugars -simple chemistry-> RNA
RNA and Amino Acids -RNA catalysed chemistry-> Proteins
RNA -Protein catalysed chemistry-> DNA
DNA -Protein catalysed chemistry-> all of modern biochemistry

Each step starts with something simpler, and leads to something a little more complex; And so, from very simple beginnings, we can explain the existence of the complexity we see today.

The alternative hypothesis - that complex systems can only derive from systems that are more complex than themselves - runs into a logical dead-end. If humans are so complex that only a hugely complex and powerful God could have made them, then God requires an even more complex and powerful creator; which in turn requires an even more complex and powerful creator, and so on forever. The only way to break this death-spiral of logic is to assume that at some point, something just exists without cause. There is exactly zero reason to imagine that this 'uncaused cause' would be highly complex. I can stomach the idea of a few simple particles spontaneously arising from nothing, or having simply existed eternally, far more easily than the idea that something sufficiently complex as to have intelligence could do so. And all the evidence points towards simple origins. We know that the universe gets simpler, the further back in time we look. A handful of quarks, plus a few billion years, leads to everything we observe today without any need for intelligent intervention of any kind, prior to the (relatively recent) spontaneous evolution of intelligence.

.

all the thing you wrote above is some body eyewitness to that or just somebody imagination?

 

[bilby]

The question of exactly how DNA arose (and how many times) is not yet resolved; There are a number of hypotheses that have supporting evidence, and that have not yet been shown to be incorrect, all of which involve simpler chemical precursors. None of them include a 'who', much less a God, as there is exactly zero evidence for such a thing, and to postulate one would raise far more questions than it would answer.

Our best hypotheses for the origin of DNA is that it evolved from RNA precursors:

The first step in the emergence of DNA has been most likely the formation of U-DNA (DNA containing uracil), since ribonucleotide reductases produce dUTP (or dUDP) from UTP (or UDP) and not dTTP from TTP (the latter does not exist in the cell). Some modern viruses indeed have a U-DNA genome, possibly reflecting this first transition step between the RNA and DNA worlds. The selection of the letter T occurred probably in a second step, dTTP being produced in modern cells by the modification of dUMP into dTMP by thymidylate synthases (followed by phosphorylation). Interestingly, the same kinase can phosphorylate both dUMP and dTMP. In modern cells, dUMP is produced from dUTP by dUTPases, or from dCMP by dCMP deaminases. This is another indication that T-DNA originated after U-DNA. In ancient U-DNA cells, dUMP might have been also produced by degradation of U-DNA.

The origin of DNA also required the appearance of enzymes able to incorporate dNTPs using first RNA templates (reverse transcriptases) and later on DNA templates (DNA polymerases). In all living organisms (cells and viruses), all these enzymes work in the 5' to 3' direction. This directionality is dictated by the cellular metabolism that produces only dNTP 5' triphosphates and no 3' triphosphates. Indeed, both purine and pyrimidine biosyntheses are built up on ribose 5 monophosphate as a common precursor. The sense of DNA synthesis itself is therefore a relic of the RNA world metabolism. Modern DNA polymerases of the A and B families, reverse transcriptases, cellular RNA polymerases and viral replicative RNA polymerases are structurally related and thus probably homologous (for references, see a recent review on viral RNA-dependent RNA polymerases.) This suggests that reverse transcriptase and DNA polymerases of the A and B families originated from an ancestral RNA polymerase that has also descendants among viral-like RNA replicases.

(source)

The emergence of DNA is therefore a result of progressively more simple precursor molecules, via simple chemistry. DNA comes from RNA, which comes from simple Phosphates and simple sugars, such as Ribose. Phosphate is just Phosphorous and Oxygen, and will form spontaneously if these two elements are present; similarly Ribose can form spontaneously where water and carbon are present, particularly in reducing conditions where energy is available, but carbon is relatively scarce. Both Phosphate and a variety of simple monosaccharides, including Ribose, have been observed in interstellar dust clouds - they form by atoms simply sticking together. The atoms themselves are generated by nuclear fusion in the cores of stars, from Hydrogen. So the origin of DNA is:

Hydrogen -stars-> Carbon, Phosphorous, Nitrogen and Oxygen
Phosphorous, Oxygen and Hydrogen -simple chemistry-> Phosphates and simple sugars; Amino acids
Phosphates and simple sugars -simple chemistry-> RNA
RNA and Amino Acids -RNA catalysed chemistry-> Proteins
RNA -Protein catalysed chemistry-> DNA
DNA -Protein catalysed chemistry-> all of modern biochemistry

Each step starts with something simpler, and leads to something a little more complex; And so, from very simple beginnings, we can explain the existence of the complexity we see today.

