tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post1720156552358166453..comments2024-03-19T09:06:21.507-04:00Comments on Irtiqa: Maududi on evolutionSalman Hameedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04327330113822656571noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post-91014470888576998222011-08-14T13:39:24.279-04:002011-08-14T13:39:24.279-04:00dr usama here
all we read is "genetic make up...dr usama here<br />all we read is "genetic make up of all homosapians mean men women is such that if there is no men all would be women and from fossils it depicts that all men women are desendents of a single LUCY 2 lac year back as we hav discoverd now skeltons of nenderthals so we cant totally deny evolution but we cant even deny the creation of adam by God himself i think might 7000 yr back from the desendent of Lucy the common mother of all human one men is selected as adam coz ulema are divided over the issue of jannat most believe that it was on earth so might adam is selected for this jannat and he was given wisdom as dr israr also says so i think dr israr point of view appeals more as he was a medical dr by profession and no medical men can totally reject the idea of evolution but being believers we also believe that adam was first homosapian given wisdom and only his offsprings remained and survived and rest all races disappeared becoz they dont know to cultivate or were uncivilised and were gentile and were not able to speak evendr usama khannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post-90057318042394917652009-07-07T09:58:48.126-04:002009-07-07T09:58:48.126-04:00"You arguments are falling apart! Sometimes, ..."You arguments are falling apart! Sometimes, you are not confident enough what are you talking about."<br /><br />Actually, now that I reflect on it, I think Maududi and Akbar are absolutely correct. Origin of life is the mystery of mysteries. I can now see the folly of Miller, Hazen, Morowitz, etc. who think this is a scientifically solvable problem, and are simply wasting their time on this line of research. My confidence is all back up now. Thanks!Salman Hameedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04327330113822656571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post-62354247040152053612009-07-07T00:52:49.083-04:002009-07-07T00:52:49.083-04:00Dear Dr. Salman Hameed,
You arguments are falling...Dear Dr. Salman Hameed,<br /><br />You arguments are falling apart! Sometimes, you are not confident enough what are you talking about.<br /><br />Regards,Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post-23703771057042327802009-07-05T17:53:56.019-04:002009-07-05T17:53:56.019-04:00"I nowhere mentioned "God", did I?...."I nowhere mentioned "God", did I?...a sciencist's worst phobia."<br /><br />Hmm...its not phobia - it is called the end of inquiry. The invocation of God for an explanation (not God the existence of God necessarily) is indeed antithetical to scientific endeavor. <br /><br />"And yes, life originated fairly quickly, much sooner for mere accident to make it happen, for the structure of DNA itself is way too complex...let alone a cell. The cell of blue green algae only is perhaps a million times more complex than this pocket PC that is in my hand. For such a thing to happen by itself in no matter how favourable the environment might be is absolutely non-scientific in itself."<br /><br />Two things: <br />a) I have no idea what you mean by "accident". I never said any thing about an accident. Life arose through chemical processes governed by natural laws. It is no more an accident than we have rainfall on Earth or we have mountains on Mars. Actually, complex molecules essential for like, like the amino acids, nucleotides, and some fatty acids, have been to shown to form within days in the Miller Urey experiment, in experiments simulating high pressure environments of thermal vents, etc. Timescale for complexity is actually not a problem in current experiments on the origins of life. Still, as I have said multiple times above, it is an unsolved and exciting area of research - and that's the reason why scientists are working on it. <br /><br />b) "I would rather look for saner reasons about origins of life and universe and marvellous laws of nature than promoting fancy ideas like things happening by themselves."<br /><br />Since you are not talking about God (as per your statement), will you illuminate us about your "saner reasons" other than natural causes? (note - we are not talking about who/what created the laws themselves - that is a different topic altogether - but rather that life emerged from natural processes governed by natural laws).Salman Hameedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04327330113822656571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post-83848323823029321882009-07-05T10:26:43.267-04:002009-07-05T10:26:43.267-04:00"God did it?"
