Can science really disprove somethings existence?

[achilles12604]

Usually the argument goes something like this . . .

Theist: God exists.

Science: How do you know?

Theist: 1) origin of the universe, biblical history, personal experience, origin of life, etc

Science: And how do you know that the universe didn't just pop into being without God. Your personal experience doesn't count as evidence, and history can be wrong.

Theist: Well what makes you think God doesn't exist.

science: I am totally unable to detect any sign of him at all and science is the best method we have for detecting and studying things in the universe.

You don't need to answer. My point is very simply that bible thumpers and science thumpers sometimes have similar issues regarding their claims of total knowledge. Neither can truly get the whole picture alone.

But what picture is this? Lets say there is more to this world than science knows. How do we know this? What methodology do we deploy? And the point I’ve been banging on about over several threads the last few days is the only correct method for addressing reality is naturalism because only naturalism can meet the full set of criteria: prediction, verification, falsification and assigns a clear definition to all the signs it deploys in its answers. Any explanation that fails to meet this benchmark is intellectually vacuous. Regardless of the depth of conviction of any given non naturalistic belief.

However I detect that this point is not lost on you achilles because you make great attempts to rationalise your belief system, and I know you think that what is supernatural is only what science does not yet understand. That is easy for a full blown naturalist to admit. What we cannot admit is that the theist can fill in the gaps.

I guess this is where some degree of theistic faith comes in. Hey that gives me a thought. Is faith provable by science? For example, would science be able to determine someone's beliefs? If science is unable to determine someone's beliefs and faith, does that mean that the person's faith does not exist?

My questions for discussion.

Is science able to determine someone's beliefs without being told? Another possible question to clarify this point is can science prove that someone who is now dead, had beliefs while alive?

If silence is maintained and a person's beliefs can not be determined, does this mean the beliefs do not exist?

[McCulloch]

How can there be no first member of humans i would surely like to see a human and an ape breed and produce another human being.

You really need to get a fuller understanding of the science of evolution. I might recommend Richard Dawkins, The Ancestor's Tale.

Evolution posits that populations which become isolated from others of their kind, over a very long period of time gradually change in ways which may be different from the original group. Look up ring species for an example of how that works. Humans and chimpanzees are part of a ring of species, just that the dimension is temporal rather than geographic.

[muhammad rasullah]

78:12 And (have We not) built over you the seven firmaments
78:13 And placed (therein) a Light of Splendour?

In the above verse, the word "light" is used for the Moon ("nooran" in Arabic) and the word "lamp" for the Sun ("sirajan" in Arabic.) The word used for the Moon refers to a light-reflecting, bright, motionless body. The word used for the Sun refers to a celestial body which is always burning, a constant source of heat and light.

On the other hand, the word "star" comes from the Arabic root "nejeme," meaning "appearing, emerging, visible." As in the verse below, stars are also referred to by the word "thaqib," which is used for that which shines and pierces the darkness with light: self-consuming and burning.

86:3 (It is) the Star of piercing brightness;-
We now know that the Moon does not emit its own light but reflects that reaching it from the Sun. We also know that the Sun and stars do emit their own light. These facts were revealed in the Qur'an in an age when mankind simply did not have the means to make scientific discoveries of their own accord. It was an age when peoples' knowledge of celestial bodies was severely restricted, to say the least. This further emphasises the miraculous nature of the book of Islam.

Simple observation shows the sun as much brighter than the moon and would easily account for using different words to describe them. If the Quran had said specifically that the light from the moon was reflected from the sun it would have been a little more impressive. Also the Quran should have known that the moon circled the earth, and they both circled the sun. It does not reveal this important bit of info that a creator god would have known.



The example you give is interpreting scripture creatively to make it mean what you want. This is a very loose way of creating "facts", and is not sufficient to support the extraordinary claim that the Quran has information only a god could have known. This is a profound idea and needs more substantial clear evidence that what is available. This lack of rigorous method not be acceptable in any endeavor except scripture interpretation. Many professions are not allowed so much wiggle room in their results. We insist that engineers, financial advisors, physicians, etc. have reason and evidence for what they do, but religious leaders are not held to the same standard. Intelligent people lower their requirements for evidence when pressed about their religious faith.



There are thousands of facts about the universe that a creator god should have known, and had they been revealed clearly they would be easily verified by current knowledge. None of those claims in the Quran are specific enough to be considered scientific knowledge. They appear to be desperate attempts to find divine knowledge where it does not exist.

You’re asking that I accept your definition of some Arabic words, and then also a certain translation to English. There’s a lot of wiggle room there. I’ll bet there are interpretations and translations available that don’t mean the moon was a reflector. Here is another translation.

“The Sun is a shining glory (diya') and the Moon a light (nur).”
Where does it say the moon is a reflector, and is reflecting light from the sun?

I am not asking that you accept my definition that was given. if you deny that this is true then bring your proof that this is not what the arabic terms mean don't just accpet what I say or make conjecture about what you think it may mean provide your source and make sure the evidence is certain. were not debating opinion lets stick with the facts! where is the wiggle room I don't get it all languages if you don't know them must be translated for you to understand them and if the translation is true then accept it as it is!

