from silliest imaginations , to the most realistic facts

[lastray]

it is not my opinions , the fact is a fact " science and scientists are speaking about your theory of bubbles " or the desires followers " . so if you want to answer … Support  your sayings with scientists sayings
----------------------------------------

I will start with Darwin :

" If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all of the species of the same group together must assuredly have existed... Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains ".

But Darwin returned to ask himself about " transitional forms " :Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?… But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?… But in the intermediate region, having intermediate conditions of life, why do we not now find closely-linking intermediate varieties? This difficulty for a long time quite confounded me. "

Observe : His hopes was in fossil , and the results of researches in fossil were  Zero in evolution from a creature to another creature .  
------------------------
Well let us see what the scientists of fossil opinions about Darwin's theory
Fossil Scientist Robert Carroll a supporter of evolution theory : " Despite more than a hundred years of intense collecting efforts since the time of Darwin's death, the fossil record still does not yield the picture of infinitely numerous transitional links that he expected "

Fossil Scientist Robert Carroll K. S. Thomson also a supporter of evolution theory : "When a major group of organisms arises and first appears in the record, it seems to come fully equipped with a suite of new characters not seen in related, putatively ancestral groups. These radical changes in morphology and function appear to arise very quickly "

Also Dr. Francis Hitching said in his book [The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong ] If we find fossils, and if Darwin's theory was right, we can predict what the rock should contain; finely graduated fossils leading from one group of creatures to another group of creatures at a higher level of complexity. The 'minor improvements' in successive generations should be as readily preserved as the species themselves. But this is hardly ever the case. In fact, the opposite holds true, as Darwin himself complained; "innumerable transitional forms must have existed, but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" Darwin felt though that the "extreme imperfection" of the fossil record was simply a matter of digging up more fossils. But as more and more fossils were dug up, it was found that almost all of them, without exception, were very close to current living animals "
-------------------------------------

Pierre-Paul Grassé, former president of the French Academy of Sciences and author of the 35-volume Traité de Zoologie, likened mutations to spelling mistakes in one of his papers, and said that they could never give rise to evolution: Mutations, in time, occur incoherently. They are not complementary to one another, nor are they cumulative in successive generations toward a given direction. They modify what preexists, but they do so in disorder, no matter how… As soon as some disorder, even slight, appears in an organized being, sickness, then death follow. There is no possible compromise between the phenomenon of life and anarchy.

Francisco J. Ayala, of the University of California, Irvine, a professor of biological sciences and philosophy: High energy radiations, such as x-rays, increase the rate of mutation. Mutations induced by radiation are random in the sense that they arise independently of their effects on the fitness of the individuals which carry them. Randomly induced mutations are usually deleterious. In a precisely organized and complex system like the genome of an organism, a random change will most frequently decrease, rather than increase, the orderliness or useful information of the system

James F. Crow, head of the Genetics Department at the University of Wisconsin and an expert on radiation and mutation: Almost every mutation is harmful, and it is the individual who pays the price. Any human activity that tends to increase the mutation rate must therefore raise serious health and moral problems for man.A random change in the highly integrated system of chemical processes which constitute life is almost certain to impair itâ€"just as a random interchange of connections in a television set is not likely to improve the picture .

The biologist Dr. Mahlon B. Hoagland: The information that resides in organisms that are alive today . . . is far more refined than the work of all the world's great poets combined. The chance that a random change of a letter or word or phrase would improve the reading is remote; on the other hand, it is very likely that a random hit would be harmful. It is for this reason that many biologists view with dismay the proliferation of nuclear weapons, nuclear power plants, and industrially generated mutagenic (mutation-producing) chemicals .
You'll recall we learned that almost always a change in an organism's DNA is detrimental to it; that is, it leads to a reduced capacity to survive. By way of analogy, random additions of sentences to the plays of Shakespeare are not likely to improve them! . . . The principle that DNA changes are harmful by virtue of reducing survival chances applies whether a change in DNA is caused by a mutation or by some foreign genes we deliberately add to it.

Dr. Warren Weaver: Moreover, the mutant genes, in the vast majority of cases, and in all the species so far studied, lead to some kind of harmful effect. In extreme cases the harmful effect is death itself, or loss of the ability to produce offspring, or some other serious abnormality. Many will be puzzled about the statement that practically all known mutant genes are harmful. For mutations are a necessary part of the process of evolution. How can a good effectâ€"evolution to higher forms of lifeâ€"result from mutations practically all of which are harmful .

I.L. Cohen, a member of the New York Academy of Sciences, says: "To propose and argue that mutations even in tandem with 'natural selection' are the root-causes for 6,000,000 viable, enormously complex species, is to mock logic, deny the weight of evidence, and reject the fundamentals of mathematical probability." .