For Accident's sake, p..."God did it?"<br />For Accident's sake, please open up your mind for a little argument. I nowhere mentioned "God", did I?...a sciencist's worst phobia.<br />And yes, life originated fairly quickly, much sooner for mere accident to make it happen, for the structure of DNA itself is way too complex...let alone a cell. The cell of blue green algae only is perhaps a million times more complex than this pocket PC that is in my hand. For such a thing to happen by itself in no matter how favourable the environment might be is absolutely non-scientific in itself. <br />Yes I am a doctor and an astronomer and a scientist in making but not a sciencist. I would rather look for saner reasons about origins of life and universe and marvellous laws of nature than promoting fancy ideas like things happening by themselves.Muhammad Akbar Hussainhttp://astronomer.bravehost.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post-68795356968544571122009-07-04T08:59:14.813-04:002009-07-04T08:59:14.813-04:00""We know that life started very quickly...""We know that life started very quickly -"<br />Yes, this is what I mean :-)"<br /><br />You mean "God did it"? If yes, then you will make an excellent scientist!<br /><br />Actually, quickly is on astronomical scales. Life started within a million years - this is a very short time compared to the 4.5 billion life span of Earth. The implications are that life is most likely a high probability chemical event given the conditions of early Earth. Thus, life may even have had multiple origins on Earth (may be) - and is likely to be found on other planets (or satellites of large planets) in multiple places in our galaxy (possibly even in our own solar system - Europa?).Salman Hameedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04327330113822656571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post-20538253848975945712009-07-04T04:48:38.301-04:002009-07-04T04:48:38.301-04:00"We know that life started very quickly -&quo..."We know that life started very quickly -"<br />Yes, this is what I mean :-)Muhammad Akbar Hussainhttp://astronomer.bravehost.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post-10117564982843727102009-07-03T19:56:09.478-04:002009-07-03T19:56:09.478-04:00"Salman, you didn't get my point. The poi..."Salman, you didn't get my point. The point is...the more complex the process gets, the further it gets away from "accident". Soon our precious fifteen billion years of Universe's age will not remain enough to explain the formation of neucleotides and DNA, and their complex organization into mere "simplest" cells."<br /><br />I have no idea what "it" means here? I also have no idea what age of the universe has any thing to do with life's origin on Earth. We know that life started very quickly - soon after the age of the bombardment (about 4 billion years ago). This is the reason why scientists are trying to simulate conditions of early Earth. <br /><br />"Yes the question has been answered that how Sun is giving out energy - fusion of hydrogen into helium. But it opens up hundreds of unexplained questions about the atomic nucleus, its constitution, its interactions, the emmission of photons, and so on. There is no end. The complexity is infinite, yet the perfection is ultimate. Perhaps the old man was right."<br /><br />hmm...ok. Yes, there are always more questions to answer - but not the same questions. For example, we don't have much mystery regarding the energy source of the Sun. This was a particular problem - and now we know the answer. Origin of life on Earth is a specific problem - and we will have a specific answer for that - and then it won't be a mystery any more. People like Maududi are banking on origins of life on Earth to be an unexplainable problem. Not so. Of course, there will always be other questions - Did life originate only once here on Earth - or multiple times? Is DNA a necessary molecule for life or can life use some other molecule on another planet? etc. etc. But these are different questions - and scientists will try to answer those in due time. <br /><br />Re: Multiverse. <br />Sure..it is a highly speculative idea. At present, whether it is crap or not depends on opinion. But it starts making testable predictions - then it is those tests that will determine if it is crap or not - not opinion or belief. By the way, see a more detailed discussion over multiverse <a href="http://sciencereligionnews.blogspot.com/2009/04/there-is-persistent-tendency-to-derive.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>.Salman Hameedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04327330113822656571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post-77182902769854060102009-07-03T19:33:56.840-04:002009-07-03T19:33:56.840-04:00Multiverse theory is total crap!Multiverse theory is total crap!Muhammad Akbar Hussainhttp://astronomer.bravehost.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post-49206707686756790392009-07-03T19:23:28.915-04:002009-07-03T19:23:28.915-04:00Salman, you didn't get my point. The point is....Salman, you didn't get my point. The point is...the more complex the process gets, the further it gets away from "accident". Soon our precious fifteen billion years of Universe's age will not remain enough to explain the formation of neucleotides and DNA, and their complex organization into mere "simplest" cells. <br />Yes the question has been answered that how Sun is giving out energy - fusion of hydrogen into helium. But it opens up hundreds of unexplained questions about the atomic nucleus, its constitution, its interactions, the emmission of photons, and so on. There is no end. The complexity is infinite, yet the perfection is ultimate. Perhaps the old man was right.Muhammad Akbar Hussainhttp://astronomer.bravehost.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post-2800950463129242832009-07-03T12:20:07.844-04:002009-07-03T12:20:07.844-04:00"Getting close? No Salman, it is not so. We a..."Getting close? No Salman, it is not so. We are only getting close to know that these natural processes are even more complicated than we ever thought. The more we discover, the more we know how less we know and how far we have to go. This is the beauty of science...an endless journey, every step of which opens up more destinations...and possibilities."