------------------
Jack Rabbit , "ഡാര്‍വിനിസത്തിന്റെ ശാസ്ത്രവിരുദ്ധതയും നിരീശ്വരവാദത..." ഇങ്ങനെയൊരു അഭിപ്രായമിട്ടു:
Prof. Wahid,
Being a qualified academician and scientist (learned from your CV), i am sure you know the importance of rock solid evidence. In science, just one rock solid evidence can overthrow any hypothesis regardless of how good it sounds intuitively
Let me point out one case.
Quoting you from the article
സ്പീഷീസുകള്‍ക്കിടയിലുള്ള ഇനങ്ങള്‍ ഉണ്ടാകണമെന്നുള്ളത് ഡാര്‍വിന്റെ സിദ്ധാന്തത്തിന്റെ ആവശ്യമാണെന്നല്ലാതെ സ്രഷ്ടാവിന്റെ ആവശ്യമല്ല. അതുകൊണ്ടാണ് ഫോസ്സില്‍ രേഖയില്‍ ഇടനില ജീവികള്‍ ശൂന്യമായിരുന്നത്
and also from your book
Darwinism: Science Made to Order (2008). Adam Publishers and Distributors, New Delhi
But the fossil record
did not live up to Darwin’s expectations. It is barren for transitional forms. (page 36)
I amn't sure whether you have heard about discovery of Tiktaalik the transitional form between fish and amphibians in 2004. This was before the publication of your book and was celebrated internationally.
Given the light of this information, will you take back your accusation ?
Comment 2
-----------------
Jack Rabbit , "ഡാര്‍വിനിസത്തിന്റെ ശാസ്ത്രവിരുദ്ധതയും നിരീശ്വരവാദത..." ഇങ്ങനെയൊരു അഭിപ്രായമിട്ടു:
Another factual error
ജീവനുള്ള കോശം ഉപയോഗിച്ചാണ് കൃത്രിമ ജീനോമും കൃത്രിമകോശവും നിര്‍മിച്ചത്. ജീവനുള്ള കോശം ഉപയോഗിക്കാതെ രാസപ്രക്രിയയെ മാത്രം ആശ്രയിച്ച് ഉണ്ടാക്കുകയാണെങ്കില്‍ മാത്രമേ കൃത്രിമ ജീനോമെന്നും കൃത്രിമകോശമെന്നും വിളിക്കുന്നതില്‍ അര്‍ഥമുള്ളു. 'ക്ലോണിംഗ്' എന്ന് പറഞ്ഞ് തെറ്റിദ്ധരിപ്പിച്ചതുപോലെ 'കൃത്രിമ ജീനോം', 'കൃത്രിമകോശം', 'കൃത്രിമ ജീവന്‍' എന്നിങ്ങനെ പ്രയോഗിച്ച് നാസ്തികലോബി ജനങ്ങളെ തെറ്റിദ്ധരിപ്പിക്കുകയാണിപ്പോള്
The genome was a synthetic one. Graphical description of the process can be found here
The team ordered pieces of DNA 1,000 units in length from Blue Heron, a company that specializes in synthesizing DNA, and developed a technique for assembling the shorter lengths into a complete genome.
I amn't sure who is obfuscating facts here
Jack Rabbit , "ഡാര്‍വിനിസത്തിന്റെ ശാസ്ത്രവിരുദ്ധതയും നിരീശ്വരവാദത..." ഇങ്ങനെയൊരു അഭിപ്രായമിട്ടു:
Comment 3:
------------------
C.K. Latheef said,Comment 3:
------------------
എന്നിട്ട് എന്താണ് ഡാര്‍വിനിസം എന്ന് ശരിയായ വിധത്തില്‍ പരിചയപ്പെടുത്തുകയും ചെയ്യുക.
For those who are SINCERELY interested in understanding why evolution is true and on the enormous amount of evidence behind this conclusion, two remarkably good books came out within last one year
Why evolution is true by Jerry Coyne, University of Chicago
and
The greatest show on Earth: the evidence for evolution by Richard Dawkins
Comment 4
---------------
Prof. Wahid said
You have mentioned Tiktaalik as intermediate form between fish and amphibians. I don’t have to tell you that for argument sake any number of transitional forms can be identified. Such arguments are subjective and you will find counter arguments also for that. Several websites and books present counter arguments about the intermediate forms claimed by evolutionists.
Show me one peer -reviewed study which debunks the Tiktaalik ? The finding of Tiktaalik by a team of researchers, led by Neil H. Shubin of the University of Chicago was reported in Nature magazine April 2006. If someone could prove it was fake, that was an instant ticket to world wide fame
Prof. Wahid said
What evolutionists should seriously ponder over is the truth that Darwin himself had declared the fossil record as barren for intermediate forms. If there were intermediate forms that have evolved in nature, fossil record should certainly have shown a large number of intermediate forms.
Fossil record available in Darwin's time is much less compared to what we have now. Also fossil dating techniques weren't available at that time.
