Ask Experts Questions for FREE Help !
Ask
    cal823's Avatar
    cal823 Posts: 867, Reputation: 116
    Senior Member
     
    #21

    Aug 23, 2007, 01:53 AM
    The bible never says that the earth does not revolve around the sun.
    It wasn't christians who believed that, it was everyone
    I will admit that the catholic church of those times did often try to suppress new ideas, and made many other mistakes. If the catholic church hadn't opposed science so much back then, maybe the scientist and the christian wouldn't be so hostile to each other nowadays, and more accepting of each other.

    What language does the qur'an origionally written in? Maybe there's a similar way about the original language of the bible, explaining the 6 day issue.
    And hey, a day isn't always 24 hours. If you look in joshua, you'll see that god made the sun stand still and the moon stand still (thats the human witnees interpretation, maybe god just adjusted the earths orbit/spin temporarily to achieve the same affect) so that the battle could be finished
    During the creation, gods 6 days could have been any kind of days he wanted them to, he could have slowed the orbits and stuff, giving himself days lasting months, years, even millennia for him to work in.
    firmbeliever's Avatar
    firmbeliever Posts: 2,919, Reputation: 463
    Ultra Member
     
    #22

    Aug 23, 2007, 02:02 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by cal823
    the bible never says that the earth does not revolve around the sun.
    it wasnt christians who believed that, it was everyone
    i will admit that the catholic church of those times did often try to suppress new ideas, and made many other mistakes. if the catholic church hadnt opposed science so much back then, maybe the scientist and the christian wouldnt be so hostile to each other nowadays, and more accepting of each other.

    what language does the qur'an origionally written in? maybe theres a similar way about the original language of the bible, explaining the 6 day issue.
    and hey, a day isnt always 24 hours. if you look in joshua, youll see that god made the sun stand still and the moon stand still (thats the human witnees interpretation, maybe god just adjusted the earths orbit/spin temporarily to achieve the same affect) so that the battle could be finished
    during the creation, gods 6 days could have been any kind of days he wanted them to, he could have slowed the orbits and stuff, giving himself days lasting months, years, even millenia for him to work in.
    Quran is originally in Arabic...
    jillianleab's Avatar
    jillianleab Posts: 1,194, Reputation: 279
    Ultra Member
     
    #23

    Oct 15, 2007, 03:56 PM
    Thanks for the link to this thread, firmbeliever.

    I hope our discussion in the other thread has given you a better understanding of how natural selection works. One thing which might help you in that understanding is to remember than humans are animals - we're just at the top of the food chain. We're the smartest, the most advanced, but really, we're just animals.

    Here's the link to the thread for anyone who wants to see where the conversation went:
    https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/biolog...131048-10.html
    firmbeliever's Avatar
    firmbeliever Posts: 2,919, Reputation: 463
    Ultra Member
     
    #24

    Oct 15, 2007, 04:37 PM
    Before we continue further I would just like to let you know where I stand on this theory and this article agrees with my views.
    Islam Tomorrow .com

    And I believe that Adam(alaihi salaam) was the first man.
    Now this does not mean that I do not agree or disagree with other beings similar to apes existing before Adam's existence.

    I understand how natural selection works.

    I am not too sure about the human being an animal part.
    I think since "human" beings began we have been the same, with a conscience and a brain that works much the same like our present day humans.
    Just the progress in technology and science seems to aid this intelligence in progressing today's human beings.

    When I really think about it, sometimes I feel that the older civilisations without today's technology had progressed quite far in their methods of buildings,astronomy,languages etc

    I can relate to the part where the earth formed and living creatures formed and grew in number and types.
    But now that I think about it I am wondering did the dinosaurs exist between the first animals and the modern day animals?
    Did the animals grow that big and then start to become smaller as the earth aged?

    I might sound a bit off at times,but that is just how I am processing and digesting information.
    jillianleab's Avatar
    jillianleab Posts: 1,194, Reputation: 279
    Ultra Member
     
    #25

    Oct 15, 2007, 06:51 PM
    Ok, let me try this another way, and if there are things in here you already know and I'm putting it too simply, I'm not trying to insult your intelligence, but it helps me be able to explain it step by step!

    If you have to classify life on this planet you have plants and animals, right (for simplicities sake)? If I show you a picture of a tree, you and you have to pick (A) Plant or (B) Animal, you pick (A). If I show you a picture of me and tell you to pick (A) Plant or (B) Animal, what do you pick? Human is just another type of animal. We know that because of they types of cells we have - we don't have plant cells, we have animal cells. For a graphic representation, see the link below.

    plant and animal cells

    ALL animals have cells that look like that first picture. A snail, a fish, a toad, a human. All plants have cells that look like the second picture. That's why humans are considered animals. Now, perhaps you already know this (in which case I'm not trying to insult you), but because of your beliefs you think we are better than animals. That's fine, and really, it's true. But on a cellular level, we are still animals. Other things set up apart from other animals; brain size, capacity for planning and reason, reflection, speech to name a few examples. Obviously we are the "best" animal.

