Sunday 22 March 2009

More questions on abiogenesis, Millers experiment

another point discussed in the article;
that's just the beginning next to the shortcomings of the experiment a lot of criticism can also be formed as to how representative it was. The experiment did not contain oxygen, since oxygen generally oxidizes anything it comes in contact with. It's quite destructive. No oxygen however, means no atmosphere and also no ozone, which is formed by oxygen. Ozone blocks us from UV light from the sun. Without ozone we'd be bombarded by it.

And UV-light breaks down ammonia, one of the major components of the experiment. So I guess you're catching my drift by now. Either the experiment should have contained oxygen, to account for the presence of ammonium or we have to explain the high presence of ammonium despite the lack of ozone.


So there's quite alot of contradictions in the experiment, because for example if you say that there was oxygen present in the early atmosphere - then that means that everything would have oxidized, but if there's no oxygen - then there can't be an ozone layer to protect the organic molecules made - which means that UV rays would easily destroy the ammonia present in the atmosphere [which was a major component in the mixture produced by Miller].

UV light rays do destroy ammonia, but there was no O-Zone layer in that atmosphere, so how did this ammonia remain there with a high amount of presence without getting destroyed even till the end?



Oxidation is a process which 'takes away' electrons from other matter. If oxidation was to take place on DNA (which was supposedly produced in the early atmosphere), it would be destroyed:

"Oxidation of DNA can result in damage to all four bases and deoxyribose (a sugar which is a major component/part of DNA). "

http://www.ebmonline.org/cgi/reprint/222/3/246.pdf

In other words, DNA would be destroyed if oxidation took place.



So either there was oxygen (which forms an Ozone layer to protect the earth from harmful rays from the sun - which would in turn protect the ammonia) in the early atmosphere. In this case, oxidation would occur and any DNA produced would be destroyed.

Or there was no Ozone & no oxidation, which means no protection against harmful UV rays which would destroy ammonia [which is a major component in the mixture produced by Miller of the earths early atmosphere]. So if this ammonia is to be destroyed [without no Ozone] in reality, how did it remain there within the experiment? Isn't that something to think or be suspicious about?

Quran 79:30 - Is the Earth egg shaped?

Question;

In this verse, I've heard it translated both as 'made the earth a wide expense' and 'made the earth egg-shaped'. Could an arab speaker please explain whether dahaahaa actually means egg?


Response:

In his book, The Qur'ân and the Orientalists, Dr. Muhammad Mohar Ali, former Professor of the History of Islam at the Islamic University of Madinah and Al-Imâm University in Riyadh, provides an extensive and detailed discussion on the Qur'anic view of the earth. Here is a relevant excerpt:
Now, the very first expression in the series, dahâhâ, is noticeably distinctive and different in genre from the rest. Watt, following many other previous translators, renders it as "spread out". But the exact and correct meaning of the term, keeping in view its root, rather provides a very positive Qur'anic evidence in support of the spherical shape of the earth. For dahâ means to "shape like an egg", its noun being dahiyah, which the Arabs still use to mean an egg. [2]
__________________________
[2] M. FATHÎ 'UTHMAN, "Al-'ard Fî al-Qur'ân al-Karâm", Proceedings of the First Islamic Geographical Conference", Riyadh, 1404/1984, Vol. IV, 127; A. M. SOLIMAN, Scientific Trends in teh Qur'ân, London (Ta-Ha Publications), 1985, p. 16.
(M. Mohar Ali, The Qur'ân and the Orientalists, Jam'iyat 'Ihyaa' Minhaaj Al-Sunnah 2004, p.75)
Nevertheless, even if we do take the interpretation of 'spread out' as many other commentators and translators do, there is still no conflict with science because, as Syed Qutb points out, the idea that the earth's crust was spread out after the formation of the atmosphere (which could refer either to continental drift or actual cooling of the crust) is a fact confirmed by modern scientific study. Please see this related article:
http://www.load-islam.com/C/rebuttal..._or_the_Earth/

http://www.load-islam.com/C/rebuttals/Which_was_Created_first,_the_Heavens_or_the_Earth/


http://www.islamicboard.com/quran/9253-79-30-quran.html



ostrich egg
http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh162/speed2kx/ostrich-egg.jpg

earth with bulge
http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh162/speed2kx/sb6-030405-bulge.jpg

Saturday 21 March 2009

Did Abiogenesis really happen?




Did Abiogenesis really happen?



I'm going to discuss some parts of brother steve/Abdul Fattah's article on abiogenesis [life coming from non life] so its easier to understand the weaknesses in the study, which is used by many to support the claim that life can come from non life.

Its already self explanatory, but it can get abit complicated for someone who doesn't know too much about the topic. So its aimed at people who don't have much knowledge on science (and might fear to get in debate). Insha Allah it'll help you on replying to people who might themselves not know the weaknesses in their own arguments.


the full article can be accessed here;
My paradigm | Because everyone is entitled to have my opinion.


Lets Start

First of all - abiogenesis is more closer to hypothesis than real scientific proof.

Hypothesis is;
  • a tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in ...
  • guess: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence
    wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

So this theory is not really scientific FACT. It's a concept which scientists are trying to prove, but it isn't yet proven [as we will see below insha Allah.]




Intro to Miller's Study


The famous study which is always stated to prove that life can come from non life is Miller's Study, the brother summarises the study in three sentences;

In 1953 the Miller-Urey experiment was conducted that attempted to mimic the conditions on earth during the time life originated. They mixed water and hydrogen as well as methane and ammonia. Then they used electrodes to emit electrical charges into the mixture. After several days of continuously charging the mixture with sparks, they managed to get about 2% of amino acids.


Miller tried to imitate the early earths atmosphere, and like he said - a small amount [2%] of amino acids (which are building blocks for proteins, which are building blocks for life) were produced. But
harmful substances were also produced in the experiment; tar and carboxylic acids.



Tar is harmful to organic matter [amino acids are organic] because; Tar contains hosts of poly nuclear aromatics, toxic heavy metals, naphthenic acids, benzene and fused benzenoid type materials which are declared toxic by EPA-USA(Google it). Tar is a carcinogen which can damage genes (and therefore could destroy any DNA produced.) Also Tar can coat organic matter stopping light and water getting to the organic matter..as the carboxy groups above - therefore stopping life.

Harmful carboxylic acids are dangerous for amino acids because they react with the amino groups on the amino acids. So amino acids react with the Carboxylic acids, forming it into amides and amino carboxylates. So in this case, the amino acids can't be used to form into proteins, since they've reacted and become amides and amino carboxylates.



But since a small amount of amino acids were produced in the experiment, lets say for arguments sake that they survived the harmful substances, and lets move forward.



Amino acids are the building blocks of life - but the experiment doesn't show how they formed into Proteins

What are amino acids? Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins , which if formed together in the right way - will form proteins, and proteins form into tissues, and tissues can become muscles, muscles wrap around bone and nerves to become organs (i.e. an arm, heart etc.), and lots of functioning/working organs become an organism (a being i.e. an animal.)

So one question which we already get in our mind is that if amino acids do form through the experiment, how do they later on form in the correct way to become useful proteins? The experiment doesn't answer that question. So already, this experiment does not explain how life originates. You are justified to deny abiogenesis and are not going against science if you do so, because science has not proved its reality yet.




DNA & Proteins need each other for reproduction, so which one came first?

First, for a 'living' cell to exist, or pass its genes on to future generations - it needs DNA. Without DNA, it can't pass on its 'genes' to the future generation. Your DNA contains ALL your body information, such as your physical attributes (i.e. hair colour, eye colour etc. to how tall you would be.) That's why you share your DNA to your parents, since its their genes which pass onto you - which make up your DNA. If they never had DNA, they wouldn't exist, therefore they wouldn't be able to pass any genes onto you - so you wouldn't exist.