I don't understand why a learned person like you trying to refute evolutionary theory by quoting Origin of species. Evolutionary biology has progressed a lot since the time of Darwin. No university teaches evolutionary biology from Origin of species
There are no PROPHETS in science. If Darwin comes to alive today, he has a lot to catch up in terms of Genetics, molecular biology, evolutionary development biology etc.
Prof. Wahid said
No amount of argument will make the theory scientific in the absence of intermediate forms in the fossil record because it is the prediction of the theory. If the prediction is not valid, the scientific tradition is to reject the theory. Darwin’s theory should have been rejected for that reason at the time of its proposal itself 150 years ago.
Prof. Wahid, You are missing the beauty of this discovery. Evolution had predicted the existence of Tiktaalik (intermediate forms) and not only that it must have existed (between 365 and 385 million years ago) but that if a fossil remained, it would exist in a specific sort of place; freshwater and in sediment of a somewhat narrow time period(where we can find rocks that old), all predicted quite accurately it turned out.
On the contrary if one can show a fossilized rabbit or elephant from Triassic or Cambrian era (which will appear out of order in fossil record), that will refute evolution.
Prof. Wahid said
If evolutionists argue that the fossil record is incomplete, how come the theory of punctuated equilibrium (proposed by Eldredge and Gould in 1972) based on that ‘incomplete fossil record’ is treated as scientific?
—Stephen Jay Gould, The Panda's Thumb
PS: I amn't replying on the evolution of eye arguments which aren't related to the transitional fossils issue i raised in this thread
Comment 5:
------------------
ചിന്തകന്‍ പറഞ്ഞു...
എനിക്ക് ചോദിക്കനുള്ളത്, ഇതല്ല ഡാര്‍വ്വിന്‍ സിദ്ധാന്തമെങ്കില്‍ പിന്നെയെന്താണ്? ജീവന്റെ തുടക്കം എങ്ങനെയാണ് സംഭവിച്ചത്?
ജീവി എന്ന പ്രയോഗമാണോ പ്രശ്നമായത്?
ലിങ്കുകള്‍ നല്‍കുന്നതിനു പകരം വായനക്കാര്‍ക്ക് മനസ്സിലാക്കാന്‍ പറ്റുന്ന ലളിതമായ ഭാഷയിലുള്ള ഒരുത്തരമാണ് താങ്കളില്‍ നിന്ന് ഞാന്‍ പ്രതീക്ഷിക്കുന്നത്.
ജീവി എന്ന പ്രയോഗമാണോ പ്രശ്നമായത്?
ലിങ്കുകള്‍ നല്‍കുന്നതിനു പകരം വായനക്കാര്‍ക്ക് മനസ്സിലാക്കാന്‍ പറ്റുന്ന ലളിതമായ ഭാഷയിലുള്ള ഒരുത്തരമാണ് താങ്കളില്‍ നിന്ന് ഞാന്‍ പ്രതീക്ഷിക്കുന്നത്.
Evolution is a scientific THEORY that explains the emergence of new varieties of organisms in the past or present and also a FACT in the sense it has happened in the past (happening also at present). It is NOT A THEORY ON THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. Evolution refers to the cumulative changes that occur in a population over time and geography through the action of processes such as natural selection, mutation, symbiosis, gene transfer, and genetic drift. These changes give organisms a survival and reproductive advantage in their local environments. The advantageous features tend to increase in frequency in the population, while those that are disadvantageous decrease in frequency. The above mentioned processes can produce macroscale evolution (species level) given enough time. The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor.
There are excellent resources available which explains evolution at high school standard. One such is Understanding Evolution at University of California, Berkeley
Comment 6:
------------------
@Jack Rabbit
ഈ രണ്ട് സ്റ്റേറ്റ്മന്റുകൾക്കിടയിലെ വിത്യാസമെന്താണ്?
common ancestor എന്നതിന് പകരം ‘യാദൃശ്ചികമായുണ്ടായ ഒരു ജീവി‘ എന്ന പ്രയോഗമാണോ?
As i said earlier, evolution is NOT A THEORY ON THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. It is valid regardless of whether the starting molecule which has the ability to self-replicate was formed here on earth or reached though comets from outer space
The objection is with the usage "യാദൃശ്ചികമായുണ്ടായ ഒരു ജീവി". I think Bright also has the same concern (He can clarify). What does the author means "യാദൃശ്ചികം" and "ജീവി" here ?
See how long it took to create first multi-cellular organism from early replicating molecules and from first multi-cellular organism to present stage.
ബയോളജിക്കൽ എവല്യൂഷൻ എന്ന് താങ്കൾ പറയുന്നതും ഡാർവ്വിൻ സിദ്ധാന്തവും ഒന്ന് തന്നെയാണോ?
Evolution taught today is built upon the ideas of Darwin like common ancestry and natural selection. The mechanism of how traits are passed from one generation to next as we know from genetics and molecular biology was unknown to him.
Historians of science sometimes use Darwinism to distinguish Darwin's ideas from modern evolutionary thought which includes later developments in biology
In United states, the term Darwinism is used by creationists to attack evolution as though it were an ideology like Marxism. The same ploy is co-opted by Islamic creationists which is evident by the title of this post.
