DNA Analysis proves evolution

Quranexplorer wrote: Even if we remove the phrase in bold to satisfy your belief, the example still doesn't hold good.

It's still fallacy of composition.  You're arguing that because DNA analysis can't identify individuals at dozens of generations distance, therefore it is useless in tracking groups and families for that distance.  It just doesn't follow.

Spectral analysis has been proven as an empirical method on the full test scope and it has not been proven that it fails at increased distances.

Your "full test scope" does not include millions of light-years.

DNA analysis has not been proven on the full test scope of TE and at the same time it has been proven that it fails as an empirical method at increased genetic distances.

But it has been proven over the "full test scope" (whatever that means) for short genetic distances, just as spectral analysis has been tested over short physical distances.

The problem is that the % similarities between the DNA of different species doesn't automatically lead to the conclusion that all these species shared a common ancestor at some point in history, breaking all the species barriers that are in existence today--and certainly not to a definitive conclusion to state a theory as scientifically "proved".

It has been proved to the extent that if you claim that you and I are second cousins, but DNA analysis says we do not share a common ancestor for at least dozens of generations, no court is going to doubt the scientific evidence.

For me a choice exists as long as a matter cannot be established as fact with absolute proof.

So you could choose to believe in the Celestial Teapot?  Really??

I agree I use my reason to make a choice. But having made that choice, I would say now my confidence in Allah far exceeds my confidence in my own reason.

Your confidence in the conclusion cannot exceed your confidence in the tools (including your own reasoning ability) you used to reach that conclusion.  This is so basic that I'm not sure how to unpack it further.

That's why I choose to keep my will in harmony with Allah's will and I can say it works perfectly for me.

And by "it works", you mean it's comforting.  That may be so, and I can understand how a comforting myth can be seductive, but things do not become true merely because you want them to be true.

That's more of a wish, not something based on facts or reason.

It's certainly a wish, but I think it's also a reasonable assumption.  If people stop hating each other, there's a good chance they'll stop persecuting and killing each other as well.

Here's some data on the major man-made conflicts and the casualties. Just have a look at the list and it should be a plain fact that nothing has caused more damage to humanity than man's materialistic intentions.

It's true that there are many more reasons why people hate each other than just religion, but you were asking me specifically about how "my disbelief" might make things better, so i answered on that basis.

Looking down your list, I see a lot of conflict that is generated or at least fueled by religion.  "Man's materialistic intentions" have also played a role, but it's not obvious to me that it is has caused more damage than anything else.  I would say that ethnic rivalries are the number one cause, and religious differences are very often a factor in that.

And do you think Islam is the reason for not addressing the real issues of a modern pluralistic society?

I don't mean to pick on Islam particularly.  I'm thinking in terms of religious fundamentalism more generally.  I agree that there are many other real issues, and all of them ought to be addressed if we can.

I don't see the reason for sending countless prophets with his revelations if Allah didn't care about humans.

As far as I can tell, the prophets were sent for believers, not for unbelievers.  But Allah allegedly knows in advance who will believe, and who will not; so why create all those unbelievers, knowing that we will be consigned to Hell for eternity?  It can only be because he wants to torture us.

So there is no scientific case to deny something as non-existent in the absence of evidences as nobody can be sure when such evidences could be established.

In the absence of evidence either way, there is no scientific case to be made at all.  Occam's Razor is more of philosophical position; and philosophically, it makes sense not to assume the existence of something for which there is no evidence.  That's not quite the same thing as denying it.  We remain open to evidence which might change our opinion, but in the meantime, we don't clutter up our worldview with myriads of unprovable speculations, from Allah to Quetzalcoatl, and from Russell's Celestial Teapot to the invisible dragon in Carl Sagan's garage.

Edited by Ron Webb - 30 October 2015 at 5:39pm

Quranexplorer wrote: I must say the example doesn't make much sense in this context. If the location of the star is empirically proved, then locating individual molecules becomes totally irrelevant in that context. In what way that could be likened to DNA analysis being claimed to provide an empirical proof for evolution, when it doesn�t?

The bolded phrase above assumes your conclusion and makes your argument circular.

As I mentioned before, spectral analysis has worked as an empirical method on its full test subject on the earth without any extrapolations and its predictions are matched with observations also.

Spectral analysis has never been empirically proven at distances of millions of light years, just as DNA analysis has never been empirically proven at distances of millions of generations.  But both theories have been exhaustively tested in all sorts of other circumstances, and nobody doubts that they are valid.  The fact that there may be circumstances in which a particular theory cannot be empirically tested is not a reason to doubt that it would still apply.

As individual human DNAs are different but with a 99.9% similarity, it has to be an approximation used for theoretical analysis. It definitely is not a property that can be empirically established.