Like I have previously told other people before the essence of the meaning of the quran is found in the arabic. There are words in arabic that cannot be translated by one word in arabic so in those cases the closes translation is used. So when you read the translation in some cases you won't find exactly what the arabic is implying.

Some stars generate light and some are just planets reflecting light. The Quran’s divine source should have known that all shining stars are not suns. Not very precise info considering that it was supposed to come from an all-knowing god.

If you would have read closely the quote you would have grasped the meaning. In the Qur'an Allah employs different words when referring to such celestial bodies as the Moon, the Sun and the stars. This is how the differences between the structures of the Sun and Moon are expressed in the Qur'an. The arabic word "nooran" meaning light from the translation refers to a light reflecting bright a motionless body. As science has proven we know the moon doesn't have its own light but it is the light from the sun. The arabic word translated to lamp is "sirajan" meaning a celestial body which is always burning a constant source of heat and light "the sun". A constant source of heat does not describe just any star but only the sun. Please keep in mind that during the revelation of the quran the Sun may not have been known as the the Sun. yet and still any person would agree that these words vivdly describe the sun and the moon as we know them today.

Allah knows that planets are planets and stars are stars that is why different words were are used in describing them. If you can prove a different meaning of the arabic words then we can accept them as truth and move on.

In the Qur'an, Allah calls our attention to a very important attribute of the sky:

We made the sky a preserved and protected roof yet still they turn away from Our Signs. (Qur'an, 21:32)

This attribute of the sky has been proved by scientific research carried out in the 20th century: The atmosphere surrounding the Earth serves crucial functions for the continuity of life. While destroying many meteors-big and small-as they approach the Earth, it prevents them from falling to Earth and harming living things.

In addition, the atmosphere filters the light rays coming from space that are harmful to living things. The most striking feature of the atmosphere is that it lets only harmless and useful rays-visible light, near ultraviolet light and radio waves pass through. All of this radiation is vital for life. Near ultraviolet rays, which are only partially let in by the atmosphere, are very important for the photosynthesis of plants and for the survival of all living beings. The majority of the intense ultraviolet rays emitted from the Sun are filtered out by the ozone layer of the atmosphere. Only a limited and essential part of the ultraviolet spectrum reaches the Earth.

The protective function of the atmosphere does not end here. The atmosphere also protects the earth from the freezing cold of the space, which is approximately -270oC.

It is not only the atmosphere that protects the Earth from harmful effects. In addition to the atmosphere, the Van Allen Belt-the layer caused by the magnetic field of the Earth-also serves as a shield against the harmful radiation that threatens our planet. This radiation, which is constantly emitted by the Sun and other stars, is deadly to living things. If the Van Allen belt did not exist, the massive outbursts of energy called solar flares that frequently occur in the Sun would destroy all life on Earth.

On the importance of the Van Allen Belt, Dr. Hugh Ross says:

In fact, the Earth has the highest density of any of the planets in our Solar System. This large nickel-iron core is responsible for our large magnetic field. This magnetic field produces the Van-Allen radiation shield, which protects the Earth from radiation bombardment. If this shield were not present, life would not be possible on the Earth. The only other rocky planet to have any magnetic field is Mercury-but its field strength is 100 times less than the Earth's. Even Venus, our sister planet, has no magnetic field. The Van-Allen radiation shield is a design unique to the Earth.21

In short, a perfect system is at work high above the Earth. It surrounds our world and protects it against external threats. Centuries ago, Allah informed us in the Qur'an of the world's atmosphere functioning as a protective shield.

[muhammad rasullah]

How can there be no first member of humans i would surely like to see a human and an ape breed and produce another human being.

Please bear with me for a while and consider that evolution might be true. Can you think of a change that would make a human being more efficient in its environment? Can you think of a hundred? How about a thousand? How do you think all these changes could affect the way humans look like? Regardless of how dramatic the changes might be, would the species cease to be called Human to be called something else? What about one million changes ago? Why would the species be called something other than Human, because of how it looks at the time?

This makes no sense what are you really trying to say please make yourself clear and unambiguous? what are these changes that you speak of? And if this is the case why was there a break in these changes that occured why did they stop?

Don't you think you should, by your own initiative, research a bit to achieve a basic understanding of biological evolution theory, before you think about debating on the issue?

I really don't think it is necessary because the information that i recieve comes from those actually believe this to be true. I don't think my questions are unreasonable they may seem unreasonable because science doesn't have any answer for them.

No it is because the question is just plain stupid. e.g. you asked, "How can there be no first member of humans i would surely like to see a human and an ape breed and produce another human being.".

A human cannot naturally breed with an ape and even if with some genetic engineering we could solve the problem of hybridization when you have a the resulting hybrid would not be a human (nor would it be a chimp) and it would probably be sterile (as with mules in which they too have a differing number of chromosomes of the two species: donkeys have 62 chromosomes, whereas horses have 64.)

Chromosome differences are not always that clear-cut - Przewalski's horse has 66 chromosomes, and as I'd mentioned above the domestic horse has 64 but of these two species breed then they produce fertile offspring, possessing 65 chromosomes.

Being sterile is an evolutionary dead-end. You don't get a new "species", you get nothing. So the two species, early-humans and early-apes, even if they did mate many ears ago if the results were sterile then that would be the evolutionary end. Once that happens then the two species go their own way forever.