    When you say the first "humans" were pretty much the same as we are today, you're right. I know your religion tells you Adam was the first man (human) but in evolutionary terms, you don't call a human a human until he's a homo sapien. Homo sapian looked like this:

    Google Image Result for http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2005/03/18/evolution_1903_wideweb__430x328,1.jpg (guy #2 in the lineup).

    Before homo sapien, we weren't "human" we were other things (usually referred to as early man). That first "human", it appears, DID think in similar ways to us, and yes, technology has allowed us advancement. And indeed, ancient civilizations progressed amazingly with regards to the limited technologies they had. I don't know if you've ever been to an ancient ruins site, but they are incredible. Take the great pyramids, for example. I've never been, but the construction and precision is amazing. It's mind boggling that man did that without the aid of so many modern conveniences when today we think the world will end if the cable goes out. But man didn't get to that state without work. The first humans still had to compete for food, shelter, a place in the community, safety and so on. At that time, natural selection was still taking place. Early human was still trying to create the best race they could.

    About dinosaurs, obviously I can't give you guidance to the Islamic belief there, but from the archeological evidence we have, dinosaurs did not exist with man - at all. So yes, dinosaurs existed between the first animals (the ones crawling out of the primordial ooze) and present day animals (cats and dogs). If, in fact, there was a large volcanic eruption or asteroid impact that caused the death of the dinosaurs, this didn't kill ALL the animals on earth. Mammals, especially the small ones, survived. Those mammals reproduced and evolved into what we find today. Bear in mind this was 65 million years ago - that's a long time. Early man (and later modern man) came out of that evolution. Again, there is absolutely ZERO archeological evidence that man existed with dinosaurs (this is a common thought among some).
    firmbeliever's Avatar
    firmbeliever Posts: 2,919, Reputation: 463
    Ultra Member
     
    #26

    Oct 15, 2007, 06:59 PM
    Jillian,
    Just to get things right.

    I am still reading your answer and thinking over it.
    But wanted to thank you for the detailed simple explanation.

    I agree with the animal part when you put it under cell structure,of course we cannot be plants.

    About dinosaurs, there is nothing in the Quran that says humans existed from the beginning of earth/universe.
    But I do remember a verse which mentions that there was a time when man was nothing to be mentioned of(not in the same words,but same meaning).
    CaptainRich's Avatar
    CaptainRich Posts: 4,492, Reputation: 537
    Cars & Trucks Expert
     
    #27

    Oct 15, 2007, 07:01 PM
    I like the video that Carl Sagan and crew did:

    YouTube - Carl Sagan - Origins

    Give it some thought...
    firmbeliever's Avatar
    firmbeliever Posts: 2,919, Reputation: 463
    Ultra Member
     
    #28

    Oct 17, 2007, 03:15 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by jillianleab

    When you say the first "humans" were pretty much the same as we are today, you're right. I know your religion tells you Adam was the first man (human) but in evolutionary terms, you don't call a human a human until he's a homo sapien. Homo sapian looked like this:

    Before homo sapien, we weren't "human" we were other things (usually referred to as early man). That first "human", it appears, DID think in similar ways to us, and yes, technology has allowed us advancement. And indeed, ancient civilizations progressed amazingly with regards to the limited technologies they had. I don't know if you've ever been to an ancient ruins site, but they are incredible. Take the great pyramids, for example. I've never been, but the construction and precision is amazing. It's mind boggling that man did that without the aid of so many modern conveniences when today we think the world will end if the cable goes out. But man didn't get to that state without work. The first humans still had to compete for food, shelter, a place in the community, safety and so on. At that time, natural selection was still taking place. Early human was still trying to create the best race they could.

    Again, there is absolutely ZERO archeological evidence that man existed with dinosaurs (this is a common thought among some).
    So I can safely say that the first "human" was Adam(alaihi salaam).

    Could it be possible that these other "early man" were not really human beings as we are,but another animal with similar structure and these went extinct like other animals?
    And like apes having a similarity in dna, these animal like man also had similarities to humans?

    About dinosaurs not being around at that time humans started living on earth, I agree with this because the universe began long before man existed on earth and the earth has to have taken ages/eons to become what it is today as a planet.
    jillianleab's Avatar
    jillianleab Posts: 1,194, Reputation: 279
    Ultra Member
     
    #29

    Oct 17, 2007, 08:39 AM
    If you want to call the first human "Adam", go for it. It certainly fits in line with your religious beliefs, and since you acknowledge the existence of other, early man creatures before "Adam" this isn't wholly inconsistent with the scientific view. As you know, science says "Adam" evolved from early man, but I know it is not your personal belief that this is the case.