The alternative hypothesis - that complex systems can only derive from systems that are more complex than themselves - runs into a logical dead-end. If humans are so complex that only a hugely complex and powerful God could have made them, then God requires an even more complex and powerful creator; which in turn requires an even more complex and powerful creator, and so on forever. The only way to break this death-spiral of logic is to assume that at some point, something just exists without cause. There is exactly zero reason to imagine that this 'uncaused cause' would be highly complex. I can stomach the idea of a few simple particles spontaneously arising from nothing, or having simply existed eternally, far more easily than the idea that something sufficiently complex as to have intelligence could do so. And all the evidence points towards simple origins. We know that the universe gets simpler, the further back in time we look. A handful of quarks, plus a few billion years, leads to everything we observe today without any need for intelligent intervention of any kind, prior to the (relatively recent) spontaneous evolution of intelligence.

.

all the thing you wrote above is some body eyewitness to that or just somebody imagination?

All of this chemistry can be directly observed in the laboratory. Imagination doesn't come into it.

 

[skepticalbip]

nm

 

[DBT]

Rather than something that can be observed or tested, to say ''created'' is an assumption based on a set of religious beliefs.

what did you observed or tested?

The evidence for evolution is acquired and tested.

what is the mechanism behind that life appeared on earth?

Complex chemistry powered by some energy source. It can be volcanic vents (tectonic), solar energy or both.

 

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

who evolved us or what evolved us?

are we evolving NOW?

Nobody evolved us. Genetic differences due to imperfect DNA copying accumlated over millions of generations until we became what we are today.

Yes, we (as in humanity, not as individuals) are still evolving, and will continue to do so as long as DNA copying is an imperfect process.

There is no "who" in natural processes.

 

[Syed]

why do we evolved ?

why do any living thing evolve ?

Imperfectly inheritable traits exist, and so does death.

With those two things, evolution is inevitable.

so we evolved to became better from our imperfection ? correct ?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Imperfectly inheritable traits exist, and so does death.

With those two things, evolution is inevitable.

so we evolved to became better from our imperfection ? correct ?

No, not correct. 'Better' is subjective. We evolved from apes that tore down trees to animals with the power to obliterate all life on the planet. Some would say that was not 'better.'

Evolution is not about moving away from imperfection, it's about 'good enough to get by.'

 

[Tom Sawyer]

No, we are not currently evolving. Our children and their children and so on, however, will evolve slightly from us as we evolved from our ancestors.

why do we evolved ?

why do any living thing evolve ?

Because DNA replication is not 100% successful and there can be slight differences between generations. A small percentage of those slight differences are positive traits for the environment the organism is in. Over the course of thousands of generations, those slight differences add up.

If we'd been created perfectly by an omniscient being, that kind of error rate wouldn't exist.

 

[bilby]

Imperfectly inheritable traits exist, and so does death.

With those two things, evolution is inevitable.

so we evolved to became better from our imperfection ? correct ?

No.

Evolution isn't about getting better; it's purely about survival and reproduction. If you don't have descendants, then your traits vanish, no matter how 'good' they might have been. If you do have descendants then your traits persist.

That's why we have Malaria and Guinea Worm. It's why Smallpox killed millions, until science found a way to wipe it out.

The idea that a loving and merciful God deliberately created such horrible things is insane. They exist; therefore a loving and merciful God who created all life is a logical impossibility.

 

[iolo]

No, we are not currently evolving. Our children and their children and so on, however, will evolve slightly from us as we evolved from our ancestors.

why do we evolved ?

why do any living thing evolve ?

Because, like thieves in American capitalism, some are better suited to current conditions than others, so are in a better position for successful breeding, obviously.

 

[ideologyhunter]

You go, Syed. Sell it!!! You haven't touched on Islam's appeal to the modern western woman, and that's where a truly dynamic niche market exists for you. My sense is that women have had it with the job market, and most want nothing more than some sexy Omar Sharif type to guide them and fulfill their true desires. What woman isn't fed up with the prep time involved in getting her "look" right for the day? Jump into a hijab, babe -- it's easier than Pajama Jeans. Tired of makeup? Join the club -- get a burka! I can't imagine a "modern" "liberated" woman who doesn't secretly want to be put on the pedestal that Islam has waiting for her. Added plus: NEVER having to wait in the DMV for your new driver's license. Be chaperoned by your dashing Muslim man or his brother or his cousin Ahmed. Sweeeet!!!

 

[Keith&Co.]

islam is growing in the west

why white western christians converting to islam?