What you are expecting is that by mating apes and humans you rewind 6 million years of evolution and end up with a human ? If this is what you've been told then the people telling you this are just plain liars if they purport to be teachers of some sort.

Come one - think for yourself.

Facts are that humans and apes had a common ancestor around 5 to 7 million years ago. Today humans and apes are seperate species both of which have evolved over those 5 or so million years according to the particular niche that the species resides in.

This may seem stupid to you but logical for me. I only know what i see. I see apes and I see humans but what I don't see is this other species which they are both ancestors from, again where is the evidence for this? Where is the evidence for this? And if they did exist what made them become sterile that they cannot procreate anymore? you don't have to explain what the end result of this cross breeding would be i already know. Please somebody answer my question. where is this evidence of this common ancestor?

Humans beget humans and apes beget apes if they are the same species why can't they beget the same offspring?

All of us, both you and I, see many people around the world but I do not see their ancestors. I don't see my great-great-grand parents, nor my great-great-great grandparents and so on down through time because they are dead.

Obviously we don't see the "common" ancestor too because it is dead.

Humans beget humans but no-one is saying that these are genetically identical. Our childen (and the offspring of apes) are subtly different. They are in fact genetically different but similar. These differences are naturally selected.

We know that we have ancestors but unless you are royalty or quite lucky, the recorded history fades in a few hundred years. Now consider the problem of identifying the common ancestor from before recorded history, from say before 30,000 years ago or 300,000 or even 3 million years.

That is what you are asking for.

What does happen though is that our genome records the broad flow of migrations. By comparing your genome with references you are able to work out where in the world your ancestors migrated though they do not show individuals.

The same applies to animals and plants.

DNA analysis allows you to show the broad relationships between populations as well as to show the precise relationships between near ancestors (you, your parents and grandparents): this is fact.

It also allows you to show the much broader relationships between species. This is highly regarded as being true and an extension of looking at near-relations.


By denying the results of DNA analysis for species you also cast doubts on this same technique for near-ancestors. This is a bit illogical.

You said; "I only know what i see", but a few posts ago you said that "...I really don't think it is necessary because the information that i recieve comes from those actually believe this to be true.". Which is it ? You look for yourself OR you get others to look for you ?.

So I cannot give you a common ancestor any more than you can give me your great-great-great grandparents but DNA analysis will show relationships between your family which would match your recorded history and this same technique can show relationships between species.

So what your basically telling me is that this was an assumption that was made based on some similarities between monkeys and apes and there is no eviedence and no findings of this common ancestor that science claims has existed? As I said before any evidence that does not lead to it being truth is uncertain, not 50% certain or 70% certain because certainty leaves no room for doubt. the word certain means free from doubt or reservation; unquestionable; indisputable. There's no room for 50% in this defintion!

I was kidding when I said find the ancestor I know you wouldn't be able to find him! it's like saying big foot exist!

mismatch of chromosomes (chimps have 48 we have 46)

Where are the similarities in DNA?
Where are the missing chromosomes? Where is the proof that humans had more than 46 chromosomes?

[muhammad rasullah]

If you examine both humans being and apes by structure and genetic make up then yes we have some similarities but you cannot define the two by this.

If we go backwards then we must go further to the beginning and examine the purpose of our existence and creation.

also the capacity to which we can do and achieve things. Examine the things which make humans different from apes and if the differences out weigh the similarities then the conclusions is obvious.

"]I am pretty sure many more things can be named that humans can do that apes can't.

Again if humans are apes we obviously have to had evolved from them please answer the question, where is the evidence of a talking monkey who speaks spanish or english, greek or slang or anything if this proof is given i have no arguement.

We classify all life by their similarities. Species, genus, phylum etc. Dogs, cats and bears are carnivores. Wolves and dogs are in the Canis genus. Gorillas, Chimpanzees and humans are apes.

You cannot strictly relie on what is genetically common between humans and apes to classify them. Look at their behaviors as well and the extent to which their capabilities are performed. Without science or religion in the way if you were to look at an ape and examine all the things an ape does then look at a human being and examine what a human being does the conclusion would not be that these two are of the same species. Again there still is no evidence showing the missing link between the two if you say they evolved from one another. It's easy to just say oh he died then to some you probably wouldn't have to prove it.

No, we don't. We don't know why viruses were created, yet we can classify them.

If you ask the person who created the viruses then you'l get your answer. nothing is created without a reason for it's existence. And if we evolved from apes then what is the purpose for our existence? why are we here? when and why do we have free will and the capacity to think differently from animals?

]

Self locomotion, feeding, social relationships, raising young, growth, perception, reaction against pain, hunger, memory, susceptibility to infectious disease, and on and on. Humans have a lot more in common with the other apes than we have with starfish.

Again some of these may be similar but none of these things can apes do to the extent that humans can. they don't work for a paycheck in high positions and use this money to purchase food and cook over a stove. They don't go out to resturants and clubs to party and socialize, they can't raise children under the circumstances which humans do, they can't perceive and conceptualize as humans every reaction they have is pain versus pleasure which do they prefer. so again we see the differences out number the similarities between the two so lets focus on them as well!

Nothing is created without purpose!

That is yet to be shown.

If you can show me something that is in existence which does not have a reason for it's existence I will believe you. I doubt that you can!