RNA is similar to DNA, except that its one strand (of nucleotides) instead of two strands (of nucleotides) coiled together (which is DNA) with some extra slight additions.

[DNA is usually in animals, and RNA is usually in viruses etc.]


Anyway;

The biggest challenge to the [abiogenesis] theory is DNA or RNA. And without it, there can be no evolution, without it no progress of previous life can be past down. And without passing down information, you cannot build up something, you cannot have an evolution. Since all living things have RNA or DNA, abiogenesists would expect the very first alive being to have it as well..Those molecules however are immensely complex. So the biggest challenge to abiogenesis is explaining how it could have formed spontaneously out of lifeless matter.
Organisms carry genetic information in these nucleic acids; in their RNA or DNA. This information is then used to specify the composition of the amino acid sequences of all the proteins each cell needs to make. The cell also relies on organelles built out of proteins to replicate DNA or RNA during cell-division. So these proteins are required for self-perpetuation. So the question is: How did such a circular system come to existence? This is a real paradox.


So the brother is explaining that;

DNA cannot come into existence by itself because it's made up of billions of nucleic acids in correct sequences (which are made with the help of proteins). But proteins can't be made except with the DNA telling the amino acids to be in the correct sequence to form into useful proteins.

DNA cannot be reproduced unless it has a cell membrane that it can reside in and other organelles [which are made of proteins] enter this cell, which aid it in reproducing itself [like a factory holding together the workers and the boss (DNA) telling the cell what to do]. The cell relies on organelles (workers in the cell factory) built out of proteins to replicate DNA or RNA during cell-division. The problem is though, that proteins can only be made with DNA telling them how to form correctly.




So what came first? DNA or Proteins? Since the proteins [organelles] are required to reproduce the DNA in a cell, and DNA is required to produce proteins.


That's a Paradox, one cannot be produced without the other. So this is a BIG question mark on the study of abiogenesis, since both DNA and Proteins are extremely complex to have formed by themselves.

If someone was to argue that they did form together or independently, then they need to provide scientific studies to show that this is possible. As of now, there has been no scientific studies or results to prove this to be a reality (with Miller only showing that a small amount of amino acids can be made).


Life 'could' have originated through abiogenesis, but its too complicated to be a certainty.

In the near past people would argue against abiogenesis by saying that cells are way too complicated (with small organelles within it and a nucleus - like a working factory which allows the cell to function in its role well and make copies of itself). So scientists put forward the idea that the first cell probably never had organelles with it, but rather - organelles formed on the planet [through abiogenesis] and moved into a cell membrane, the DNA also got into the cell - and the cell was able to make copies of itself and evolve into more advanced organisms over time.

Note
: Scientists have been able to produce Cell Membranes lately (cell membranes are made up of fat/lipids) and the procedure isn't too complicated, and is scientifically possible [this is what you usually see in the big science headlines when they argue they're getting closer to making 'life'.]. But the production of cell membranes isn't the biggest problem for them, since the complexity of Design is in support of a believer in God more than an atheist.
Due to this, some atheists have explained that we cannot be certain of how life really originated, but they are trying to find out how it could have possibly originated. But can't a theist then argue that life could originate the way their scripture states? i.e. both depend on faith since both are events which science has not proved yet.




Left Handed Isomers are only useful in biology
There are two types of amino acids, left handed and right handed (isomers) [Imagine your left hand and right hand - they're the same - but the total mirror opposite of each other]. In biology, only left handed ones are present from the most simple of biological organisms to the most complex [for plants and animals]. There are no right handed amino acids which can be used, and if they were to get involved - they wouldn't just be unuseful, but they would destroy the organism itself.


Caption: The same protein's left- (L) and right- (D) handed isomers. The proteins in living creatures consist only of left-handed amino acids.
http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh162/speed2kx/199-1.jpg


So since amino acids are required to produce proteins, and atheists say they formed coincidentally into the correct sequences and formed into useful proteins (for life), that 'coincidence' isn't enough, but there cannot even be ONE right handed amino acid which gets involved in this sequencing - otherwise the proteins will not be useful to support life.

But someone can argue that yes, left handed ones were only present and this is why there was no harm in amino acids coming together to form into the correct proteins. The problem is though that in Millers Study, there were BOTH left handed AND right handed (amino acids/isomers) produced equally. (Search Racemic mixture) [Pasteur concluded that organic molecules can exist in one of two forms, called isomers (that is, having the same structure and differing only in mirror images of each other), which he referred to as "left-handed" and "right-handed" forms. When chemists synthesize an organic compound, both of these forms are produced in equal proportions, canceling each other's optical effects.] - Term Paper on Biology. Essays, Research Papers on Bacteria -research material v. II,I



So the 'coincidence' of the amino acids being left handed only, without allowing even one right handed amino acid [isomer] to get involved in its sequencing is impossible. There is not even one natural selection mechanism which will allow any right handed amino acids to be removed - if it was to find any in its sequencing - instead it would be totally destroyed or atleast useless and the whole process of abiogenesis would have to start all over again to 'create' life, but again - the same problems would arise on this issue..

In other words, its like tossing a coin thousands of times and only getting heads (or left handed isomers only.) It's simply impossible unless someone was to control it purposelly this way.



Since left handed and right handed isomers were present in the early atmosphere - logically speaking - life should consist of both - but it doesn't.


Let us for an instant suppose that life came about by chance as evolutionists claim it did. In this case, the right- and left-handed amino acids that were generated by chance should be present in roughly equal proportions in nature. Therefore, all living things should have both right- and left-handed amino acids in their constitution, because chemically it is possible for amino acids of both types to combine with each other. However, as we know, in the real world the proteins existing in all living organisms are made up only of left-handed amino acids.

The question of how proteins can pick out only the left-handed ones from among all amino acids, and how not even a single right-handed amino acid gets involved in the life process, is a problem that still baffles evolutionists. Such a specific and conscious selection constitutes one of the greatest impasses facing the theory of evolution.


Moreover, this characteristic of proteins makes the problem facing evolutionists with respect to "chance" even worse. In order for a "meaningful" protein to be generated, it is not enough for the amino acids to be present in a particular number and sequence, and to be combined together in the right three-dimensional design. Additionally, all these amino acids have to be left-handed: not even one of them can be right-handed. Yet there is no natural selection mechanism which can identify that a right-handed amino acid has been added to the sequence and recognize that it must therefore be removed from the chain. This situation once more eliminates for good the possibility of coincidence and chance.



Nucleotides of DNA can only be right handed isomers

If you're surprised about this, then you should also know that the nucleotides which make up the DNA can only be made up of right handed isomers, and no left handed isomers. Otherwise, if a left handed isomer nucleotide got involved in the make up of DNA, it would be destroyed or become useless altogether in a similar way.

The question which comes across is, how did the DNA form only by right handed isomers and the Proteins by left handed isomers (of amino acids) only? What made them occur this way so they're unique in the isomer they use?

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/molecular_biology_04.html




The weak atheist response; The early atmospheres situations were different to today
, so even the biology (of organisms) was different to today

Many times the atheist may resort to the argument that the early atmosphere was different to the present day atmosphere and therefore the probability of events back then may have been more possible than they are now, or that there could be organisms with right and left handed isomers back then although there aren't any now (and these later evolved/mutated to become like they are today) - all these claims are without proof, and since science is based on measured evidence which is testable - we can dismiss this view of theirs since it's not therefore science.




Organelles Entering a 'Closed' cell?

