[Rx-Ultram]

Salams

According to evolution Neanderthal people cross mated with modern day humans and we share some of their genetics, how does one refute Human evolution? It's destroying my imam.

[RemiVedia]

There is nothing to worry about as there is no evidence proving historical evolution to begin with.

[thomaskkk]

Salams

According to evolution Neanderthal people cross mated with modern day humans and we share some of their genetics, how does one refute Human evolution? It's destroying my imam.

Historical evolution of humans is based on correlation. Correlation is a faulty proof because it does not have certainty and cannot bring certainty; you could cite correlations until you were blue in the face without proving anything. The extrapolation of such faulty correlations is what brings about such assertions.

You are Bani Adam because it says you are in the Qur'an and Hadith and you are not Bani Neanderthal just because some buck-toothed baatil-buyer says so on MSNBC or National Geographic.

[G778G9P0]

Salam

chew on this br., certain tribes/communities of ppl who were disloyal to allah in the past (long, long time ago) were cursed and made to appear as apes, if you ask me homo habilis, and neanderthals look a lot like apes wouldn't you say?

also keeping in mind that our predecessors (bani israeel) lived very long lives (literally thousands of years at least) this suggests that tribes/communities from very long ago could have been transformed to have these appearances and then they were preserved in the earth as sign to those who refuse to obey allah, just as firaun was preserved as a sign of allah's curse on him and as a lesson to us.

i have often suspected that today's archeologists are actually uncovering signs of allah's wrath of nations when they uncover some of these bodies (i.e. homo habilis etc.). sure there is no quranic/hadith evidence that these fossilized remains belong to previous beings that turned away from allah, however what the qur'an does explicitly tell us is that humans were not evolved from apes on earth. period.

[Immusaatmonna]

Salams

According to evolution Neanderthal people cross mated with modern day humans and we share some of their genetics, how does one refute Human evolution? It's destroying my imam.

Science is human's logic. Sometimes right, sometimes wrong. Cannot know for sure.

Quran is the word of Allah. Its is Always right, no doubt.

Al Baqara : 30

And [mention, O Muhammad], when your Lord said to the angels, "Indeed, I will make upon the earth a successive authority." They said, "Will You place upon it one who causes corruption therein and sheds blood, while we declare Your praise and sanctify You?"
Allah said, "Indeed, I know that which you do not know."
Indeed Allah's wisdom is infinite, we are just his creations. So do not let the Shaytan's whispers get to you brother. Be steadfast. Allah knows best.

[cigsstorenick]

I understand your concerns brother, but there is nothing to worry about.

There are believers that see evolution as a way God used to sysmetically bring in creation.
Dr. Francis Collins is an example of this, a strict evangelical Christian who lead the
Human Genome Project. There are also believers who see evolution as kufr.

Evolution is seen by science as the most appropriate theory for the diversity of species.
Time will tell whether the theory will stand, there are still scientists that have objections towards
this theory.

My advise to you brother is that you shouldn't make a big deal out of it, since there are
strict believers on both sides. Life is short, you might die tommorow.
Rather work on your deen and remember that we have been given very short time in this dunya.

May Allah increase your Imaan.

[Cerilopasei]

Assalam alaykum,

I have a friend who is a biologist and I can't compete with him at that level. But to me the point is that throughout all creation Allah swt has placed His signs for us to ponder. Evolution has become a non-issue for me, as I don't think we are going to see conclusive evidence. I do believe that Allah swt created Adam pbuh, the first prophet.

Wassalam

P.S. Keep to the true faith, Brother.

[Cerilopasei]

I understand your concerns brother, but there is nothing to worry about.

There are believers that see evolution as a way God used to sysmetically bring in creation.
Dr. Francis Collins is an example of this, a strict evangelical Christian who lead the
Human Genome Project. There are also believers who see evolution as kufr.

Evolution is seen by science as the most appropriate theory for the diversity of species.
Time will tell whether the theory will stand, there are still scientists that have objections towards
this theory.

My advise to you brother is that you shouldn't make a big deal out of it, since there are
strict believers on both sides. Life is short, you might die tommorow.
Rather work on your deen and remember that we have been given very short time in this dunya.

May Allah increase your Imaan.

Assalam alaykum,

Good post. There are indeed some evangelical Christians (a minority) who believe evolution is the work of Allah swt.

Wassalam

[Diortarkivoff]

Salams

According to evolution Neanderthal people cross mated with modern day humans and we share some of their genetics, how does one refute Human evolution? It's destroying my imam.

Brother, you do not have definitive, clear information on either evolution or the science which claims Neanderthals crossed mated with modern humans.