Nonetheless, there is such a thing as "human DNA", even if we can't precisely define it.  We know this because innumerable DNA analyses show a 99.9% similarity among the "human family", just as we find a 99.999+% similarity among members of our immediate family, and a 96% similarity among the simian family, a 92% similarity among the mammalian family, and so on.

No one doubts that all humans do share common ancestors, even if we can't empirically prove it or even identify specific common ancestors as we can for our immediate families.  In that sense we do have an independent confirmation that DNA analysis is valid to show common ancestry (though not the specific ancestor) for at least thousands of generations.

So unless you can offer some reason to suppose that a technique which works for thousands of generations would cease to give correct results if we look back even further, IMHO you are in the same position as someone claiming that spectral analysis is fine in the lab and over distances short enough to be empirically verified, but breaks down over millions of light years.

That's what it seems, for me the whole Theory of Evolution is nothing more than a Celestial Teapot, just like the concept of an ultimate creator seems to you.

So if you agree that it is impossible for me to sincerely believe in an ultimate Creator (as impossible as it would be for you to sincerely believe in the Celestial Teapot), why do you insist that I have a choice?  How can I choose to do the impossible?

I use my reason and at the same time I acknowledge its limitation to be relied upon as the only way of guidance. For me it's hard to believe that this whole universe with all its inhabitants came in to being as a result of mere chance and without any purpose, and to believe that all these processes in the nature happen according to some set laws without the intervention of a supreme power. In Quran I find this supreme power, the explanation for the creation and sustenance, and the purpose of existence. I make my choice at this point and the available signs are more than enough for me to make this choice.

Nonetheless, you use your ability to reason in order to find this supreme power, understand the explanation and make this choice.  So your confidence in your choice can only be as strong as your ability to reason.  Which is pretty good, I'm sure (I think you're selling yourself short in downplaying it); but your earlier remark that "there is no guarantee that [one's] reason will guide him to the truth" applies just as much to you as to me.

That's because your judgement is limited to what you see in the life of this world, whereas Allah's wisdom encompasses both the life of this world and the hereafter.

Sadly, that applies to both of us.  I'm not sure that's an answer, though.  You seem to be saying that if we had Allah's wisdom then we would have an answer to the so-called problem of evil.  But we don't have Allah's wisdom, so we don't know that.

It's kinda like saying, if I were a whole lot smarter than I am, I would be able to refute your argument.  Maybe, maybe not; but you could say that about anything.

Now do you think your disbelief makes things any better?

Well, yeah.  Once we understand that the moral precepts of 1400 years ago no longer necessarily apply, we can stop persecuting people for irrelevancies like their choice of god, or sexual partner; and we can start to address the real issues in a modern pluralistic society, such as overpopulation and xenophobia.  If we could all agree to do that, things would definitely be much better.

I don't know where you get this misconception that Allah is desperate to have someone believed...

Yes, perhaps I am too much influenced by Christianity.  Perhaps the Muslim God doesn't care about unbelievers.  Perhaps He created us because He takes pleasure in torturing us.

If one willfully chooses to deny Allah in spite of having received a clear warning in the form of Quran among all the other signs available in the universe, then what is the point in blaming Allah for his failure? There were no proofs beyond any doubt for many things that science have found recently, so going by your argument does that mean those things didn't exist before such proofs were established?

I'm not sure what you're referring to, but whether something exists or not is a separate question from whether we believe it exists.  Neutrinos have always existed, for example, but nobody had even heard of them until a few decades ago.  Science has gradually become convinced of their existence, as evidence accumulated.

Ron Webb wrote: Which is like saying that if we can't locate individual molecules in a star a million light years away, therefore we can't accurately locate the star itself. No, this is classic fallacy of composition. Properties of individuals cannot automatically be applied to the group as a whole.

I must say the example doesn't make much sense in this context. If the location of the star is empirically proved, then locating individual molecules becomes totally irrelevant in that context. In what way that could be likened to DNA analysis being claimed to provide an empirical proof for evolution, when it doesn�t?

A property that only exists at individual level can be applied at a group level only with some approximations.

Ron Webb wrote: Insofar as science would ever describe something as "proved", spectral analysis is proved in general, and therefore applies to objects millions of light years away exactly as it applies to any other scenario. No scientist doubts it. Similarly, DNA analysis has been proven in general, and no scientist doubts that it works exactly the same for millions of generations as for one or two.

As I mentioned before, spectral analysis has worked as an empirical method on its full test subject on the earth without any extrapolations and its predictions are matched with observations also.

Can you show us at least one case where DNA analysis has tested the full theory of evolution?

Ron Webb wrote: So what does it mean to speak of "human DNA"? Is that not a property that is independent of individual DNA?