But lets say that cell membranes could form in the early earth atmosphere - as science has shown. And lets - for arguments sake - accept that the complex protein organelles are formed on the planet [although the first point about DNA & Proteins complexity and its paradox refutes this claim]. The question still comes up; how did this cell membrane open up to allow DNA, and even the organelles to enter it? Remember that the cell membrane is just made up of fat/lipids. It doesn't have anything extra special about it to know what to do. It can't say to itself 'open up' because it doesn't have anything to tell it to do that.

So how did these organelles or even the DNA enter into this cell membrane? The cell membrane is required because this is the location where the DNA, and the organelles work together to allow the cell to function. The cell membrane is what protects all these organelles and DNA together and keeps them in place so they don't spill or move away somewhere else outside the cell.

The only way the cell could allow other things to enter it is if it had 'receptors' - which could recognise to accept good things to enter it [i.e. organelles] and to leave the harmful things out (which could potentially destroy the cell). But scientists have not produced any cells which have receptors [they've only made cells which are closed and don't let anything to go in/out of them.] The cell membrane wouldn't even have anything to tell it to open or close since fats by themselves cannot do such a thing. The only reasons cells can do this today is because they have organelles within them which do allow this to occur. A fatty/lipid membrane by itself can't do such a thing.


So how was the first cell able to reproduce itself when all the different required components (cell membrane, organelles & DNA) were separate from each other? And furthermore, they couldn't enter a cell membrane - which is required for the cell to function & make copies of itself [cell division.]


People sometimes argue that earlier cells were much more simple and less complicated than the cells today, but even then - that does not answer how DNA and organelles entered into the cell membrane in the first place to allow it to make copies of itself and advance onto a more advanced organism.




Lightning strikes the same spot continuously for a whole week?


This is what happened in Miller's study, he placed electrodes in his mixture to charge up the mixture for a few days to a week. These electrodes were taking the place of lightning in the early earth atmosphere, with the lightning striking the location where the abiogenesis would be occurring.

So the question is; is this is really possible? Can lightning really hit the same spot continuously for days upon days? I believe its impossible. There's a famous saying that 'lightning doesn't hit the same spot twice'. But for a whole week continuously?


Another angle to looking at it -panspermia-* is even more far fetched. Rather then only suggesting lightning struck at the exact same spot for a whole week, it also suggest that a meteor carrying amino acids also hit the very same spot. Now it is true that some meteors carry amino acids and that under unique circumstances the impact could cause peptides. But these peptides are short chains of amino acids, not the long proteins necessary for life. Furthermore it's even more unlikely considering not just any meteor would fit the bill. It has to be exactly the right size. Not to small so it doesn't burn up in the atmosphere destroying the amino acids, and not to big so the impact isn't to destructive either. At the same time delivering enough energy for the chemical process to take place. Also note, that this shifts part of the problem. It's true that some meteors carry amino acids, but how did those amino acids form in the meteor in the first place? This simply avoids the problem of having to explain how these molecules were formed trough natural processes.


*The hypothesis that "seeds" of life exist already all over the Universe, that life on Earth may have originated through these "seeds", and that they may deliver or have delivered life to other habitable bodies.
Panspermia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




Time doesn't matter if the right components (and conditions) are met for it to take place

Now, often people reply that this experiment only lasted a couple of days or a week, whereas the earth existed millions of years for this process to take place. But how does this change anything? The experiment was a controlled structured environment, whereas earth was an open unstructured chaotic environment, if anything the experiment should bring forth life a lot faster then the earth did, that is off course, if abiogenesis would be true.

But let me expose the flaw in this counterargument by making a comparison. Lets say mankind cannot run 100m in 3.2 sec. We are simply unable to do so. Now if a track would run a stretch of 100m on a track of 200m or 300m or even 1000m; that would still not enable anyone to run those 100m of that track in 3.2 sec. In other words the length of the track -as long as it is longer then 100 meter- hardly affects the possibility of the performance because the additional length has no bearing on the likeliness of the performance. Likewise; the many years that the universe existed, and the many planets that were suitable for this process to occur does not influence the likeliness of such a process to be possible. If a process that should take 5 minutes cannot occur in a week, it cannot occur in a million years either. The amount of time available, as long as it is enough, doesn't make the chemically impossible into probable. Just putting ingredients together and stirring it up doesn’t suffice. That’s as ludicrous as saying that if you shake a box of Lego blocks long enough, eventually the building blocks in the box will spontaneously construct the house that is displayed on the front of the box.


The last two sentences also clarify that even if small amounts of amino acids are produced, it doesn't explain how they would form into proteins and more advanced organisms. Then he gives the example of shaking a Lego box and expecting pieces to join together to make a working model. i.e. in this case of an organism. It just doesn't happen.

Anyone can place the different pieces and tools required to make a car and scatter them on a piece of land, the components for a perfect car are there - but it doesn't mean that a working car will be produced, no matter what the forces (the same applies to the early environment, even if all the components are there for life - that does not mean the early atmosphere - and the forces present then - are sufficient to cause these pieces to come together in the right way to form a working model which can reproduce itself. It has always been this main control and consistency which has made people believe in 'God doing it'.) If people are against this control and belief, then they should first prove that it is possible to create a biological living being, and then prove that they did not have any biases or even human control (a being with an intellect) over such an experiment, otherwise it still remains a hypothesis - which has no reality until scientifically proven. And this 'reality' seems far off since it has alot of work to do to reach a final result.



There are much more valid points and questions raised within the original articl;
My paradigm | Because everyone is entitled to have my opinion.



But the above is sufficient insha Allah.





[part 2.]

Summary Conclusion


So Miller's study, nor science answer some BIG questions on how life really originated. Yes, it explains that an extremely small amount of amino acids could have formed in the early atmosphere, but that isn't enough. Why?


Amino Acids:

- Because Amino Acids being produced in a small quantity (2%), by themselves are not sufficient to prove that life actually came from them. Furthermore, they were surrounded by harmful substances (tar and harmful carboxylic acids) which could actually destroy the amino acids produced and prevent them from advancing on to become proteins. And one step further, how did these amino acids become proteins? There is no answer for this in science, nor in the study, so its hypothesis only - therefore not fact, and therefore not proved science.


DNA, Proteins & the Cell Membrane;

- DNA and Proteins can't form without the aid of the other. So which one came first? Proteins can't be made without DNA, and DNA can't be copied without proteins [organelles within a cell to allow it to reproduce itself]. If someone was to argue that they were made independently, thats even more exaggerated and even more unlikely because of their extreme complexity - even on the smallest scale.

- Even if the DNA, organelles [which have not been produced by scientists], and cell membrane (which has been made by scientists) were produced for the sake of argument - how would they [the DNA, organelles] enter the cell which has no receptors to allow anything good (i.e. organelles, DNA) or even anything harmful to enter it?


Left Handed Isomers are only common in biology

Right handed isomers/amino acids can't get involved in the makeup of the proteins, otherwise the whole organism will be destroyed. Since Stanley Miller produced both right and left handed isomers in his early environment, and only left handed isomers are used in biology for living beings, the probability of only left handed beings being produced is extremely low, since right amino acids will always get involved - and therefore destroy anything which could potentially be produced.



Electrodes & Lightning;

Electrodes were placed in the original mixture to take the place of lightning which would charge the mixture for some days continuously. But the reality is that lightning doesn't hit the same spot continuously for a whole week. So this questions the experiments validity, since real life is not really like this.


Time doesn't matter if the right conditions are met for it to take place;

If abiogenesis can occur within a certain environment with the right conditions, but it doesn't - the amount of time doesn't matter. The fact that it doesn't happen - when it can - questions its validity.