Here's a quote from evolutionary scientists addressing a recent genome study of Neanderthal bones from Croatia:

"This is probably not the authors’ last word, and they are obviously groping to explain what they have found,” Dr. Tattersall said.
Richard Klein, a paleontologist at Stanford, said the authors’ theory of an early interbreeding episode did not seem to have taken full account of the archaeological background. “They are basically saying, ‘Here are our data, you have to accept it.’ But the little part I can judge seems to me to be problematic, so I have to worry about the rest,” he said. One of the observations made by scientists is that media reporters routinely misrepresent and distort scientific findings to cater to reporters' worldviews and prejudices. The gap between actual scientific findings and media reports are quite enormous and very often the certainty which the media "reports" is not expressed or justifiable from the actual science.

Before you start doubting your iman, why don't you read the actual scientific reports? Why don't you read actual scientific findings about evolution. I studied biology in college and much about evolution is NOT contradictary to Islam. Microevolution, such as species adaptation, is compatible with Islam.

The major issue of contention is the origin of Man. Evolutionary claims of the origin of man simply lack the certainty to contest the authenticity of the Quran's statements that we are all children of Adam and Adam had no parents. And neither do we clearly understand how Adam was created by Allah from earth or how humanity interbred. The certainty of the Quran remains uncompromised and unchallenged. Neither are scientific reports about Man's origins sufficiently definitive to mount a challenge.

Ironically, I've sat among very learned brothers (PhDs in chemistry, MDs, engineers, ulama) who casually pondered how the first generations of Man mated, and whether they mated with nonhumans who lived at that time of the first generations. In terms of possibilities, its possible for the first sons of Adam to have had a Shariah completely unimagined or understood by us, including mating with Neanderthals.

Are doubts about the Shariah of the first children of Adam really grounds for doubting Allah's existance, the authenticity of the Quran as established by the arabic, and the prophethood of the Rasul (saaw)?

They are not. Rather, doubts which emerge from evolution are based on ignorance about evolution and the Aqidah of Islam as well as falsehoods propagated about both.

[shiciapsisy]

you may find this link enlightening...

http://www.fountainmagazine.com/Issu...y-Of-Evolution

[shiciapsisy]

especially the latter part of the article...

Ramapithecus: Ramapithecus, which consists of a handful of teeth and jaw fragments, is considered to be a hominid (human evolutionary ancestor) solely on the basis of its dental record.11 David Pilbeam, one of the first to state that Ramapethicus was a hominid, says that he now is not so sure that it is a human ancestor, and that he has found new fossils of the species that invalidate earlier conclusions.12

Australopithecus: Found by Dart in 1924, Australopithecus Africanus, consists of a skull, a jaw, some teeth, and pelvis, limb, and footfragments. This creature is divided into two main species: Australopithecus Africanus and Australopithecus Robustus. Australopithecus is not considered a human ancestor.13

Zinjanthropus: In 1950, Louis and Mary Leakey found 400 pieces of a skull in the Olduvai Gorge in Africa. They claimed that this hominid ancestor was 1,750,000 years old. This age was determined on their dating of the rocks in which the bones were located by the potassium argon method. In 1960, they found a child's skull of a more advanced type 12 inches deeper in the rock. This led Leakey to say that Zinjanthropus was not hominid, but rather entirely ape. Carbon 14 dating of mammal bones in the same stratum suggests an age of only 10,000 years or 3,100 years.

Nebraska Man: In 1922, a geologist named Cook found a tooth in Nebraska's Snake Creek bed. Professor Osborn (The New York Museum) and Sir Smith C. Aubrey of London said it belonged to an ape man. It was later found to be the tooth of an extinct pig.14

Piltdown Man: In 1912, Charles Dawson and others found a skullcap, jawbone, and teeth in a gravel pit in Sussex, England. From these, they constructed an ape man, named him Piltdown (or Dawn) Man, and dated him at 500,000 years BC. In 1953, British scientists discovered that the jawbone belonged to a monkey that had been stained to indicate age, that the teeth had been filed to make them look human, and that the skullcap was really an elephant's kneecap. The hoax fooled experts for many years.15

Java Man: In 1892 in Java (now part of Indonesia), Dubois found a skullcap, teeth, and femur bone about 60 feet from each other. He said these belonged to the same hominid ancestor, and that it was about 500,000 years old. He failed to mention that he had found two human skulls nearby in virtually the same level of burial. In 1908, the German Selenka expedition found that lava flows in Java made an age of more than 500 years impossible. In 1936, Dubois admitted that Java Man was an ape.16

Peking Man: Between 1922 and 1939, the bones of 38 individuals were discovered at Choukoutien, southwest of Peking. Experts in several countries said these belonged to ape men. Mr. O'Connell, a missionary in China, claimed this was a lime pit and that local men and women killed monkeys and then ate their brains. When the hill collapsed, people were buried and fossilized. The mixture of bones was used to create an ape man. The original specimens were lost in WWII. O'Connell says Peking man is altogether human.