    The reason in science early man is considered (in general terms) human is because that's where we came from - that's the line of evolution. I don't know enough to say with any authority that the dna structure of early man is the same or XX% the same as our current dna, so I'm sorry, but I don't have an answer for that. I have a feeling looking it up would mean wading through a lot of scientific jargon, too!

    Glad we agree people weren't dining on T-Rex steak! :)
    firmbeliever's Avatar
    firmbeliever Posts: 2,919, Reputation: 463
    Ultra Member
     
    #30

    Oct 17, 2007, 09:10 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by jillianleab
    Glad we agree people weren't dining on T-Rex steak! :)
    My faith is a bit more compatible with science than you think:)
    firmbeliever's Avatar
    firmbeliever Posts: 2,919, Reputation: 463
    Ultra Member
     
    #31

    Oct 26, 2007, 04:57 AM
    I have a question again on this topic.

    I read somewhere that life began in water, then the land mammals changed into whales or other large fish and these evolved into modern whales.

    Is this proven fact or is my information wrong?
    I am wondering why did not the sea creatures change into whales,why did land animals change into whales?

    Thanks again.
    albear's Avatar
    albear Posts: 1,594, Reputation: 222
    Ultra Member
     
    #32

    Oct 26, 2007, 05:09 AM
    I would have thought that the 'sea creatures' couldn't breath oxygen as it were and so could evolve into whales as they are today?
    excon's Avatar
    excon Posts: 21,482, Reputation: 2992
    Uber Member
     
    #33

    Oct 26, 2007, 05:27 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by firmbeliever
    Is this proven fact or is my information wrong?
    Hello firm:

    Here's where I think you're going wrong. NONE of it is proven fact.

    It's probably true. It looks like it's true. Modern biology says it's true. I think it's true. Capuchin thinks it's true. So, of course, it IS true.

    It remains, however, a scientific theory. We have not yet filled in all the gaps. We may NEVER fill them in. We have a LOT to learn in ALL the sciences. As a matter of fact, we're just in the beginning stages of understanding our surroundings. If knowing nothing is a 1, and knowing everything is a 10, we're probably a 2.

    excon
    firmbeliever's Avatar
    firmbeliever Posts: 2,919, Reputation: 463
    Ultra Member
     
    #34

    Oct 26, 2007, 05:30 AM
    Excon,:)
    2 it is!

    But still would like to know where if there are any findings to connect land mammals to whales and not the other way around.
    excon's Avatar
    excon Posts: 21,482, Reputation: 2992
    Uber Member
     
    #35

    Oct 26, 2007, 05:47 AM
    Hello again, firm:

    I know SOOOO little about it, I'm probably an expert. Here's what I think.

    The things that cause creatures to evolve are isolated populations, time, and unanticipated mutations.

    We (you and me) are mutating daily. We really are. Yours and my genes are being bombarded by cosmic rays from space. I'm not kidding. Yes, I'm being a little dramatic, but we're all mutants in one way or another.

    Some of those mutations wind up changing things for the BETTER, and they get duplicated in our offspring. Seeing as how its BETTER, the beings having the BETTER gene are BETTER able to survive, and so they do.

    Now take a population of mammals who are isolated in some pocket of land. Maybe they're surrounded by mountains. Let's say the sea is rising (which is does and has lots of times). Let's say one of these mammals gets mutated in a way that allows him to adapt to the rising sea BETTER than his buddies.

    Now, give that situation a few MILLION years to percolate, and you have land mammals turning (evolving) into whales. I don't know if it happened that way, but I'll bet it did.

    excon
    CaptainRich's Avatar
    CaptainRich Posts: 4,492, Reputation: 537
    Cars & Trucks Expert
     
    #36

    Oct 26, 2007, 06:14 AM
    Evolution goes both ways.
    Some creatures move from water to land and some from land to water:
    Walking fish - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    The diving Petrel and auks "fly" underwater. Peguins are another good example.
    ScottGem's Avatar
    ScottGem Posts: 64,966, Reputation: 6056
    Computer Expert and Renaissance Man
     
    #37

    Oct 26, 2007, 06:30 AM
    The basis behind this is that whales are mammals. Mammals are air breathers. So it would seem logical that mammals that live in a water based environment evolved from land based creatures.

    But, as excon said, without a time machine that can watch the creatures evolve, none of this can be proven.
    firmbeliever's Avatar
    firmbeliever Posts: 2,919, Reputation: 463
    Ultra Member
     
    #38

    Oct 26, 2007, 12:35 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainRich
    Evolution goes both ways.
    Some creatures move from water to land and some from land to water:
    The diving Petrel and auks "fly" underwater. Peguins are another good example.
    I have seen a documentary about those walking fish.It was very interesting.
    They also showed an episode about frogs that hibernate in the ground during the very dry season and come out when the rainy season arrives.