__________________

Did Abiogenesis really happen?

Did Abiogenesis really happen?


I'm going to discuss some parts of brother steve/Abdul Fattah's article on abiogenesis [life coming from non life] so its easier to understand the weaknesses in the study, which is used by many to support the claim that life can come from non life.

Its already self explanatory, but it can get abit complicated for someone who doesn't know too much about the topic. So its aimed at people who don't have much knowledge on science (and might fear to get in debate). Insha Allah it'll help you on replying to people who might themselves not know the weaknesses in their own arguments.


the full article can be accessed here;
My paradigm | Because everyone is entitled to have my opinion.


Lets Start

First of all - abiogenesis is more closer to hypothesis than real scientific proof.

Hypothesis is;
  • a tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in ...
  • guess: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence
    wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

So this theory is not really scientific FACT. It's a concept which scientists are trying to prove, but it isn't yet proven [as we will see below insha Allah.]




Intro to Miller's Study


The famous study which is always stated to prove that life can come from non life is Miller's Study, the brother summarises the study in three sentences;

In 1953 the Miller-Urey experiment was conducted that attempted to mimic the conditions on earth during the time life originated. They mixed water and hydrogen as well as methane and ammonia. Then they used electrodes to emit electrical charges into the mixture. After several days of continuously charging the mixture with sparks, they managed to get about 2% of amino acids.


Miller tried to imitate the early earths atmosphere, and like he said - a small amount [2%] of amino acids (which are building blocks for proteins, which are building blocks for life) were produced. But
harmful substances were also produced in the experiment; tar and carboxylic acids.



Tar is harmful to organic matter [amino acids are organic] because; Tar contains hosts of poly nuclear aromatics, toxic heavy metals, naphthenic acids, benzene and fused benzenoid type materials which are declared toxic by EPA-USA(Google it). Tar is a carcinogen which can damage genes (and therefore could destroy any DNA produced.) Also Tar can coat organic matter stopping light and water getting to the organic matter..as the carboxy groups above - therefore stopping life.

Harmful carboxylic acids are dangerous for amino acids because they react with the amino groups on the amino acids. So amino acids react with the Carboxylic acids, forming it into amides and amino carboxylates. So in this case, the amino acids can't be used to form into proteins, since they've reacted and become amides and amino carboxylates.



But since a small amount of amino acids were produced in the experiment, lets say for arguments sake that they survived the harmful substances, and lets move forward.



Amino acids are the building blocks of life - but the experiment doesn't show how they formed into Proteins

What are amino acids? Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins , which if formed together in the right way - will form proteins, and proteins form into tissues, and tissues can become muscles, muscles wrap around bone and nerves to become organs (i.e. an arm, heart etc.), and lots of functioning/working organs become an organism (a being i.e. an animal.)

So one question which we already get in our mind is that if amino acids do form through the experiment, how do they later on form in the correct way to become useful proteins? The experiment doesn't answer that question. So already, this experiment does not explain how life originates. You are justified to deny abiogenesis and are not going against science if you do so, because science has not proved its reality yet.




DNA & Proteins need each other for reproduction, so which one came first?

First, for a 'living' cell to exist, or pass its genes on to future generations - it needs DNA. Without DNA, it can't pass on its 'genes' to the future generation. Your DNA contains ALL your body information, such as your physical attributes (i.e. hair colour, eye colour etc. to how tall you would be.) That's why you share your DNA to your parents, since its their genes which pass onto you - which make up your DNA. If they never had DNA, they wouldn't exist, therefore they wouldn't be able to pass any genes onto you - so you wouldn't exist.

RNA is similar to DNA, except that its one strand (of nucleotides) instead of two strands (of nucleotides) coiled together (which is DNA) with some extra slight additions.

[DNA is usually in animals, and RNA is usually in viruses etc.]


Anyway;

The biggest challenge to the [abiogenesis] theory is DNA or RNA. And without it, there can be no evolution, without it no progress of previous life can be past down. And without passing down information, you cannot build up something, you cannot have an evolution. Since all living things have RNA or DNA, abiogenesists would expect the very first alive being to have it as well..Those molecules however are immensely complex. So the biggest challenge to abiogenesis is explaining how it could have formed spontaneously out of lifeless matter.
Organisms carry genetic information in these nucleic acids; in their RNA or DNA. This information is then used to specify the composition of the amino acid sequences of all the proteins each cell needs to make. The cell also relies on organelles built out of proteins to replicate DNA or RNA during cell-division. So these proteins are required for self-perpetuation. So the question is: How did such a circular system come to existence? This is a real paradox.


So the brother is explaining that;

DNA cannot come into existence by itself because it's made up of nucleic acids (which are made with the help of proteins). But proteins can't be made except with the DNA telling the amino acids to be in the correct sequence to form into useful proteins.

DNA cannot be reproduced unless it has a cell membrane that it can reside in and other organelles [which are made of proteins] enter this cell, which aid it in reproducing itself [like a factory holding together the workers and the boss (DNA) telling the cell what to do]. The cell relies on organelles built out of proteins to replicate DNA or RNA during cell-division. The problem is though, that proteins can only be made with DNA.




So what came first? DNA or Proteins? Since the proteins [organelles] are required to reproduce the DNA in a cell, and DNA is required to produce proteins.


That's a Paradox, one cannot be produced without the other. So this is a BIG question mark on the study of abiogenesis, since both DNA and Proteins are extremely complex to have formed by themselves.

If someone was to argue that they did form together or independently, then they need to provide scientific studies to show that this is possible. As of now, there has been no scientific studies or results to prove this to be a reality (with Miller only showing that a small amount of amino acids can be made).


Life 'could' have originated through abiogenesis, but its too complicated to be a certainty.

In the near past people would argue against abiogenesis by saying that cells are way too complicated (with small organelles within it and a nucleus - like a working factory which allows the cell to function in its role well and make copies of itself). So scientists put forward the idea that the first cell probably never had organelles with it, but rather - organelles formed on the planet [through abiogenesis] and moved into a cell membrane, the DNA also got into the cell - and the cell was able to make copies of itself and evolve into more advanced organisms over time.

Note
: Scientists have been able to produce Cell Membranes lately (cell membranes are made up of fat/lipids) and the procedure isn't too complicated, and is scientifically possible [this is what you usually see in the big science headlines when they argue they're getting closer to making 'life'.]. But the production of cell membranes isn't the biggest problem for them, since the complexity of Design is in support of a believer in God more than an atheist.
Due to this, some atheists have explained that we cannot be certain of how life really originated, but they are trying to find out how it could have possibly originated. But can't a theist then argue that life could originate the way their scripture states? i.e. both depend on faith since both are events which science has not proved yet.




Left Handed Isomers are only useful in biology
There are two types of amino acids, left handed and right handed (isomers) [Imagine your left hand and right hand - they're the same - but the total mirror opposite of each other]. In biology, only left handed ones are present from the most simple of biological organisms to the most complex [for plants and animals]. There are no right handed amino acids which can be used, and if they were to get involved - they wouldn't just be unuseful, but they would destroy the organism itself.


Caption: The same protein's left- (L) and right- (D) handed isomers. The proteins in living creatures consist only of left-handed amino acids.
http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh162/speed2kx/199-1.jpg


So since amino acids are required to produce proteins, and atheists say they formed coincidentally into the correct sequences and formed into useful proteins (for life), that 'coincidence' isn't enough, but there cannot even be ONE right handed amino acid which gets involved in this sequencing - otherwise the proteins will not be useful to support life.