I could name quite a few. None of them are what defines species of animals. Humans are the species of ape which builds machines, domesticates other animals, creates music and art, imagines supernatural gods, deliberately formulates laws etc.

Again this is statement makes no sense how can humans be apes that build machines when apes don't build machines. If an ape had built a machine before then you could say apes build machines but I've never known an ape to build a machine I've known humans to though!! Apes don't domesticate apes whats the reason why would they domesticate themselves?

Beavers are rodents but not all rodents can build dams. Humans are primates, but not all primates have complex languages.

That is the thing you fail to see primates don't have complex languages.

[byofrcs]

......

In the Qur'an, Allah calls our attention to a very important attribute of the sky:

We made the sky a preserved and protected roof yet still they turn away from Our Signs. (Qur'an, 21:32)

This attribute of the sky has been proved by scientific research carried out in the 20th century: The atmosphere surrounding the Earth serves crucial functions for the continuity of life. While destroying many meteors-big and small-as they approach the Earth, it prevents them from falling to Earth and harming living things.

In addition, the atmosphere filters the light rays coming from space that are harmful to living things. The most striking feature of the atmosphere is that it lets only harmless and useful rays-visible light, near ultraviolet light and radio waves pass through. All of this radiation is vital for life. Near ultraviolet rays, which are only partially let in by the atmosphere, are very important for the photosynthesis of plants and for the survival of all living beings. The majority of the intense ultraviolet rays emitted from the Sun are filtered out by the ozone layer of the atmosphere. Only a limited and essential part of the ultraviolet spectrum reaches the Earth.

The protective function of the atmosphere does not end here. The atmosphere also protects the earth from the freezing cold of the space, which is approximately -270oC.

It is not only the atmosphere that protects the Earth from harmful effects. In addition to the atmosphere, the Van Allen Belt-the layer caused by the magnetic field of the Earth-also serves as a shield against the harmful radiation that threatens our planet. This radiation, which is constantly emitted by the Sun and other stars, is deadly to living things. If the Van Allen belt did not exist, the massive outbursts of energy called solar flares that frequently occur in the Sun would destroy all life on Earth.

On the importance of the Van Allen Belt, Dr. Hugh Ross says:

In fact, the Earth has the highest density of any of the planets in our Solar System. This large nickel-iron core is responsible for our large magnetic field. This magnetic field produces the Van-Allen radiation shield, which protects the Earth from radiation bombardment. If this shield were not present, life would not be possible on the Earth. The only other rocky planet to have any magnetic field is Mercury-but its field strength is 100 times less than the Earth's. Even Venus, our sister planet, has no magnetic field. The Van-Allen radiation shield is a design unique to the Earth.21

In short, a perfect system is at work high above the Earth. It surrounds our world and protects it against external threats. Centuries ago, Allah informed us in the Qur'an of the world's atmosphere functioning as a protective shield.

Firstly space isn't really "hot" or "cold". If you put an object into space at the same distance that Earth is from the Sun and it absorbed and emitted heat then it would tend towards 280 Kelvin (7 deg C) . In the shade from the Sun (Dark Side Of The Moon ?) then it tends towards 5 Kelvin or way out in space it tends towards the background radiation of 2.7 K, so yes that is cold. But we're talking Earth - facing the Sun and both spacecraft and astronauts do get hot in space when facing the sun, not cold !. The atmosphere on Earth evens out the cold and heat. People know this naturally (especially people who live in deserts) in that the day can be hot and the night cold BUT if there are clouds this is evened out i.e. not so hot in the day and not so cold at night. I don't need to the Quran to tell me this; I know it from personal experience.

But Mars has probably had a strong magnetic field in the past but other physical characteristics made it unlikely (in retrospect obviously !) that any atmosphere would be retained when assaulted by the Solar Wind.

The oxygen rich atmosphere we have today is a waste product of photosynthesis. Initially from cyanobacteria and in a process which still goes on today. Without these bacteria no other oxygen-consuming lifeforms would have evolved.

We know the atmosphere causes many meteors to burn up but it certainly isn't dense enough to stop the real big ones. Hard evidence shows large numbers of huge impacts and indications of mass extinctions. The atmosphere failed to stop those.

Look at the Earth Impact Database for instance and then tell us again that the atmosphere stopped these and that these are something else altogether. I suspect you've not been told the truth in this because if something as basically obvious as a 90 kilometre wide impact crater is ignored then I can imagine other evidence that needs a little bit more effort to understand has no hope.

So firstly admit that the atmosphere has repeatedly failed to stop large and destructive meteors or that these examples of impact craters are not from meteorites or would not have caused environmental damage then we can move on to your other claims.

[byofrcs]

How can there be no first member of humans i would surely like to see a human and an ape breed and produce another human being.

Please bear with me for a while and consider that evolution might be true. Can you think of a change that would make a human being more efficient in its environment? Can you think of a hundred? How about a thousand? How do you think all these changes could affect the way humans look like? Regardless of how dramatic the changes might be, would the species cease to be called Human to be called something else? What about one million changes ago? Why would the species be called something other than Human, because of how it looks at the time?

This makes no sense what are you really trying to say please make yourself clear and unambiguous? what are these changes that you speak of? And if this is the case why was there a break in these changes that occured why did they stop?