As individual human DNAs are different but with a 99.9% similarity, it has to be an approximation used for theoretical analysis. It definitely is not a property that can be empirically established.

In a lab you only analyse individual DNAs, in theory you have to use some generalizations and approximations for the ease of analysis, wherein I suppose "human DNA" is used as a generic term.

Ron Webb wrote: So in your opinion do the existence of neutrinos, and the nature of the earth's core, remain speculative?

As I mentioned before, it's nothing to do with my opinion. It is to do with whether the theoretical prediction has been empirically proved or not. Looks like there is something for neutrinos and earth�s core and studies are still ongoing in search of the truth, I suppose.

Ron Webb wrote: Is it a matter of choice whether or not to assume the existence of the Celestial Teapot? Surely for reasonable people the "choice" is clear.

That's what it seems, for me the whole Theory of Evolution is nothing more than a Celestial Teapot, just like the concept of an ultimate creator seems to you.

Ron Webb wrote: Pessimistic or not, my point is that we do not have alternatives. What, if not reason, guides your choice of the Quran and Muhammad as the "true religion"? And if it is reason that guides you to religion, then surely your confidence in that religion can be no greater than your confidence in your own reasoning abilities.

I use my reason and at the same time I acknowledge its limitation to be relied upon as the only way of guidance. For me it's hard to believe that this whole universe with all its inhabitants came in to being as a result of mere chance and without any purpose, and to believe that all these processes in the nature happen according to some set laws without the intervention of a supreme power. In Quran I find this supreme power, the explanation for the creation and sustenance, and the purpose of existence. I make my choice at this point and the available signs are more than enough for me to make this choice.

I don't trouble myself further with the so called argument of reason that the creator has to "prove" his existence to me and then only I can believe, that too when it is clear that such a proof cannot be established with whatever resources humans have.

Ron Webb wrote: Do you not think that you are superior to nonbelievers? Because the Quran 3:139 (among many other passages) certainly seems to say so.

It is not the proud words of a believer, it is an offer from Allah that you will be superior if you choose to believe. If you choose not to believe in Allah, you can as well choose to believe that the believers are not superior to you.

Pride and true faith in Allah just can't go hand in hand as it is clear from Prophet Muhammad's (pbuh) saying: "That person will not enter Paradise who hath one atom of pride in his heart."

Ron Webb wrote: As I asked Abu Loren, can you "choose" to believe that 2 + 2 = 5? Because that's the kind of "choice" that you think I am making with respect to the existence of God (or at least your kind of God).

You tell me a universally acceptable empirical method that can prove/disprove God the way you disprove 2+2=5 and then it will be easier to see if it is a matter of proof or choice.

Ron Webb wrote: You want me to believe that there is an omniscient and omnipotent being who is loving and merciful, and who desperately wants me to believe in him so that he won't be forced (by whom or what?) to torture me in Hell for eternity. And yet this being either cannot or will not lift a finger to make himself known to me; nor will he overtly help the billion or so who presently believe in him, and who not only receive no tangible benefit from his "love", but who in many ways suffer more and prosper less than unbelievers.Perhaps you don't see the many contradictions in this concept; but to me, it is every bit as impossible to believe as the claim that 2 + 2 = 5.

That's because your judgement is limited to what you see in the life of this world, whereas Allah's wisdom encompasses both the life of this world and the hereafter. And the concept of hereafter becomes a fundamental piece of one's belief in Islam. For a believer, life doesn't end with this world, the true life of eternity only begins after the life of this world. There is a term appointed for each individual and within that term each individual has been given certain free will to choose a life of his own. There will be good as well as bad consequences in this world based on how each individual chooses to use his free will. Allah may show his mercy to the believers during such bad consequences in this world itself, if not, they are assured of that mercy in the hereafter. All the apparent inequalities one see in this world will be set right with true justice on the judgement day and any bad things an individual had to go through in this world pales in comparison to the supreme success in the hereafter that is eternal.

Now do you think your disbelief makes things any better? There have been wars, state sponsored executions, invasions etc. etc. where countless lives are lost, and those responsible for such decisions have later accepted they made an error in judgement in many cases. Can anybody in this world ensure perfect justice to all concerned parties in such a case?

As Allah asks in Quran 67:28:

"Say (O Muhammad): Have ye thought: Whether Allah causeth me (Muhammad) and those with me to perish or hath mercy on us, still, who will protect the disbelievers from a painful doom? (28)"

I don't know where you get this misconception that Allah is desperate to have someone believed, there is no compulsion but a clear warning to the disbelievers and glad tidings to the believers in the form of the Quran, so that individuals can make an informed choice:

Quran 2: 256 "There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error. And he who rejecteth false deities and believeth in Allah hath grasped a firm handhold which will never break. Allah is Hearer, Knower. (256)"

Ron Webb wrote: If God's "love" does not include the desire to save us from Hell, then it isn't worth much. And He could easily do so, simply by making His existence obvious. That fact that He doesn't proves beyond any doubt that either He doesn't exist, or He doesn't love us.All your other stuff about free will and responsibility and "infinite mercy" don't change any of the above.