But someone can argue that yes, left handed ones were only present and this is why there was no harm in amino acids coming together to form into the correct proteins. The problem is though that in Millers Study, there were BOTH left handed AND right handed (amino acids/isomers) produced equally. (Search Racemic mixture) [Pasteur concluded that organic molecules can exist in one of two forms, called isomers (that is, having the same structure and differing only in mirror images of each other), which he referred to as "left-handed" and "right-handed" forms. When chemists synthesize an organic compound, both of these forms are produced in equal proportions, canceling each other's optical effects.] - Term Paper on Biology. Essays, Research Papers on Bacteria -research material v. II,I



So the 'coincidence' of the amino acids being left handed only, without allowing even one right handed amino acid [isomer] to get involved in its sequencing is impossible. There is not even one natural selection mechanism which will allow any right handed amino acids to be removed - if it was to find any in its sequencing - instead it would be totally destroyed or atleast useless and the whole process of abiogenesis would have to start all over again to 'create' life, but again - the same problems would arise on this issue..

In other words, its like tossing a coin thousands of times and only getting heads (or left handed isomers only.) It's simply impossible unless someone was to control it purposelly this way.



Since left handed and right handed isomers were present in the early atmosphere - logically speaking - life should consist of both - but it doesn't.


Let us for an instant suppose that life came about by chance as evolutionists claim it did. In this case, the right- and left-handed amino acids that were generated by chance should be present in roughly equal proportions in nature. Therefore, all living things should have both right- and left-handed amino acids in their constitution, because chemically it is possible for amino acids of both types to combine with each other. However, as we know, in the real world the proteins existing in all living organisms are made up only of left-handed amino acids.

The question of how proteins can pick out only the left-handed ones from among all amino acids, and how not even a single right-handed amino acid gets involved in the life process, is a problem that still baffles evolutionists. Such a specific and conscious selection constitutes one of the greatest impasses facing the theory of evolution.


Moreover, this characteristic of proteins makes the problem facing evolutionists with respect to "chance" even worse. In order for a "meaningful" protein to be generated, it is not enough for the amino acids to be present in a particular number and sequence, and to be combined together in the right three-dimensional design. Additionally, all these amino acids have to be left-handed: not even one of them can be right-handed. Yet there is no natural selection mechanism which can identify that a right-handed amino acid has been added to the sequence and recognize that it must therefore be removed from the chain. This situation once more eliminates for good the possibility of coincidence and chance.



Nucleotides of DNA can only be right handed isomers

If you're surprised about this, then you should also know that the nucleotides which make up the DNA can only be made up of right handed isomers, and no left handed isomers. Otherwise, if a left handed isomer nucleotide got involved in the make up of DNA, it would be destroyed or become useless altogether in a similar way.

The question which comes across is, how did the DNA form only by right handed isomers and the Proteins by left handed isomers (of amino acids) only? What made them occur this way so they're unique in the isomer they use?

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/molecular_biology_04.html




The weak atheist response; The early atmospheres situations were different to today
, so even the biology (of organisms) was different to today

Many times the atheist may resort to the argument that the early atmosphere was different to the present day atmosphere and therefore the probability of events back then may have been more possible than they are now, or that there could be organisms with right and left handed isomers back then although there aren't any now (and these later evolved/mutated to become like they are today) - all these claims are without proof, and since science is based on measured evidence which is testable - we can dismiss this view of theirs since it's not therefore science.




Organelles Entering a 'Closed' cell?

But lets say that cell membranes could form in the early earth atmosphere - as science has shown. And lets - for arguments sake - accept that the complex protein organelles are formed on the planet [although the first point about DNA & Proteins complexity and its paradox refutes this claim]. The question still comes up; how did this cell membrane open up to allow DNA, and even the organelles to enter it? Remember that the cell membrane is just made up of fat/lipids. It doesn't have anything extra special about it to know what to do. It can't say to itself 'open up' because it doesn't have anything to tell it to do that.

So how did these organelles or even the DNA enter into this cell membrane? The cell membrane is required because this is the location where the DNA, and the organelles work together to allow the cell to function. The cell membrane is what protects all these organelles and DNA together and keeps them in place so they don't spill or move away somewhere else outside the cell.

The only way the cell could allow other things to enter it is if it had 'receptors' - which could recognise to accept good things to enter it [i.e. organelles] and to leave the harmful things out (which could potentially destroy the cell). But scientists have not produced any cells which have receptors [they've only made cells which are closed and don't let anything to go in/out of them.] The cell membrane wouldn't even have anything to tell it to open or close since fats by themselves cannot do such a thing. The only reasons cells can do this today is because they have organelles within them which do allow this to occur. A fatty/lipid membrane by itself can't do such a thing.


So how was the first cell able to reproduce itself when all the different required components (cell membrane, organelles & DNA) were separate from each other? And furthermore, they couldn't enter a cell membrane - which is required for the cell to function & make copies of itself [cell division.]


People sometimes argue that earlier cells were much more simple and less complicated than the cells today, but even then - that does not answer how DNA and organelles entered into the cell membrane in the first place to allow it to make copies of itself and advance onto a more advanced organism.




Lightning strikes the same spot continuously for a whole week?


This is what happened in Miller's study, he placed electrodes in his mixture to charge up the mixture for a few days to a week. These electrodes were taking the place of lightning in the early earth atmosphere, with the lightning striking the location where the abiogenesis would be occurring.

So the question is; is this is really possible? Can lightning really hit the same spot continuously for days upon days? I believe its impossible. There's a famous saying that 'lightning doesn't hit the same spot twice'. But for a whole week continuously?


Another angle to looking at it -panspermia-* is even more far fetched. Rather then only suggesting lightning struck at the exact same spot for a whole week, it also suggest that a meteor carrying amino acids also hit the very same spot. Now it is true that some meteors carry amino acids and that under unique circumstances the impact could cause peptides. But these peptides are short chains of amino acids, not the long proteins necessary for life. Furthermore it's even more unlikely considering not just any meteor would fit the bill. It has to be exactly the right size. Not to small so it doesn't burn up in the atmosphere destroying the amino acids, and not to big so the impact isn't to destructive either. At the same time delivering enough energy for the chemical process to take place. Also note, that this shifts part of the problem. It's true that some meteors carry amino acids, but how did those amino acids form in the meteor in the first place? This simply avoids the problem of having to explain how these molecules were formed trough natural processes.


*The hypothesis that "seeds" of life exist already all over the Universe, that life on Earth may have originated through these "seeds", and that they may deliver or have delivered life to other habitable bodies.
Panspermia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




Time doesn't matter if the right components (and conditions) are met for it to take place

Now, often people reply that this experiment only lasted a couple of days or a week, whereas the earth existed millions of years for this process to take place. But how does this change anything? The experiment was a controlled structured environment, whereas earth was an open unstructured chaotic environment, if anything the experiment should bring forth life a lot faster then the earth did, that is off course, if abiogenesis would be true.

But let me expose the flaw in this counterargument by making a comparison. Lets say mankind cannot run 100m in 3.2 sec. We are simply unable to do so. Now if a track would run a stretch of 100m on a track of 200m or 300m or even 1000m; that would still not enable anyone to run those 100m of that track in 3.2 sec. In other words the length of the track -as long as it is longer then 100 meter- hardly affects the possibility of the performance because the additional length has no bearing on the likeliness of the performance. Likewise; the many years that the universe existed, and the many planets that were suitable for this process to occur does not influence the likeliness of such a process to be possible. If a process that should take 5 minutes cannot occur in a week, it cannot occur in a million years either. The amount of time available, as long as it is enough, doesn't make the chemically impossible into probable. Just putting ingredients together and stirring it up doesn’t suffice. That’s as ludicrous as saying that if you shake a box of Lego blocks long enough, eventually the building blocks in the box will spontaneously construct the house that is displayed on the front of the box.