Don't you think you should, by your own initiative, research a bit to achieve a basic understanding of biological evolution theory, before you think about debating on the issue?

I really don't think it is necessary because the information that i recieve comes from those actually believe this to be true. I don't think my questions are unreasonable they may seem unreasonable because science doesn't have any answer for them.

No it is because the question is just plain stupid. e.g. you asked, "How can there be no first member of humans i would surely like to see a human and an ape breed and produce another human being.".

A human cannot naturally breed with an ape and even if with some genetic engineering we could solve the problem of hybridization when you have a the resulting hybrid would not be a human (nor would it be a chimp) and it would probably be sterile (as with mules in which they too have a differing number of chromosomes of the two species: donkeys have 62 chromosomes, whereas horses have 64.)

Chromosome differences are not always that clear-cut - Przewalski's horse has 66 chromosomes, and as I'd mentioned above the domestic horse has 64 but of these two species breed then they produce fertile offspring, possessing 65 chromosomes.

Being sterile is an evolutionary dead-end. You don't get a new "species", you get nothing. So the two species, early-humans and early-apes, even if they did mate many ears ago if the results were sterile then that would be the evolutionary end. Once that happens then the two species go their own way forever.

What you are expecting is that by mating apes and humans you rewind 6 million years of evolution and end up with a human ? If this is what you've been told then the people telling you this are just plain liars if they purport to be teachers of some sort.

Come one - think for yourself.

Facts are that humans and apes had a common ancestor around 5 to 7 million years ago. Today humans and apes are seperate species both of which have evolved over those 5 or so million years according to the particular niche that the species resides in.

This may seem stupid to you but logical for me. I only know what i see. I see apes and I see humans but what I don't see is this other species which they are both ancestors from, again where is the evidence for this? Where is the evidence for this? And if they did exist what made them become sterile that they cannot procreate anymore? you don't have to explain what the end result of this cross breeding would be i already know. Please somebody answer my question. where is this evidence of this common ancestor?

Humans beget humans and apes beget apes if they are the same species why can't they beget the same offspring?

All of us, both you and I, see many people around the world but I do not see their ancestors. I don't see my great-great-grand parents, nor my great-great-great grandparents and so on down through time because they are dead.

Obviously we don't see the "common" ancestor too because it is dead.

Humans beget humans but no-one is saying that these are genetically identical. Our childen (and the offspring of apes) are subtly different. They are in fact genetically different but similar. These differences are naturally selected.

We know that we have ancestors but unless you are royalty or quite lucky, the recorded history fades in a few hundred years. Now consider the problem of identifying the common ancestor from before recorded history, from say before 30,000 years ago or 300,000 or even 3 million years.

That is what you are asking for.

What does happen though is that our genome records the broad flow of migrations. By comparing your genome with references you are able to work out where in the world your ancestors migrated though they do not show individuals.

The same applies to animals and plants.

DNA analysis allows you to show the broad relationships between populations as well as to show the precise relationships between near ancestors (you, your parents and grandparents): this is fact.

It also allows you to show the much broader relationships between species. This is highly regarded as being true and an extension of looking at near-relations.


By denying the results of DNA analysis for species you also cast doubts on this same technique for near-ancestors. This is a bit illogical.

You said; "I only know what i see", but a few posts ago you said that "...I really don't think it is necessary because the information that i recieve comes from those actually believe this to be true.". Which is it ? You look for yourself OR you get others to look for you ?.

So I cannot give you a common ancestor any more than you can give me your great-great-great grandparents but DNA analysis will show relationships between your family which would match your recorded history and this same technique can show relationships between species.

So what your basically telling me is that this was an assumption that was made based on some similarities between monkeys and apes and there is no eviedence and no findings of this common ancestor that science claims has existed? As I said before any evidence that does not lead to it being truth is uncertain, not 50% certain or 70% certain because certainty leaves no room for doubt. the word certain means free from doubt or reservation; unquestionable; indisputable. There's no room for 50% in this defintion!

I was kidding when I said find the ancestor I know you wouldn't be able to find him! it's like saying big foot exist!

mismatch of chromosomes (chimps have 48 we have 46)

Where are the similarities in DNA?
Where are the missing chromosomes? Where is the proof that humans had more than 46 chromosomes?

Once again you have been lied to. There is a huge amount of evidence of the common ancestor that leaves so little doubt it is unreasonable to not look at the evidence for yourself and question what you have been told,

Firstly just to clear something up - Who said humans had 48 ?. Most humans have 46 chromosomes (a large number don't). Apes (Chimps) have 48.

So why do humans have 46 ? The evidence suggests that the similarities between ape and human chromosomes suggest that human chromosome 2 arose out of the fusion of two ancestral ape chromosomes (1-3). See here (an old paper) Origin of human chromosome 2: An ancestral telomere-telomere fusion which does help explain this in more detail.

What we do know is that many humans today get born with the "wrong" chromosome count. Turner Syndrome, Klinefelter Syndrome, Downs Syndrome, Edward's syndrome, Patau's Syndrome are examples that affect many humans.

These diseases all have significant problems so the current chromosome count has been naturally selected but what it tells us is that nature is continually trying new combinations. These are cruelly selected.