Professor Kevin Padian, of the University of California at Berkeley, asks whether random mutations in nature give rise to living species: How do major evolutionary changes get started? Does anyone still believe that populations sit around for tens of thousands of years, waiting for favorable mutations to occur (and just how does that happen, by the way?), then anxiously guard them until enough accumulate for selection to push the population toward new and useful change? There you have the mathematical arguments of Neo-Darwinism that Waddington and others rightly characterized as "vacuous".

the Israeli bio-physicist Dr. Lee Spetner, who has worked at some of the most eminent universities in the world, such as MIT and Johns Hopkins, were brought to the attention of the scientific world in the book Not By Chance. In this book, which questions neo-Darwinism, Spetner employs the figures given by evolutionist authorities (such as mutation frequency and the ratio of "favorable mutations" to all mutations) and makes a detailed calculation of whether it is possible for one species to change into another. His conclusion is striking : "Impossible! Even if we accept the theoretical existence of "favorable mutations," which have never been observed in experiments, it is still impossible for these to accumulate consecutively and in the right direction in a living species. It is also impossible for them to be permanent due to the disadvantages they bring with them, and thus it is impossible for a new species to emerge.

----------------------------------------
The supporters of evolution theory put their hopes in many species , but each time the researches and discovers  point to the false of this theory ,  I am sure 100% all of you are going to accept the mistakes and falseness in any theory proved by experiments and by researches its fail  . but this theory your situation is different because its fail means the appearance of God . also means the victory for religions . which means the appearance of allowable and forbidden in your life , which means the appearance of the watcher { God } .

Are they able to continue ? no , you are preaching some light Plz ..

[BadPoison]

it is not my opinions , the fact is a fact " science and scientists are speaking about your theory of bubbles " or the desires followers " . so if you want to answer … Support  your sayings with scientists sayings
----------------------------------------

I will start with Darwin :

" If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all of the species of the same group together must assuredly have existed... Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains ".

But Darwin returned to ask himself about " transitional forms " :Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?… But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?… But in the intermediate region, having intermediate conditions of life, why do we not now find closely-linking intermediate varieties? This difficulty for a long time quite confounded me. "

Observe : His hopes was in fossil , and the results of researches in fossil were  Zero in evolution from a creature to another creature .  
------------------------
Well let us see what the scientists of fossil opinions about Darwin's theory
Fossil Scientist Robert Carroll a supporter of evolution theory : " Despite more than a hundred years of intense collecting efforts since the time of Darwin's death, the fossil record still does not yield the picture of infinitely numerous transitional links that he expected "

Fossil Scientist Robert Carroll K. S. Thomson also a supporter of evolution theory : "When a major group of organisms arises and first appears in the record, it seems to come fully equipped with a suite of new characters not seen in related, putatively ancestral groups. These radical changes in morphology and function appear to arise very quickly "

Also Dr. Francis Hitching said in his book [The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong ] If we find fossils, and if Darwin's theory was right, we can predict what the rock should contain; finely graduated fossils leading from one group of creatures to another group of creatures at a higher level of complexity. The 'minor improvements' in successive generations should be as readily preserved as the species themselves. But this is hardly ever the case. In fact, the opposite holds true, as Darwin himself complained; "innumerable transitional forms must have existed, but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" Darwin felt though that the "extreme imperfection" of the fossil record was simply a matter of digging up more fossils. But as more and more fossils were dug up, it was found that almost all of them, without exception, were very close to current living animals "
-------------------------------------

Pierre-Paul Grassé, former president of the French Academy of Sciences and author of the 35-volume Traité de Zoologie, likened mutations to spelling mistakes in one of his papers, and said that they could never give rise to evolution: Mutations, in time, occur incoherently. They are not complementary to one another, nor are they cumulative in successive generations toward a given direction. They modify what preexists, but they do so in disorder, no matter how… As soon as some disorder, even slight, appears in an organized being, sickness, then death follow. There is no possible compromise between the phenomenon of life and anarchy.

Francisco J. Ayala, of the University of California, Irvine, a professor of biological sciences and philosophy: High energy radiations, such as x-rays, increase the rate of mutation. Mutations induced by radiation are random in the sense that they arise independently of their effects on the fitness of the individuals which carry them. Randomly induced mutations are usually deleterious. In a precisely organized and complex system like the genome of an organism, a random change will most frequently decrease, rather than increase, the orderliness or useful information of the system

James F. Crow, head of the Genetics Department at the University of Wisconsin and an expert on radiation and mutation: Almost every mutation is harmful, and it is the individual who pays the price. Any human activity that tends to increase the mutation rate must therefore raise serious health and moral problems for man.A random change in the highly integrated system of chemical processes which constitute life is almost certain to impair itâ€"just as a random interchange of connections in a television set is not likely to improve the picture .