The last two sentences also clarify that even if small amounts of amino acids are produced, it doesn't explain how they would form into proteins and more advanced organisms. Then he gives the example of shaking a Lego box and expecting pieces to join together to make a working model. i.e. in this case of an organism.



There are much more valid points and questions raised within the original articl;
My paradigm | Because everyone is entitled to have my opinion.



But the above is sufficient insha Allah.
__________________



[part 2.]

Summary Conclusion


So Miller's study, nor science answer some BIG questions on how life really originated. Yes, it explains that an extremely small amount of amino acids could have formed in the early atmosphere, but that isn't enough. Why?


Amino Acids:

- Because Amino Acids being produced in a small quantity (2%), by themselves are not sufficient to prove that life actually came from them. Furthermore, they were surrounded by harmful substances (tar and harmful carboxylic acids) which could actually destroy the amino acids produced and prevent them from advancing on to become proteins. And one step further, how did these amino acids become proteins? There is no answer for this in science, nor in the study, so its hypothesis only - therefore not fact, and therefore not proved science.


DNA, Proteins & the Cell Membrane;

- DNA and Proteins can't form without the aid of the other. So which one came first? Proteins can't be made without DNA, and DNA can't be copied without proteins [organelles within a cell to allow it to reproduce itself]. If someone was to argue that they were made independently, thats even more exaggerated and even more unlikely because of their extreme complexity - even on the smallest scale.

- Even if the DNA, organelles [which have not been produced by scientists], and cell membrane (which has been made by scientists) were produced for the sake of argument - how would they [the DNA, organelles] enter the cell which has no receptors to allow anything good (i.e. organelles, DNA) or even anything harmful to enter it?


Left Handed Isomers are only common in biology

Right handed isomers/amino acids can't get involved in the makeup of the proteins, otherwise the whole organism will be destroyed. Since Stanley Miller produced both right and left handed isomers in his early environment, and only left handed isomers are used in biology for living beings, the probability of only left handed beings being produced is extremely low, since right amino acids will always get involved - and therefore destroy anything which could potentially be produced.



Electrodes & Lightning;

Electrodes were placed in the original mixture to take the place of lightning which would charge the mixture for some days continuously. But the reality is that lightning doesn't hit the same spot continuously for a whole week. So this questions the experiments validity, since real life is not really like this.


Time doesn't matter if the right conditions are met for it to take place;

If abiogenesis can occur within a certain environment with the right conditions, but it doesn't - the amount of time doesn't matter. The fact that it doesn't happen - when it can - questions its validity.

http://www.islamic-life.com/forums/atheism-agnosticism/abiogenesis-happen-1745.html

The Origin of Life - an Islamic Perspective

http://www.islamfortoday.com/emerick16.htm


The Origin of Life - an Islamic Perspective
Science must increase our faith. It is wrong for anyone to close their eyes to what is right in front of them. For a Muslim the evidence of dinosaurs and fossils is not a threat to our beliefs. Rather, it is a confirmation of the power of Allah.
Adapted from the Book: What Islam is All About By Yahiya Emerick

A. Why Does Allah Tell Us About the Creation?

The Holy Qur’an is the book given to us by the Creator of the Universe. Allah, (literally: THE God) which is His personal Name, knows us best and is aware that humans can be very skeptical creatures.

Allah points out, "...if you were to seek a tunnel into the earth or a ladder into the skies and bring them a sign, (they still wouldn’t be convinced.) If it were Allah’s will, He could gather them all into true guidance, so don’t be among those who are influenced by ignorance." (6:35)

Allah, the Keeper of Wisdom, makes it a point to give as many proofs in the Qur’an about His existence and creative abilities as possible so the maximum number of humans can be guided. We need proof, and Allah gives us that proof. (2:26, 40:57)

Allah, of course, does not need us to follow Him, or believe in Him. As He states, "Allah can do without them and Allah is free of all needs." (64:6)

He merely wishes that people would choose to believe in Him so He can reward them for their choice. Allah is ready to forgive even those who acted wrongly if they but ask for His forgiveness.

In a Hadith, or saying of the Blessed Prophet Muhammad, we learn, "When Allah decreed the creation (of the universe,) He set down in His book which is with Him, ‘Indeed, My mercy is stronger than My wrath.’" (Bukhari & Muslim. Also see 6:12)

Among the proofs given in the Qur’an for us to learn from is a very detailed explanation of the different features of the universe, how it was made and how the planets and stars were formed. Allah says that, "To Him is due the origin of space and the Earth." (6:101)

Of course, most people who lived at the Prophet’s time would never have understood what those ayat really meant, but they accepted them anyway and interpreted them as best they could. Sometimes they came up with very interesting explanations.

Allah instructs us to accept everything in the Qur’an, even if we don’t yet know how to understand it. The understanding of the Qur’an grows with each passing generation. As He said, "The intelligent people declare, ‘We believe in the book, the whole of it is from our Lord." (3:7)

B. Modern Science and Islam.

Modern day scientists have been awe-struck at how complex and intricate the universe is. (67:3-4) The sciences of astronomy, chemistry, astrophysics and molecular biology have pushed the limits of our knowledge ever further.

These new discoveries have assisted greatly in the understanding of what the ayat in the Qur’an mean. For example, there is a section of verses where Allah mentions that during the process of human development, there is a stage where we were an ‘Alaq in the womb. (96:1-5) The word literally means, "a clinging thing." But no one knew in past centuries how that could be part of the process of growth for a fetus.

So translators, commentators and scholars have tried to explain it as meaning we were clots of blood or other such strange things in the womb. But new discoveries in the last few years have shown that in the early stages of pregnancy, the fertilized egg actually attaches itself to the uterine wall and clings there as it is growing. Thus, modern knowledge unlocks another mystery that previous Muslims could only guess at.

The same thing is true in other areas to quite a startling degree. When we study the ayat of the Qur’an relating to the creation of the universe, we come away astounded, especially since they agree with what we have only discovered in the last ten, twenty and fifty years.

The Qur’an does not give a single, unified essay on how the universe began. Instead, keeping with the Qur’anic method of teaching, different aspects of creation are mentioned in different places in order to give authority to the particular lesson being taught. (See 30:58)

For example, in Surah at Tariq, (86) Allah begins by mentioning the brightest star which appears in the sky at night. Then He describes this star and uses it as a metaphor for how every human has an angel watching over them. Do you see how Allah uses physical aspects of nature to illustrate spiritual principles?

C. The Qur’anic History of Creation.

After we find the references to creation in the Qur’an, then we can piece them together to get a picture of how Allah’s revelation explains the beginning. As Muslims, however, we must not forget to look into the lesson taught in each passage. We must remember what the purpose is for including these signs in the Qur’an so we can be enlightened spiritually as well as mentally.

Allah begins by stating that the universe and planet Earth took six "days" to create. (7:54) Now it must be remembered that in Arabic the word Youm can mean a day as we know it, or it can mean any stage or period of time. As Allah points out, a day to him can be a thousand years, fifty thousand years or more. 1

The creation of planets and the Earth took place in the last two periods of time. As Allah states in the Qur’an, "Declare, ‘Do you disbelieve in the One Who created the Earth in two stages? Do you make others equal to Him? He is the Lord of all the worlds.’" (41:9)

The process of creation can be summarized as follows: All matter in the universe was compacted together in one place. Then Allah gave the command and it blew apart scattering molecules and gases in all directions. ("The Big Bang.") The force of this initial explosion keeps the universe expanding.