OK that solves the question of human verses ape chromosome count so on to other evidence: where shall I start. In fact the problem isn't lack of evidence but the huge amount.

For example, the Plantaris muscle is a good one. Actually around 9-11% of humans don't even have this muscle but it is used by other primates (see here for Useless Body Parts..

Then there is the colour vision photopigments which are found in humans and Old world monkeys and apes but which differ from other mammals.

Animal vision is driven by evolution. The mantis shrimp shows the extremes that this can go to. These stomatopods have 4 times as many types of colour receptors as most humans and can see polarized light and ultraviolet. They need it to stay alive given how vicious they are in various shrimp rituals (mating being the most dangerous).

That we have commonality between old world apes suggests common evolution. Now I'm happy to agree this could just show a common designer rather than a common ancestor but you're not proposing a designer only that there is nothing in common (i.e. I call it a common ancestor) between humans and apes.

Does the idea of a most recent common ancestor make any sense anyway ? If we look at the two most commonly studied haplogroups, the Y-chromosome (Y-DNA) haplogroups and mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) then both of these show how human populations have migrated. These same haplogroups can be compared to other animals and show how we have departed from those animals in time.

It is unreasonable to suggest that whilst studying mtDNA is valid within humans it can't be applied to compare humans to other species especially given mtDNA is common across all animals. I accept that mtDNA mutates faster than nuclear DNA so this means that the comparison is with related species. Studies would suggest that e.g. here that humans are closer to gorillas than orang-utans.

There are thousands of papers with massive amounts of evidence whereas there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of the existence of any God or creator nor any designer other than the Blind Watchmaker we call nature. The Quran only recorded what people already knew 1400 years ago and describes nothing new that was not already known.

[muhammad rasullah]

......

In the Qur'an, Allah calls our attention to a very important attribute of the sky:

We made the sky a preserved and protected roof yet still they turn away from Our Signs. (Qur'an, 21:32)

This attribute of the sky has been proved by scientific research carried out in the 20th century: The atmosphere surrounding the Earth serves crucial functions for the continuity of life. While destroying many meteors-big and small-as they approach the Earth, it prevents them from falling to Earth and harming living things.

In addition, the atmosphere filters the light rays coming from space that are harmful to living things. The most striking feature of the atmosphere is that it lets only harmless and useful rays-visible light, near ultraviolet light and radio waves pass through. All of this radiation is vital for life. Near ultraviolet rays, which are only partially let in by the atmosphere, are very important for the photosynthesis of plants and for the survival of all living beings. The majority of the intense ultraviolet rays emitted from the Sun are filtered out by the ozone layer of the atmosphere. Only a limited and essential part of the ultraviolet spectrum reaches the Earth.

The protective function of the atmosphere does not end here. The atmosphere also protects the earth from the freezing cold of the space, which is approximately -270oC.

It is not only the atmosphere that protects the Earth from harmful effects. In addition to the atmosphere, the Van Allen Belt-the layer caused by the magnetic field of the Earth-also serves as a shield against the harmful radiation that threatens our planet. This radiation, which is constantly emitted by the Sun and other stars, is deadly to living things. If the Van Allen belt did not exist, the massive outbursts of energy called solar flares that frequently occur in the Sun would destroy all life on Earth.

On the importance of the Van Allen Belt, Dr. Hugh Ross says:

In fact, the Earth has the highest density of any of the planets in our Solar System. This large nickel-iron core is responsible for our large magnetic field. This magnetic field produces the Van-Allen radiation shield, which protects the Earth from radiation bombardment. If this shield were not present, life would not be possible on the Earth. The only other rocky planet to have any magnetic field is Mercury-but its field strength is 100 times less than the Earth's. Even Venus, our sister planet, has no magnetic field. The Van-Allen radiation shield is a design unique to the Earth.21

In short, a perfect system is at work high above the Earth. It surrounds our world and protects it against external threats. Centuries ago, Allah informed us in the Qur'an of the world's atmosphere functioning as a protective shield.

Firstly space isn't really "hot" or "cold". If you put an object into space at the same distance that Earth is from the Sun and it absorbed and emitted heat then it would tend towards 280 Kelvin (7 deg C) . In the shade from the Sun (Dark Side Of The Moon ?) then it tends towards 5 Kelvin or way out in space it tends towards the background radiation of 2.7 K, so yes that is cold. But we're talking Earth - facing the Sun and both spacecraft and astronauts do get hot in space when facing the sun, not cold !. The atmosphere on Earth evens out the cold and heat. People know this naturally (especially people who live in deserts) in that the day can be hot and the night cold BUT if there are clouds this is evened out i.e. not so hot in the day and not so cold at night. I don't need to the Quran to tell me this; I know it from personal experience.

But Mars has probably had a strong magnetic field in the past but other physical characteristics made it unlikely (in retrospect obviously !) that any atmosphere would be retained when assaulted by the Solar Wind.

The oxygen rich atmosphere we have today is a waste product of photosynthesis. Initially from cyanobacteria and in a process which still goes on today. Without these bacteria no other oxygen-consuming lifeforms would have evolved.

We know the atmosphere causes many meteors to burn up but it certainly isn't dense enough to stop the real big ones. Hard evidence shows large numbers of huge impacts and indications of mass extinctions. The atmosphere failed to stop those.