If one willfully chooses to deny Allah in spite of having received a clear warning in the form of Quran among all the other signs available in the universe, then what is the point in blaming Allah for his failure? There were no proofs beyond any doubt for many things that science have found recently, so going by your argument does that mean those things didn't exist before such proofs were established?

Quranexplorer wrote: Once we agree a one to one genetic match is not possible using DNA, then it should not be much difficult to acknowledge the fact that any population level genetic analysis using DNA cannot provide an empirical scientific evidence to "prove" evolution, as there are further approximations and assumptions involved in a population level genetic analysis.

Which is like saying that if we can't locate individual molecules in a star a million light years away, therefore we can't accurately locate the star itself.  No, this is classic fallacy of composition.  Properties of individuals cannot automatically be applied to the group as a whole.

Spectral analysis has worked on the full scope of chemical analysis on the earth and that is confirmed with observation too. Then you apply it in a different scenario on the stars and assume the results are reliable, and if somebody feels there are any issues that is still open for scientific evaluations, I would suppose. I don't think anybody is going to make definitive statements like "Spectral analysis of stars is proved" and that's it!

Insofar as science would ever describe something as "proved", spectral analysis is proved in general, and therefore applies to objects millions of light years away exactly as it applies to any other scenario.  No scientist doubts it.  Similarly, DNA analysis has been proven in general, and no scientist doubts that it works exactly the same for millions of generations as for one or two.

Population level DNA is not a property that can be independently measured empirically, it essentially is an approximation of the individual level DNAs.

So what does it mean to speak of "human DNA"?  Is that not a property that is independent of individual DNA?

But the problem with TE is that nobody has directly observed evolution happening and all the so called evidences also fall under the speculative category and not empirical.

So in your opinion do the existence of neutrinos, and the nature of the earth's core, remain speculative?

So ultimately that boils down to a matter of choice when the existing methods are incapable of establishing an evidence for the creator.

Is it a matter of choice whether or not to assume the existence of the Celestial Teapot?  Surely for reasonable people the "choice" is clear.

For me that sounds very pessimistic--to stick to something that you are unsure will guide you to the truth, in spite of having other alternatives. I would rather look for further guidance that can help where my reason is incapable and to the examples set by those who could practically demonstrate this in their lives--that's exactly what I find when I choose to sincerely follow the Quran and the life of prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

Pessimistic or not, my point is that we do not have alternatives.  What, if not reason, guides your choice of the Quran and Muhammad as the "true religion"?  And if it is reason that guides you to religion, then surely your confidence in that religion can be no greater than your confidence in your own reasoning abilities.

I don't feel motivated by pride or claim to have some superior knowledge by being a believer.

Do you not think that you are superior to nonbelievers?  Because the Quran 3:139 (among many other passages) certainly seems to say so.

Firstly, to not believe in something that doesn't makes sense to you just means you are making a choice and that is only a choice and not something that is justified based on a proof or evidence.

As I asked Abu Loren, can you "choose" to believe that 2 + 2 = 5?  Because that's the kind of "choice" that you think I am making with respect to the existence of God (or at least your kind of God).

You want me to believe that there is an omniscient and omnipotent being who is loving and merciful, and who desperately wants me to believe in him so that he won't be forced (by whom or what?) to torture me in Hell for eternity.  And yet this being either cannot or will not lift a finger to make himself known to me; nor will he overtly help the billion or so who presently believe in him, and who not only receive no tangible benefit from his "love", but who in many ways suffer more and prosper less than unbelievers.

Perhaps you don't see the many contradictions in this concept; but to me, it is every bit as impossible to believe as the claim that 2 + 2 = 5.

Second, I don't know how reasonable it is to think that a creator's wisdom has to be aligned with each of his creations, or to think that a creator has to fulfill the whims and fancies of each of his creations to prove his existence. Even in a worldly situation you would find someone with a higher negotiating power always having the upper hand in deciding the terms. So would it be reasonable to think that a creator who is free of all wants and depends in no way whatsoever on his creatures to act in a way according to the wishes of his creations? In a normal situation it would be other way around, the subjects would be just left to find their way to the master.

If God's "love" does not include the desire to save us from Hell, then it isn't worth much.  And He could easily do so, simply by making His existence obvious.  That fact that He doesn't proves beyond any doubt that either He doesn't exist, or He doesn't love us.

All your other stuff about free will and responsibility and "infinite mercy" don't change any of the above.