Space was filled with matter, anti-matter and gases which eventually combined into larger particles. These bits of matter eventually grew into asteroids, planets, stars and moons. Each object of inter-stellar space conformed to a set of physical laws which governed the trajectory of their orbits so a regular pattern of rotation could be seen. (21:33, 29:61)

Stars ignited in a fury of radioactive fusion and gave off light and heat which brought warmth to those planets near them. (86:3) Small moons were captured in the orbit of larger planets and came to have a regular orbit around them, often reflecting light from the sun. (54:1-2)

Finally, the planets themselves developed and formed in a variety of ways with fantastic geologic formations and movements both above and below the surface. (27:61)

The planet Earth, in particular, cooled near its outer layers, forming a thin crust made up of plates that moved and grated against each other. (15:19) This allowed the Earth’s surface to constantly erase the damage caused by occasional asteroid impacts. But the colliding of the plates also had the side effect of raising tall mountains and exposing the geologic history of the planet.

Escaping gases from the ground and water, warmed in the sunlight, eventually raised to a high altitude where they formed a protective layer. This Ozone Layer shielded out harmful radiation and ultraviolet rays from the sun.

After a time, life was to appear but that is the subject of the next lesson. For now, it is amazing that this scientific narrative is almost exactly the same as what Allah revealed in the Qur’an. Look at the following illustrations showing what happened, what Allah said about it, and the ayat from which they come.

You will be amazed and can only proclaim your wonder at Allah’s Revelation. Remember, He mentioned these things to teach us to be believers in Him. If He tells us the truth, we would be fools not to believe in Him. Right?

"Don’t they see anything in the functioning of space and the Earth and in all things Allah created?" (7:185)

D. How Can We Know the World Around Us?

As we have learned already, Islamic teachings assume that the Earth and universe are very old. In addition, the Qur’an states clearly that one of the reasons Allah made us intelligent and self-aware, or Sentient, is so that we can discover the wonders of the natural world around us. In short, Allah gave us the mission to investigate what He created.

There is so much we don’t know or understand, even about how our own bodies work. With all these fantastic areas of knowledge to pursue, you would think that everyone would recognize their Lord. But some still choose to keep their eyes shut. As Allah says, "He, (Allah,) created humans from a drop of sperm and then the same humans become clear arguers!" (16:4.)

But thankfully, not everyone closes their understanding and the world has many fine examples of great scientists and researchers who also put their trust in Allah.

In our modern world there are so many discoveries in all fields which are giving us a more complete picture of the history of the universe. At the same time, our knowledge of Earth’s past is expanding and revealing some surprising results.

E. What Do We Know about the Origins of Life?

Today, scientists tell us that life began in the sea when simple molecules bonded together and became self-replicating, or self-producing. These single-celled organisms, quickly took on the characteristics of what we know as algae.

They received their energy from the sun in a process termed Photosynthesis, and as a result of their activity, new gases formed in the air creating a viable environment for more complex forms of life.

As Muslims we can either accept this theory, reject it or modify it according to what we know in Allah’s revelation. As you will remember, we learned that Allah said He created all life from water and raised a protective canopy over the Earth. Allah knows best and all we can do is study, research, test and reflect.

Scientists further tell us that over millions of years, the first organisms blossomed gradually into many different types and shapes, resulting in plant life, plankton, arthropods and simple fishes. Dinosaurs, higher creatures and mammals followed.

F. What is Evolution and Creationism?

These discoveries in themselves are not harmful to a healthy belief in Allah’s creative power to make whatever He wills in whatever way He wishes. But some scientists have tried to say that everything in the universe, even life itself, happened all by chance and accident, without any Divine intervention.

The name of this theory is Evolution and its most famous advocate was a man named Charles Darwin (1809-1882). He was an Englishman who lived during the nineteenth century when Britain ruled most of the world.

He was keenly interested in the origin of life and took a journey around the world to study the plants and animals of Earth. The ship he sailed on was called the HMS Beagle. He spent a particularly long amount of time on the Galapagos Islands, located in the Pacific ocean, examining birds, lizards and giant turtles.

He came to believe that the variety of life in our world was due to what he called "Natural Selection" and "Survival of the Fittest." He wrote his findings in a book entitled, "On the Origin of Species" which he published in 1859.

The book immediately caused a controversy in the Christian world because Christianity taught that God made life in an instant and that Earth was the center of importance in the universe. Christians also felt threatened by Darwin’s teachings because they knew it meant he was saying everything happened without needing God. To this day, many Christians still oppose and do battle in court over whether or not these theories should be taught in school.

These Christians advance the counter- idea of Creationism, or God making things all at once, while modern scientists still promote Evolution, or things happening by themselves accidentally, gradually and naturally. The two sides are as far apart as ever.

G. What Do Muslims Believe?

Where do Muslims stand? The answer may surprise you for we can agree with aspects of both sides. Islam teaches us that Allah’s creation is vast and beyond our comprehension. We are also taught that the more we explore and learn, the more we will come to believe in Allah. That is the Islamic position.

So we assert without any hesitation that Allah caused the creation of the universe and that He set up the laws for its functioning. As Allah said:

"Behold! In the creation of space and the Earth and in the changing of night into day are indeed signs for people of understanding. Those who remember Allah standing, sitting and lying down, and contemplate the (wonders) of creation in space and the Earth. (They declare,) "Our Lord! You didn’t create all of this for nothing. So save us from the punishment of the fire." (3:190-191)

Science, then, must increase our faith. It is wrong for anyone to close their eyes to what is right in front of them. For hundreds of years people have been finding fossils, bones and ancient artifacts which point to a hidden past we don’t know much about. Allah even commands us to travel over the Earth and learn from what we see. We humans have now seen much to challenge our understanding!

We know that Earth existed long before the appearance of humans. Allah says, "Wasn’t there a long period of time before humans were even mentioned?" (76:1)

We also know from the geologic timetable that the Earth went through many ages before we came here. And in the ayat that mentions this proof of Allah, we are given a very strong clue about the adaptability of life forms to their environment.

Allah said, "Don’t you see that Allah sends rain from the sky? With it We produce plants of various colors. And in the mountains are colored layers, white and red of various tones and some black in hue. And so too, among humans and crawling creatures and cattle. They are of various colors. Those among Allah’s servants who have knowledge truly fear Him, for Allah is Mighty and Forgiving." (35:27-28)

So while we agree with the Creationists who say Allah made the universe, we disagree with them on how fast it was constructed and that Earth is the only center of focus for the Creator. Allah declares Himself to be the Lord of All the Worlds: Rabb ul Alameen.

Because we do not reject the evidence presented to us by Paleontologists (fossil hunters) and other scientists, we can accept some of what they say, also, about the origins of life on Earth and the existence of dinosaurs and other creatures in the fossil record. However, we read in Allah’s book that He caused it to happen and that by studying it we increase our faith in Him. Therefore, we disagree with those who say everything happened without Allah, by mere chance only.

"To Allah belongs the control of space and the Earth and Allah has power over all things." (3:189)

Ours is the middle position even as Allah said we were created to be the middle community: never going to extremes. (2:143) So we don’t accept, based on the evidence, the final positions of both sides. Rather, we accept what appears to be true and reject what appears to be false from each. The Qur’an is our standard, our determiner, and it has never let us down, nor will it ever do so.

For a Muslim, then, the evidence of dinosaurs, trilobites and ancient algae is not a threat to our beliefs. Rather, it is a confirmation of the power of Allah. As Allah said, "He has created horses and mules for you to ride and show; and He has created other (creatures) that you don’t know." (16:8)

"Allah created every creature from water. Of them are some that creep on their bellies, some that walk on two legs and some that walk on four. Allah creates what He wills for He has power over all things. We have indeed sent signs that make things clear and Allah guides whom He wills to the straight way." (24:45-46)

Who else but Allah could have made such a complex and mysterious universe? (16:40) We must have pity on those who reject the proof of Allah’s existence for they will be the losers in the end.