The biologist Dr. Mahlon B. Hoagland: The information that resides in organisms that are alive today . . . is far more refined than the work of all the world's great poets combined. The chance that a random change of a letter or word or phrase would improve the reading is remote; on the other hand, it is very likely that a random hit would be harmful. It is for this reason that many biologists view with dismay the proliferation of nuclear weapons, nuclear power plants, and industrially generated mutagenic (mutation-producing) chemicals .
You'll recall we learned that almost always a change in an organism's DNA is detrimental to it; that is, it leads to a reduced capacity to survive. By way of analogy, random additions of sentences to the plays of Shakespeare are not likely to improve them! . . . The principle that DNA changes are harmful by virtue of reducing survival chances applies whether a change in DNA is caused by a mutation or by some foreign genes we deliberately add to it.

Dr. Warren Weaver: Moreover, the mutant genes, in the vast majority of cases, and in all the species so far studied, lead to some kind of harmful effect. In extreme cases the harmful effect is death itself, or loss of the ability to produce offspring, or some other serious abnormality. Many will be puzzled about the statement that practically all known mutant genes are harmful. For mutations are a necessary part of the process of evolution. How can a good effectâ€"evolution to higher forms of lifeâ€"result from mutations practically all of which are harmful .

I.L. Cohen, a member of the New York Academy of Sciences, says: "To propose and argue that mutations even in tandem with 'natural selection' are the root-causes for 6,000,000 viable, enormously complex species, is to mock logic, deny the weight of evidence, and reject the fundamentals of mathematical probability." .

Professor Kevin Padian, of the University of California at Berkeley, asks whether random mutations in nature give rise to living species: How do major evolutionary changes get started? Does anyone still believe that populations sit around for tens of thousands of years, waiting for favorable mutations to occur (and just how does that happen, by the way?), then anxiously guard them until enough accumulate for selection to push the population toward new and useful change? There you have the mathematical arguments of Neo-Darwinism that Waddington and others rightly characterized as "vacuous".

the Israeli bio-physicist Dr. Lee Spetner, who has worked at some of the most eminent universities in the world, such as MIT and Johns Hopkins, were brought to the attention of the scientific world in the book Not By Chance. In this book, which questions neo-Darwinism, Spetner employs the figures given by evolutionist authorities (such as mutation frequency and the ratio of "favorable mutations" to all mutations) and makes a detailed calculation of whether it is possible for one species to change into another. His conclusion is striking : "Impossible! Even if we accept the theoretical existence of "favorable mutations," which have never been observed in experiments, it is still impossible for these to accumulate consecutively and in the right direction in a living species. It is also impossible for them to be permanent due to the disadvantages they bring with them, and thus it is impossible for a new species to emerge.

----------------------------------------
The supporters of evolution theory put their hopes in many species , but each time the researches and discovers  point to the false of this theory ,  I am sure 100% all of you are going to accept the mistakes and falseness in any theory proved by experiments and by researches its fail  . but this theory your situation is different because its fail means the appearance of God . also means the victory for religions . which means the appearance of allowable and forbidden in your life , which means the appearance of the watcher { God } .

Are they able to continue ? no , you are preaching some light Plz ..

 :ban:

[pinkocommie]

If it is the same person, he or she has just officially proven themselves a troll.  So at least that's cleared up, right?.

[Recusant]

some light plz:

Thank you for your kind words in the other thread.  I'm sorry I haven't been here lately to continue our conversation.  Though I don't see any way that we will ever agree on the subject of the Quran predicting findings of modern science, I enjoyed the discussion.  I can tell that your faith is very strong, and that you truly believe that Allah gave revelations to the prophet Mohammad.  As I said before, though, I think that the science in the Quran is the science of the time in which it was written, and nothing that you have shown seems to me to contradict that.

 It looks like you chose to open a new account, ignoring the time out which the owner of this site felt was appropriate.  That may result in a long term ban, which is unfortunate, because I think that having an intelligent Muslim like yourself here is a good thing, even if nobody agrees with you. Perhaps at some point in the future we could discuss questions about Islam which members of this site may have.  It seems to me that you are knowledgeable about the Quran, and doctrines associated with it, and could help to inform those who have questions.  

I wish you all the best.

[Whitney]

some light plz aka lastray has been banned permanently per normal procedures for people who come back during their 1 week ban.  He'll probably be back because he uses proxies; and will keep getting banned; possibly his posts deleted too.  I'm not convinced that he is worth ever allowing to return if he doesn't care about the forum rules...but am open to discussion.

[karadan]

some light plz aka lastray has been banned permanently per normal procedures for people who come back during their 1 week ban.  He'll probably be back because he uses proxies; and will keep getting banned; possibly his posts deleted too.  I'm not convinced that he is worth ever allowing to return if he doesn't care about the forum rules...but am open to discussion.

It simply hurts my brain trying to figure out what the heck they are actually trying to say. To be honest, i care not if they never return. There's so much better reading material out there to cogitate.