I just noticed that those are two different things, Syed.
The number of muslims in Britain is growing, but the nation's trend overall is actually towards religious indifference. Not towards islam. Which would make sense if the biggest thing going for Islam is immigration, rather than conversion.

So many Muslims are crowding in, but the conversions are towards atheism, or apatheism.

 

[Veritass]

I know it is bad form (and might even be a breach of the terms of use) to question Syed's sincerity, but I have been spending some time over on a couple of "scam-baiting" sites, and I find the parallels interesting.

A junior level of scam-baiting is to respond to scams with very vague "...gee what do you mean?" and "...how could I have won that lottery?" type of answers. The point is merely to occupy the scammer's time and internet connection and keep them away from actual marks. More advanced scam-baiting can get very interesting, but I'll leave that alone for now.

It seems to me that Syed's ratio of (time other users spend making responses) to (time he spends throwing out vague statements and inquiries) has got to be one of the highest on this site. I can't speculate on whether his intent is to occupy people's time and keep them from other useful pursuits, but he certainly seems to have that effect.

 

[skepticalbip]

Allah just told me that he is really pissed at what Mohammed did with the message he was given. He corrupted it. Now Allah has no choice but to send anyone who believes and accepts that corrupted message to hell. Allah said that he asked Gabriel about it and Gabriel told him he delivered the message correctly but that Mohammed fucked it up with his own prejudices, biases, and hatreds.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm curious what Islam provides as "answers" that is unique and can't be found in Christianity or Judaism.

Imperfectly inheritable traits exist, and so does death.

With those two things, evolution is inevitable.

so we evolved to became better from our imperfection ? correct ?

Actually, evolution comes forth via mistakes in the regeneration of genetic code. Whether those mistakes are beneficial, harmful, neutral are to be based on the environment and the magnitude of the change.

IE evolution is caused by an imperfect biologic set up and environmental pressures.

- - - Updated - - -

I know it is bad form (and might even be a breach of the terms of use) to question Syed's sincerity, but I have been spending some time over on a couple of "scam-baiting" sites, and I find the parallels interesting.

A junior level of scam-baiting is to respond to scams with very vague "...gee what do you mean?" and "...how could I have won that lottery?" type of answers. The point is merely to occupy the scammer's time and internet connection and keep them away from actual marks. More advanced scam-baiting can get very interesting, but I'll leave that alone for now.

It seems to me that Syed's ratio of (time other users spend making responses) to (time he spends throwing out vague statements and inquiries) has got to be one of the highest on this site. I can't speculate on whether his intent is to occupy people's time and keep them from other useful pursuits, but he certainly seems to have that effect.

I disagree. I don't think many people have spent much time debunking syed, as there has been little to debunk over the years.

 

[skepticalbip]

^ ^

But you should agree that any serious time spent in trying to answer his questions in any detail would be a waste of time.

 

[atrib]

I know it is bad form (and might even be a breach of the terms of use) to question Syed's sincerity, but I have been spending some time over on a couple of "scam-baiting" sites, and I find the parallels interesting.

A junior level of scam-baiting is to respond to scams with very vague "...gee what do you mean?" and "...how could I have won that lottery?" type of answers. The point is merely to occupy the scammer's time and internet connection and keep them away from actual marks. More advanced scam-baiting can get very interesting, but I'll leave that alone for now.

It seems to me that Syed's ratio of (time other users spend making responses) to (time he spends throwing out vague statements and inquiries) has got to be one of the highest on this site. I can't speculate on whether his intent is to occupy people's time and keep them from other useful pursuits, but he certainly seems to have that effect.

The tactics would appear to be very similar. I can only speculate as to his motives, but his behavior over the past decade as a member of these forums has been exactly as you described. I suspect he finds it entertaining to waste people's time.

 

[bilby]

I know it is bad form (and might even be a breach of the terms of use) to question Syed's sincerity, but I have been spending some time over on a couple of "scam-baiting" sites, and I find the parallels interesting.

A junior level of scam-baiting is to respond to scams with very vague "...gee what do you mean?" and "...how could I have won that lottery?" type of answers. The point is merely to occupy the scammer's time and internet connection and keep them away from actual marks. More advanced scam-baiting can get very interesting, but I'll leave that alone for now.

It seems to me that Syed's ratio of (time other users spend making responses) to (time he spends throwing out vague statements and inquiries) has got to be one of the highest on this site. I can't speculate on whether his intent is to occupy people's time and keep them from other useful pursuits, but he certainly seems to have that effect.

Nah, it's OK; I'm here for my own entertainment, and if I wasn't replying to Syed, I would be wasting time in some other, equally futile way.