Remember the ayah that was listed before: Allah says, "He, (Allah,) created humans from a drop of sperm and then the same humans become clear arguers!" (16:4.)

Even a miraculous thing such as the fertilization of the egg cannot convince some people to believe in the creative energy of the Creator of the Universe.

Allah asks rhetorically, "Then what message will they believe in after this?" (77:50)

Evolution theory's weaknesses

- There is no proof of the existence of a common ancestor.

- Fossil records do not necessarily prove that life evolved into other organisms, it only shows that certain animals were present within a certain part of the world during a certain time period. That's all. Creationists can just argue that God made these animals within a certain location during that time period.


- If there was so much animals which became extinct (and were the intermediaries between two species) - their fossils should have been in the thousands, remaining in the ground to prove their past existence. But these intermediary specie fossils are not always present underground [and due to this, some scientists even said that there probably wasn't intermediate species but massive jumps from one specie to another.]

So one has to question why so little fossils of such species are present if the process took thousands/millions of years [because surely there would be thousands of the extinct specie during that time period so thousands of these fossils should be found atleast to prove the case.] But this just doesn't happen.


(Slide 35): Fossil Record Refutes Evolution - A famous British paleontologist, Derek V. Ager, admits this embarrassing fact: The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find – over and over again – not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another. - A half-billion years ago the remarkably complex forms of animals that we see today suddenly appeared. This moment, right at the start of Earth's Cambrian Period, some 550 million years ago, marks the evolutionary explosion that filled the seas with the world's first complex creatures. The large animal phyla of today were present already in the early Cambrian and they were as distinct from each other then as they are today.

1) Derek A. Ager. \"The Nature of the Fossil Record.\" Proceedings of the British Geological Association, vol. 87, no. 2, )1976), p. 133.
2) Richard Monestarsky, Mysteries of the Orient, Discover, April 1993, p.40

http://www.slideshare.net/speed2kx/3-atheism-and-materialism-refutations-presentation


more points can be found here;
My paradigm | Because everyone is entitled to have my opinion.
http://www.slideshare.net/speed2kx/3-atheism-and-materialism-refutations-presentation



Even then, micro or macro evolution doesn't contradict Islam based on an article by IslamToday.com;

Islamtoday.com: Biological Evolution – An Islamic Perspective

with the exception of Adam evolving from them.

The Jews were still looking for the 'chosen' Prophet even during the life of Jesus

The Jews were still looking for the 'chosen' Prophet even during the life of Jesus


Source:

http://www.understanding-islam.org/r...75&sscatid=567
http://www.islamicboard.com/12176-post23.html



Some Jews assert that the prophecy [Deuteronomy 18:18] relates to and is fulfilled in the person of Yusha ibn Nun (Joshua.)


But the wording of the prophecy and the context do not permit it. Joshua was the contemporary of and junior to Moses. Moses himself had nominated him as his successor under the instruction of the Lord. He was a disciple, attendant, and successor of Moses and not an independent prophet himself. No "Law" was revealed unto him. So he was in no way 'like unto Moses'. The words of the prophecy, 'The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a prophet from the midst of thee, of thy Brethren, like unto me;' clearly denote that they relate to some future event, whereas Joshua physically existed there when this prophecy was uttered.




The book of Malachi is the last of the Minor Prophets and of the OT. It records the prophecy uttered by the Lord in the following words [which shows that the messenger of the covenant was yet to come by his time, and, as such, Joshua could not have been this "a prophet"


Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me; and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come[29] to his temple[30], even the messenger of the covenant [stress added] whom ye delight in; behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts.[31]


As to the date of Malachi, 'McKenzie' observes:
The book is dated by the critics after the rebuilding of the temple in 516 BC, during the Persian period and before the reforms of Nehemiah and Ezta, i.e., before 432 BC.[32]


The recording of the prophecy regarding 'the messenger of the covenant' in it shows that till 432 BC the Israelites were still waiting for him and he was yet to come.



Then there is the epilogue of the book of Deuteronomy which reads,
And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face.[33]


It is probable that this epilogue might have been written by Ezra eight to nine hundred years after Moses. So the prophecy remained unfulfilled till 8-9 centuries after Moses. It is also probable that it might have been written by some other redactor of the book when the Torah and some other books of the Bible were first compiled in written form about five hundred years after Moses.


It means that the prophecy remained unfulfilled for not less than 500 years after Moses. It does not mean that it was fulfilled after it. Nobody ever claimed to be 'the messenger of the covenant' or fulfilled its pre-requisites at any time after Moses. Almost every scholar of the Bible understands that it stood unfulfilled even after the time of Jesus Christ. The Bible Knowledge Commentary observes,

During the first century A.D. the official leaders of Judaism were still looking for the fulfillment of Moses' prediction. (A century after Jesus son of Mary had left this world!)

(cf. John 1: 21)
.[34]



That it remained unfulfilled during the time of Jesus Christ and the Jews were still waiting for the coming of this prophet, can be ascertained from the following passage of the Gospel According To John:

And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou? And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ.

And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No. Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself? He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias. (...). And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet? [35]




It has become clear from the study undertaken above that this 'Prophet like unto Moses' had not been raised up till the time of Jesus Christ, and the Jews were still looking for the 'Prophet' even after Jesus.


It is important to note that the Jews were waiting for the prophet at the time of Jesus (peace be upon him) – they felt this prophet (the one like Moses) was different from the Messiah/Christ. In John 1: 19-25, they asked John the Baptist (peace be upon him) whether he was Elijah, or the Christ, or “the Prophet” Thus showing that they were waiting for 2 great prophets, the Christ and “the Prophet.” Muslims believe Jesus (peace be upon him) was the Christ, and Muhammad (peace be upon him) was “the Prophet.”





--------------------------------

[29] The actual Hebrew word used for this 'come' is avb (a?v?b), which can be pronounced as bow'. According to Strong's 'A Concise Dictionary of the words in the Hebrew Bible', p. 19, entry No. 935 it means: "to go or come (in a wide variety of applications):-abide, befall, beseige, go (down, in, to war), [in-]vade, lead." It shows that 'the messenger of the covenant (it may be noted here that Jesus never claimed for himself to be the messenger of the covenant)' 'shall suddenly go down to war, besiege, and invade his temple'. It is a true and exact picture of the Prophet of Islam's conquest of Makkah'. No other prophet ever 'came so triumphantly and suddenly to his temple' as did the prophet of Islam, Muhammad (pbuh) come.

[30] How clearly and unequivocally came this prophecy true in the person of the Prophet of Islam, Muhammad (pbuh)! He secretly came upon his Temple, Ka'bah, in the city of Makkah, at the time of its conquest, so that it be conquered without any battle and bloodshed. The Makkans came to know about the arrival of Muhammad at the head of an army of ten thousand holy ones only when he had reached the gate of the city and the city was taken without any bloodshed. This is what Malachi had said, 'shall suddenly come to his temple.'

[31] KJV, Malachi III: 1, p. 745.
[32] J.L. McKenzie, DB, Geoffrey Chapman, London, 1984, p. 537.
[33] KJV, Deu. XXXIV: 10 p. 195.
[34] The B Knowledge C, Ed John F. Walvoord & R. B. Zuck, SP Publications, Inc., Weaton, Illinois, 3rd Ed, 1986, p. 297.
[35] KJV, John, I: 19-25, p. 82.