Neanderthal Man: The first bones of Neanderthal Man, found in Dusseldorf, Germany, in 1856, indicated a stooped posture. He was said to be one step above apes, and was dated at 200,000 years. Later, he was found to have arthritis. Since then, skeletons in an upright position have been found in caves in Palestine. Their brain size is larger than that of modern man.

Cromagnon: Cromagnon bones of have been found in caves in France. Although they are dated at 50,000 years,their brain size is larger than that of modern man.17,18

As seen above, these so-called human ancestors are either apes or based solely on teeth, or they are just human beings with larger brains and bigger bodies, which might mean more complexity.

.....

As seen above, whatever is claimed to support evolution turns out to not support it.

Now recall that for natural selection to occur, favorably evolved genes should exist and each gene's evolutions should be cumulative. As we have proven that the large-scale change of genetic material is impossible, can natural selection drive cumulative small-scale changes in genes? The study shows that by preserving the functionality of existing genes, natural selection fights evolution, for existing genes are not free to evolve into new genes. The genes are locked by natural selection, that is, if a gene evolves into a new gene the original gene is lost. Now, if the original gene benefits the organism, its loss will be a competitive disadvantage to the organism (hence the organism will be eliminated or disfavored by natural selection). If the gene is non-beneficial, it would be eliminated by natural selection. Therefore natural selection locks existing genes into their place. Theoretically, genes might transform at the expense of losing their previous functionality, but this transformation is not cumulative. The only opposition might arise in the case of the new gene being more beneficiary than the previous one. This is slightly misleading, for if the new gene offers more benefit on the same characteristic, then no variation is possible even within a species (which is not the case on Earth). If the new gene offers a beneficial new characteristic, the original characteristic is lost and hence a disadvantage occurs. This is not much of a benefit.

This discrepancy in evolution was first observed by a scientist named Ohno (1978), who says: "Yet, being an effective policeman, natural selection is extremely conservative by nature, from a bacterium only numerous forms of bacteria would have emerged. The creation of metazoans, vertebrates, and finally mammals from unicellular organisms would have been quite impossible, for such big leaps in evolution required the creation of new gene loci with previously non-existent functions. Only the cistron (a segment of DNA that is equivalent to a gene and that specifies a single functional unit as a protein or enzyme) which became redundant was able to escape from the relentless pressure of natural selection, and by escaping, it accumulated formerly forbidden mutations to emerge as a new gene locus."

As Ohno said, even if a virus or a bacteria existed in the beginning, only these and their variations would be alive today. Also, those redundant gene loci are the only genes that can escape from natural selection, and all mutations must occur on them. However, only a new trait can result from this mutation. Then this locus is again under the lock of natural selection, since it gained a new functionality. Furthermore, it does not allow the creation of new genes to acquire the complexity of metazoans, vertebrates, and finally mammals. Hence "as long as a particular function of an organism is under the control of a single gene locus, natural selection does not permit perpetuation of mutations which result in affecting the functionally critical site of a peptide chain specified by that locus. Hence, allelic mutations are incapable of changing the assigned function of genes"28 (Ohno,1978). This observation is quite important, because evolution needs numerous, successive small changes of existing genes-the above observation proves that changes at a gene locus are not cumulative.29

Why then is Darwinism so prevalent in the scientific world? Why is it still taught in schools and shown in documentary films as a fact? Are the evolutionists unable to see the discrepancies and improbability of evolution? The answer to these questions lie mostly in the fact that the primary motivation for advancing Darwinism was philosophical, not scientific.30 The underlying philosophy behind Darwinism is naturalism, whose roots are in classical Greek philosophy. Darwin knew little about genetics, but the spread of Darwinism was the result of combination of Darwinism with genetics in 1930s and 1940s. This combination is a result of the prevalence of naturalism among philosophers and scientists in recent centuries. Therefore, there is a close relationship between Darwinism and naturalism-indeed, Darwinism became the branch of naturalism in biology. Therefore, in a future article we will examine the source(naturalism) that Darwinism nourishes and elaborate on the aspects of Darwinism that we did not cover or about which we just gave tangent remarks.

[shiciapsisy]

There are believers that see evolution as a way God used to sysmetically bring in creation.

There are also believers who see evolution as kufr.

Evolution is seen by science as the most appropriate theory for the diversity of species.
Time will tell whether the theory will stand, there are still scientists that have objections towards
this theory.