<br /><br />Akbar,<br /><br />You are mixing up challenging problems in science with the endeavor of science. For many problems, the more we discover, the more we solve them. For example, the energy source of the Sun was a major problem in the late 19th century. But with our information about fusion, the larger problem has been resolved. Astronomers still work on the details - or in cases of specific stars - but over all the problem is more or less resolved. Similarly, formation of the Earth was a major problem in the 17th/18th century. In fact, it was considered a problem outside the domain of science. Not so much any more. We have a very good understanding of the formation of the solar system - including the planets. Of course, there are many details to be worked out (and we have to figure out a general theory of solar system formations - in light of extrasolar planets) but I doubt that nebular hypothesis is going to be challenged. So is the case with plate tectonics, etc. etc. So yes, many discoveries open new doors - but they also close some of the unsolved problems. <br /><br />Now, the origin(s) of life is a hard problem. But there has been tremendous progress in the last 50 years. We know that life's chemistry, we know organic compounds were common on early Earth, we know that complex molecules essential for life - like amino acids - form easily (in Miller-Urey experiment, in high-pressure environments near volcanic vents, and also in comets and meteorites), we know that lipids can self-organize and replicate.<br /><br />Usual reply from creationists is: Aha - but this is still not life. <br /><br />Of course, its not. This is the reason scientists are working on it. This is a tough scientific problem (i.e. within the realm of natural science). Scientists don't work on solved problems - that would be a bit boring. How long will it take to solve the origin of life question? I don't know. But by no means this looks like an unsolvable problem. For that - possibly look at the multiverse issue - and I would even be careful with that.Salman Hameedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04327330113822656571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post-42660091827685329922009-07-03T12:01:00.704-04:002009-07-03T12:01:00.704-04:00"I am curious to know if Maududi ever referre..."I am curious to know if Maududi ever referred to the old Great Chain of Being (Scala Naturae) idea."<br /><br />Aydin,<br /><br />I'm don't know if Maududi himself ever mentioned the Great Chain of Being. But others have certainly used it and attributed to medieval Muslim ideas of evolution. At the same time, there were some speculation on explaining variations w/o Scala Naturae - but we need to know more about it. Currently, the claims are based on relatively thin scholarship. I won't be surprised if people find more sophisticated ideas about evolution (in line with pre-Lamacrkian ideas) - and that would be important to know.Salman Hameedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04327330113822656571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post-39977736969182868042009-07-03T10:26:59.882-04:002009-07-03T10:26:59.882-04:00"Of course, this leaves one wondering that if..."Of course, this leaves one wondering that if scientists do solve the issue of the origin of life - and many are getting close - will the same reasoning automatically lead to atheism?"<br /><br />Getting close? No Salman, it is not so. We are only getting close to know that these natural processes are even more complicated than we ever thought. The more we discover, the more we know how less we know and how far we have to go. This is the beauty of science...an endless journey, every step of which opens up more destinations...and possibilities.Muhammad Akbar Hussainhttp://astronomer.bravehost.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post-47001675521860381632009-07-02T13:54:27.196-04:002009-07-02T13:54:27.196-04:00I am curious to know if Maududi ever referred to t...I am curious to know if Maududi ever referred to the old Great Chain of Being (Scala Naturae) idea. In the past, some Ottoman religious scholars wrote about that, including the silly idea that the date tree was a transition point, so to speak, between plants & animals. In present day Turkey, certain university professors, who should know better, use those writings to demonstrate that Islamic ideas are not against biological evolution. They don't realize that the Scala Naturae was not an evolutionary concept.AYDIN ÖRSTANhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09891160904748206385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post-63845464683725161882009-07-01T23:11:27.647-04:002009-07-01T23:11:27.647-04:00I think people are quite flexible when it comes do...I think people are quite flexible when it comes down to practical matters. Think about it: Noah's flood as a worldwide event could have been a huge issue. However, in the face of geologic evidence, most Muslims (including conservatives) believe that it was probably a localized event. I think the same is going to happen with evolution also - and if a conservative scholar such as Maududi can leave such an opening - then indeed it is possible. <br /><br />Will the Jamaat follow? I think this is depends on the political environment. If it serves their purpose of displaying modern credentials - then they may use it. However, if it becomes a rallying cry against the West - then they may end up rejecting it. But Jamaat's reaction will be political not religious.Salman Hameedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04327330113822656571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post-69061322053847924742009-07-01T23:02:27.193-04:002009-07-01T23:02:27.193-04:00Hmmmm. Do you think that Jamaat-e-Islami leaders w...Hmmmm. Do you think that Jamaat-e-Islami leaders will agree with evolution possibility? I don't think so. Accepting evolution as a possibility contradicts with many other aspects of faith and religion.Atif Khanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07137026009148344854noreply@blogger.com