Look at the Earth Impact Database for instance and then tell us again that the atmosphere stopped these and that these are something else altogether. I suspect you've not been told the truth in this because if something as basically obvious as a 90 kilometre wide impact crater is ignored then I can imagine other evidence that needs a little bit more effort to understand has no hope.

So firstly admit that the atmosphere has repeatedly failed to stop large and destructive meteors or that these examples of impact craters are not from meteorites or would not have caused environmental damage then we can move on to your other claims.

[Beto]

That is the thing you fail to see primates don't have complex languages.

If you don't even know what "primates" refers to, you're way in over your head.

I was kidding when I said find the ancestor I know you wouldn't be able to find him! it's like saying big foot exist!

There are at least questionable photos of Big Foot. The same can't be said about your "Allah".

[muhammad rasullah]

How can there be no first member of humans i would surely like to see a human and an ape breed and produce another human being.

Please bear with me for a while and consider that evolution might be true. Can you think of a change that would make a human being more efficient in its environment? Can you think of a hundred? How about a thousand? How do you think all these changes could affect the way humans look like? Regardless of how dramatic the changes might be, would the species cease to be called Human to be called something else? What about one million changes ago? Why would the species be called something other than Human, because of how it looks at the time?

This makes no sense what are you really trying to say please make yourself clear and unambiguous? what are these changes that you speak of? And if this is the case why was there a break in these changes that occured why did they stop?

Don't you think you should, by your own initiative, research a bit to achieve a basic understanding of biological evolution theory, before you think about debating on the issue?

I really don't think it is necessary because the information that i recieve comes from those actually believe this to be true. I don't think my questions are unreasonable they may seem unreasonable because science doesn't have any answer for them.

No it is because the question is just plain stupid. e.g. you asked, "How can there be no first member of humans i would surely like to see a human and an ape breed and produce another human being.".

A human cannot naturally breed with an ape and even if with some genetic engineering we could solve the problem of hybridization when you have a the resulting hybrid would not be a human (nor would it be a chimp) and it would probably be sterile (as with mules in which they too have a differing number of chromosomes of the two species: donkeys have 62 chromosomes, whereas horses have 64.)

Chromosome differences are not always that clear-cut - Przewalski's horse has 66 chromosomes, and as I'd mentioned above the domestic horse has 64 but of these two species breed then they produce fertile offspring, possessing 65 chromosomes.

Being sterile is an evolutionary dead-end. You don't get a new "species", you get nothing. So the two species, early-humans and early-apes, even if they did mate many ears ago if the results were sterile then that would be the evolutionary end. Once that happens then the two species go their own way forever.

What you are expecting is that by mating apes and humans you rewind 6 million years of evolution and end up with a human ? If this is what you've been told then the people telling you this are just plain liars if they purport to be teachers of some sort.

Come one - think for yourself.

Facts are that humans and apes had a common ancestor around 5 to 7 million years ago. Today humans and apes are seperate species both of which have evolved over those 5 or so million years according to the particular niche that the species resides in.

This may seem stupid to you but logical for me. I only know what i see. I see apes and I see humans but what I don't see is this other species which they are both ancestors from, again where is the evidence for this? Where is the evidence for this? And if they did exist what made them become sterile that they cannot procreate anymore? you don't have to explain what the end result of this cross breeding would be i already know. Please somebody answer my question. where is this evidence of this common ancestor?

Humans beget humans and apes beget apes if they are the same species why can't they beget the same offspring?

All of us, both you and I, see many people around the world but I do not see their ancestors. I don't see my great-great-grand parents, nor my great-great-great grandparents and so on down through time because they are dead.

Obviously we don't see the "common" ancestor too because it is dead.

Humans beget humans but no-one is saying that these are genetically identical. Our childen (and the offspring of apes) are subtly different. They are in fact genetically different but similar. These differences are naturally selected.

We know that we have ancestors but unless you are royalty or quite lucky, the recorded history fades in a few hundred years. Now consider the problem of identifying the common ancestor from before recorded history, from say before 30,000 years ago or 300,000 or even 3 million years.

That is what you are asking for.

What does happen though is that our genome records the broad flow of migrations. By comparing your genome with references you are able to work out where in the world your ancestors migrated though they do not show individuals.

The same applies to animals and plants.

DNA analysis allows you to show the broad relationships between populations as well as to show the precise relationships between near ancestors (you, your parents and grandparents): this is fact.

It also allows you to show the much broader relationships between species. This is highly regarded as being true and an extension of looking at near-relations.


By denying the results of DNA analysis for species you also cast doubts on this same technique for near-ancestors. This is a bit illogical.

You said; "I only know what i see", but a few posts ago you said that "...I really don't think it is necessary because the information that i recieve comes from those actually believe this to be true.". Which is it ? You look for yourself OR you get others to look for you ?.

So I cannot give you a common ancestor any more than you can give me your great-great-great grandparents but DNA analysis will show relationships between your family which would match your recorded history and this same technique can show relationships between species.

So what your basically telling me is that this was an assumption that was made based on some similarities between monkeys and apes and there is no eviedence and no findings of this common ancestor that science claims has existed? As I said before any evidence that does not lead to it being truth is uncertain, not 50% certain or 70% certain because certainty leaves no room for doubt. the word certain means free from doubt or reservation; unquestionable; indisputable. There's no room for 50% in this defintion!