My advise to you brother is that you shouldn't make a big deal out of it, since there are
strict believers on both sides....

.

also a more rational view for a Muslim to take may be to take between the two...

1. know the mistakes of evolution in any area where it conflicts with Divine Revelation -

for example we know that Allah created humankind in an act of direct creation not through a gradual process..

2. accept the possibility of some form of 'evolution' occurring in areas where it does not conflict with Divine Revelation

- Allah (SWT) has said nothing that clearly refutes this so we should not either, yes? -

this does not mean accepting evolutionism with all its associated kufr ideas, but it does mean that Allah didn't tell us the specific way he created many things - therefore it is reasonable - though in no way yet confirmed with any form of certainty by science - that we may assume He (SWT) may possibly have created some things through a process of gradual development -

this is however not what they evolutionists believe - they imagine evolutionary development occurring as a result of the interplay of mindless physical forces - a Muslim can never accept this because the know that Allah is the one who splits the date stone (Holy Qur'an 6/95).

Pickthall: Lo! Allah (it is) Who splitteth the grain of corn and the date-stone (for sprouting). He bringeth forth the living from the dead, and is the bringer-forth of the dead from the living. Such is Allah. How then are ye perverted?

Yusuf Ali: It is Allah Who causeth the seed-grain and the date-stone to split and sprout. He causeth the living to issue from the dead, and He is the one to cause the dead to issue from the living. That is Allah: then how are ye deluded away from the truth?

[Innoloinarp]

salamualaikum brother, my islamic teacher taught us that the children of adam and hawa were born in 40 sets of twins (boy and girl) and werent allowed to marry from the same set but could marry others.

[shiciapsisy]

salamualaikum brother, my islamic teacher taught us that the children of adam and hawa were born in 40 sets of twins (boy and girl) and werent allowed to marry from the same set but could marry others.

yes this is true and I believe it.

[Michmant]

Salams

According to evolution Neanderthal people cross mated with modern day humans and we share some of their genetics, how does one refute Human evolution? It's destroying my imam.

Even if we assume all the evidence to be true:

If they mated successfully with humans producing viable offspring and could share a language and culture then they were both humans. That's like saying Africans are a different species from Chinese. Obviously the difference between Neanderthals and H. Sapiens is a little more than that but not different enough for it to have been an issue it seems. The "Africans" (H. Sapiens) overtook the "Europeans" (Neanderthals). It's not unlike how Egypt is predominantly Arab today yet the ethnicity of its people before Islam was definitely not Arab. In the genetics of today's Egyptians, however, you will find traces of ancient Egyptians.

The definition of "species" is being treated inconsistently with here. You can't use a purely genetic definition then carry that definition over into biology or even anthropology.

Also evolutionary science does not say H. Neanderthalis and H. Sapiens were descended from one another but were both descended from a common ancestor (as the usual story goes). If both species truly existed, they were both human.

Btw, has anyone heard anything about a possible timeline for Adam (as)? I always figured that since the number of prophets was well over 100,000 that, being conservative, humanity would have had to be around for at least that many number of years. And genetically speaking all of mankind today trace to individuals around those time periods (around 150,000 years ago).

Also, "Y-Chromosomal Adam" and "Mitochondrial Eve" are not the real Adam (as) and Eve (as). Technically everyone today is also descended from Noah (as). I would assume those genetic ancestors would have been not too far from Noah (as) (and the distance from Noah to Adam only Allah knows, it seems inestimable from our knowledge) but Allah knows best.

It's certainly possible there were already hominid species here and when Adam and Eve began our species they wiped out the other hominids (who were like animals, lacking civilization or the mental capacity of Adam/Eve).

[Rounteetepehryn]

Btw, has anyone heard anything about a possible timeline for Adam (as)? I always figured that since the number of prophets was well over 100,000 that, being conservative, humanity would have had to be around for at least that many number of years. And genetically speaking all of mankind today trace to individuals around those time periods (around 150,000 years ago).

Not necessarily, as there could have been (and were) many prophets who lived at the same time.

[Michmant]

Not necessarily, as there could have been (and were) many prophets who lived at the same time.

That's what I was taking into account otherwise it would have been millions of years.

[Thigmaswams]

There is nothing to worry about as there is no evidence proving historical evolution to begin with.

Compared with evidence of God? I'd say you should be worried.

-Jason

[Innoloinarp]

yes this is true and I believe it.

sorry brother, i meant to reply to brother usama who wrote about early humans possibly mating with neanderthals.

[Immusaatmonna]

Not necessarily, as there could have been (and were) many prophets who lived at the same time.

Yes its true, I have once heard that thousands of prophets were send to Bani Israel alone.