-----------------
Prof. Wahid said,
Instead, you should have thought that if the study gives convincing scientific proof of evolution, why the scientist(s) didn’t get a Nobel? The origin of life and forms of life is one of the most important areas of scientific research since long. So far no evolutionist has presented scientifically convincing proof of evolution and that is why evolutionary biology has remained as of today Nobel-sterile field.
I guess you know there is no Nobel prize for biology. It is given for Physiology and medicine. Instead Swedish academy gives Crafoord Prize in astronomy and mathematics, biosciences and geosciences in a rotating scheme to complement those for which the Nobel Prizes are awarded.
If you take a look at the list of laureates for biosciences (so far only 8 prizes were given)
2007 Robert Trivers
1999 John Maynard Smith, Ernst Mayr, George C. Williams
1993 William D Hamilton
1990 Edward O. Wilson
They are doyens in the field of evolutionary biology. So your argument that evolutionary biology has remained as of today a Nobel-sterile field doesn't hold any water. (QED)
PS1: You are again going back to Origin of species and what Darwin thought. It is quite fashionable these days to put "How Darwin was wrong" in article or book titles to get more popular attention. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Evolutionary biology isn't a sterile field devoid of any developments.
PS2: I never mentioned natural selection as the only mechanism driving evolution although it is a dominant one. I replied to ചിന്തകന്‍
Evolution refers to the cumulative changes that occur in a population over time and geography through the action of processes such as natural selection, mutation, symbiosis, gene transfer, and genetic drift.
PS3: Fossilization is a rare occurrence in nature as it demands special conditions. Creationists demand to see fossil records like a movie film roll to agree. Even without fossils, however, comparison of sequences (of DNA, RNA and proteins) alone and molecular phylogenetics analysis prove evolution. For those who are looking for a popular account of this, refer to Sean Carroll's The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution
Comment 8:
----------------
Prof. Wahid said,
പ്രിയ ജാക് റാബിറ്റ്
ജോലിത്തിരക്ക് കാരണം പ്രഫ. വാഹിദ് കൂടുതൽ പ്രതികരണങ്ങൾക്ക് സമയം ഉണ്ടാവില്ലെന്നറിയിച്ചിട്ടുണ്ട്. താങ്കളുടെ അവസാന കമന്റുകൾക്ക് കൂടി അദ്ദേഹം മറുപടി പറഞ്ഞിട്ടുണ്ട്. അത് അദ്ദേഹത്തിന്റെ ഈ വിഷയകമായുള്ള ഒരു കൺക്ലൂഷനായി എടുക്കാവുന്നതാണ്.
മറ്റു നിരീശ്വരവാദി/യുക്തിവാദികളിൽ നിന്ന് വിത്യസ്ഥമായി വളരെ മാന്യവും സംവാദാത്മകവുമായ താങ്കളുടെ ഇടപെടലിന് വളരെയധികം നന്ദി.
Thank you Prof. Wahid for participating in this discussion. I amn't sure what bigger evidence other than 50% of Crafoord prize awardees (Nobel eqvt for Biology) were evolutionary biologists to show the recognition and acceptance it has among the scientific community.
Prof. Wahid said,
The phenomenon of life can be defined and explained in the light of the Quranic revelations based on a computer model of organism proposed by me. The model is consistent with the non-physcal (or non-molecular) gene concept originally proposed by Wilhelm Johannsen in 1909. The non-physical gene concept agrees well with the Quranic revelations of the cause of life.
I wish a learned academician like you had played a better role in the understanding of evolutionary biology among the masses (Muslim community in particular) rather than start with the conclusion and then play with the facts.
----------------
Prof. Wahid said,
പ്രിയ ജാക് റാബിറ്റ്
ജോലിത്തിരക്ക് കാരണം പ്രഫ. വാഹിദ് കൂടുതൽ പ്രതികരണങ്ങൾക്ക് സമയം ഉണ്ടാവില്ലെന്നറിയിച്ചിട്ടുണ്ട്
മറ്റു നിരീശ്വരവാദി/യുക്തിവാദികളിൽ നിന്ന് വിത്യസ്ഥമായി വളരെ മാന്യവും സംവാദാത്മകവുമായ താങ്കളുടെ ഇടപെടലിന് വളരെയധികം നന്ദി.
Thank you Prof. Wahid for participating in this discussion. I amn't sure what bigger evidence other than 50% of Crafoord prize awardees (Nobel eqvt for Biology) were evolutionary biologists to show the recognition and acceptance it has among the scientific community.
Prof. Wahid said,
The phenomenon of life can be defined and explained in the light of the Quranic revelations based on a computer model of organism proposed by me. The model is consistent with the non-physcal (or non-molecular) gene concept originally proposed by Wilhelm Johannsen in 1909. The non-physical gene concept agrees well with the Quranic revelations of the cause of life.
I wish a learned academician like you had played a better role in the understanding of evolutionary biology among the masses (Muslim community in particular) rather than start with the conclusion and then play with the facts.
No comments:
Post a Comment