I was kidding when I said find the ancestor I know you wouldn't be able to find him! it's like saying big foot exist!

mismatch of chromosomes (chimps have 48 we have 46)

Where are the similarities in DNA?
Where are the missing chromosomes? Where is the proof that humans had more than 46 chromosomes?

Once again you have been lied to. There is a huge amount of evidence of the common ancestor that leaves so little doubt it is unreasonable to not look at the evidence for yourself and question what you have been told,

Firstly just to clear something up - Who said humans had 48 ?. Most humans have 46 chromosomes (a large number don't). Apes (Chimps) have 48.

So why do humans have 46 ? The evidence suggests that the similarities between ape and human chromosomes suggest that human chromosome 2 arose out of the fusion of two ancestral ape chromosomes (1-3). See here (an old paper) Origin of human chromosome 2: An ancestral telomere-telomere fusion which does help explain this in more detail.

What we do know is that many humans today get born with the "wrong" chromosome count. Turner Syndrome, Klinefelter Syndrome, Downs Syndrome, Edward's syndrome, Patau's Syndrome are examples that affect many humans.

These diseases all have significant problems so the current chromosome count has been naturally selected but what it tells us is that nature is continually trying new combinations. These are cruelly selected.

OK that solves the question of human verses ape chromosome count so on to other evidence: where shall I start. In fact the problem isn't lack of evidence but the huge amount.

For example, the Plantaris muscle is a good one. Actually around 9-11% of humans don't even have this muscle but it is used by other primates (see here for Useless Body Parts..

Then there is the colour vision photopigments which are found in humans and Old world monkeys and apes but which differ from other mammals.

Animal vision is driven by evolution. The mantis shrimp shows the extremes that this can go to. These stomatopods have 4 times as many types of colour receptors as most humans and can see polarized light and ultraviolet. They need it to stay alive given how vicious they are in various shrimp rituals (mating being the most dangerous).

That we have commonality between old world apes suggests common evolution. Now I'm happy to agree this could just show a common designer rather than a common ancestor but you're not proposing a designer only that there is nothing in common (i.e. I call it a common ancestor) between humans and apes.

Does the idea of a most recent common ancestor make any sense anyway ? If we look at the two most commonly studied haplogroups, the Y-chromosome (Y-DNA) haplogroups and mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) then both of these show how human populations have migrated. These same haplogroups can be compared to other animals and show how we have departed from those animals in time.

It is unreasonable to suggest that whilst studying mtDNA is valid within humans it can't be applied to compare humans to other species especially given mtDNA is common across all animals. I accept that mtDNA mutates faster than nuclear DNA so this means that the comparison is with related species. Studies would suggest that e.g. here that humans are closer to gorillas than orang-utans.

There are thousands of papers with massive amounts of evidence whereas there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of the existence of any God or creator nor any designer other than the Blind Watchmaker we call nature. The Quran only recorded what people already knew 1400 years ago and describes nothing new that was not already known.

Firstly I never said that humans have 48 chromosomes! read the text! you said chimps have 48 and humans have 46.
then these were my questions
Where are the similarities in DNA?
Where are the missing chromosomes? Where is the proof that humans had more than 46 chromosomes?[/quote]

This is the question you created on your own,

So why do humans have 46 ?

In a debate you cannot create your own questions and answer them! stick to the script. Then you said

The evidence suggests that the similarities between ape and human chromosomes suggest that human chromosome 2 arose out of the fusion of two ancestral ape chromosomes (1-3).

Suggested evidene once again is not certain. this is not proof of any kind this is basically conjecture of what you think! you keep telling me all this evidence that science has but yet have given me none! Why is that?

These diseases all have significant problems so the current chromosome count has been naturally selected but what it tells us is that nature is continually trying new combinations. These are cruelly selected.

Selected by who, nature? Nature doesn't have a mind to think wether or not to select chromosomes!

you know yourself that the things you put forth are not certain based on the word choice you use.
Studies would suggest that e.g. here that humans are closer to gorillas than orang-utans.
If it was factual evidence you would've said that this evidence proves not suggest!

The Quran only recorded what people already knew 1400 years ago and describes nothing new that was not already known.

[/quote] Again you are making assumptions based on opinion. There is no evidence that proves these things were known to man during that time. They didn't have the technology are the resources necessary to know this information. so you have yet not answered any of my questions. so please do so!

Where are the missing chromosomes? Where is the proof that humans had more than 46 chromosomes?

[/quote]

[muhammad rasullah]

That is the thing you fail to see primates don't have complex languages.

If you don't even know what "primates" refers to, you're way in over your head.

I was kidding when I said find the ancestor I know you wouldn't be able to find him! it's like saying big foot exist!

There are at least questionable photos of Big Foot. The same can't be said about your "Allah".

If you don't even know what "primates" refers to, you're way in over your head.

apparently i don't know what they mean so please tell me?

There are at least questionable photos of Big Foot. The same can't be said about your "Allah".

This is the same as people have done before requesting to see allah for themselves before they believe. how can you see allah when it is he who created the sun and you cannot stare into the sun without going blind. you will never see allah only until the day of judgement.[/quote]