    I loved the auks under water documentarytoo,it was beautiful and amazing. There was one on penguins too, how they look for food under the ice sheets floating in the icy waters.

    Thanks for the link.

    Scott,
    How about amphibians?Were they supposedly in water before adapting to land or the other way around?
    asking's Avatar
    asking Posts: 2,673, Reputation: 660
    Ultra Member
     
    #39

    Oct 30, 2007, 07:51 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by firmbeliever
    I read somewhere that life began in water, then the land mammals changed into whales or other large fish and these evolved into modern whales.

    Is this proven fact or is my information wrong?
    These are big questions, but you have it right. Life most likely originated in water. Biologists are pretty sure about this, but not completely. In a way, that part's conjecture. I mean no one knows for sure when and where and how the first cells originated---the actual origin of life.

    But once the first cells appeared, biologists do understand how those cells evolved into all the millions of species that have lived on Earth. Biologists understand how new species formed really well. In other words, it's "proved" as much as anything can be in science.

    The cells living in water evolved into invertebrates--things like sponges, jellyfish, and starfish. Later, fish, which have backbones ("vertebrates"), evolved. Some of the fish evolved into amphibians that could live partly on land. Amphibians have to reproduce in water, so they are like fish that way. But some amphibians evolved something called the "amniotic egg"--basically like a chicken egg. All the reptiles and birds have amniotic eggs, which allow embryos to develop inside a kind of miniature pond, encased in a shell, all on dry land. It was a great invention. It let vertebrates start evolving on land instead of in the water. Some of the reptiles evolved into mammals. Mammals kep the amniotic egg inside the body, instead of laying it in a nest like a reptile or a bird.

    SOME of the mammals that lived on land returned to the water and evolved into water mammals such as whales or sea lions or seals. That's definite and well understood. You can tell a lot about which animals evolved from which other ones by looking at their bones. So, for example, the bones in the hips of dinosaurs look a lot like the hips of modern birds, one way we know that birds are actually descended from dinosuars.

    Hope this helps some.

    Asking
    asking's Avatar
    asking Posts: 2,673, Reputation: 660
    Ultra Member
     
    #40

    Oct 30, 2007, 08:06 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by firmbeliever
    I am wondering why did not the sea creatures change into whales,why did land animals change into whales?

    Thanks again.
    Why certain animals evolved into other ones is a hard question to answer. And some people have done a good job trying to explain it simply in this thread, but I'll try too.

    We can guess that land animals were under some kind of pressure a long time ago. For example, if they were already living by the shore and eating fish and they couldn't find any food on land at all any more, they might have had to spend more and more time fishing in the seas. Or maybe there were dangerous predators on land and they had to spend more and more time in the water to be safe.

    If they were already behaving that way, spending lots of time in the water, then the individuals that had mutations that made them swim better or hold their breath longer--stuff like that--would have had more children ("offspring") and the next generation would have had all these "better" mutations. The mutations aren't really "better." They are just better for swimming, better for being in the water all the time. These things just depend on what the situation is. Anyway, these particular mutations that make it easier to spend a lot of time in the water got passed on because, at that time, swimming was a better way to go.

    Here's a real example. Biologists have looked at Galapagos finches. They found that when the weather changed, plants that made big seeds did better and plants that made small seeds did worse. All of a sudden, the birds with big beaks started surviving and reproducing better (more baby birds with big beaks) than the ones with small beaks. This was because the birds with big beaks could eat the big seeds, while the birds with small beaks were going hungry and not able to make babies. So over just a few years, the average beak size of this species got measurably bigger. That's evolution. That has actually been measured.

    If the change in beak size continued for a while and if the big beaked birds stop mating with any remaining small big beaked birds (which could happen), then you could have a new species of finch.

    Wow! We just had a big earthquake...

    Asking

Not your question? Ask your question View similar questions

 

Question Tools Search this Question
Search this Question:

Advanced Search

Add your answer here.


Check out some similar questions!

Evolution [ 9 Answers ]

As I understand it, according to Evolution Theory, in the vast passage of time in the past a species has gradually evolved (and will evolve in future) into another species when (1) the instinct to survive has "warned" a species that its survival was doomed through rise of some hostile element in...

Evolution [ 2 Answers ]

As I understand it, according to Evolution Theory, in the vast passage of time in the past a species has gradually evolved (and will evolve in future) into another species when (1) the instinct to survive has "warned" a species that its survival was doomed through rise of some hostile element in...

Human Evolution [ 29 Answers ]

If humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes on this earth? Why didn't they evolve?

Micro vs Macro evolution [ 15 Answers ]

What is the difference between Micro evolution and Macro evolution?

Evolution of recruitment [ 1 Answers ]

Pl tell me about history and evolution of recruitment from 19 century till now


View more questions Search