DNA Analysis proves evolution

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?

Because it does show which species are decended from which common ancestor. It is very clear. That we cannot identify the exact individual or sequence of individuals is not the question.

You do understand this.


Edited by Tim the plumber - 26 October 2015 at 5:25am

Ron Webb wrote: The bolded phrase above assumes your conclusion and makes your argument circular.

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

Ron Webb wrote: 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.

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.

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.

Ron Webb wrote: 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.

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".

There is absolutely no reason for one to assume the DNA similarities among different species as an evidence to a common ancestor, especially when the transitional fossils are simply not there and no laboratory analysis has proven that mutations can lead to species changes.

Ron Webb wrote: 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?

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

Ron Webb wrote: 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.

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. If there is anything that I am able to do well, it's only due to Allah's grace, and if there is something that I have fallen short, it's only my mistake--I would call it experiencing the "sweetness of Iman (faith)". It is something one has to feel himself, and I am not saying I am there yet, but Alhamdulillah at least I have felt it in my life and In Sha Allah I won't miss it for anything this world has to offer.

One example I can relate to myself is the transition I have undergone from being a "muslim by birth" to a "muslim by life". During the time I was just a "muslim by birth", I used to be afraid to discuss Islam and reason together. Now that I am trying to be a "muslim by life", Alhamdulillah, I just cannot think of anything more reasonable than being a muslim, and I am confident to discuss it with anyone who wishes to do so.

Ron Webb wrote: 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.

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

Ron Webb wrote: 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.

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

And do you think Islam is the reason for not addressing the real issues of a modern pluralistic society? There is a wonderful concept of United Nations, which if utilized for the real purpose of addressing the issues of humanity, could be such an effective way to solve many issues. Who has made it as a rubber stamp to act on the wishes of a select few? I would say establish UN with its real authority and we can solve many of the issues that we see today--unfortunately none of the self proclaimed problem solvers would want that to happen. So we may still see vetoing of justified resolutions, invasions based on unjustified reasons and non-action against blatant human rights violations etc. that really fuels many of the unrest

Now that makes me wonder how easily people fall prey to the Islamophobia propaganda whilst completely turning a blind eye to the root cause for most of the problems that we see today.

Ron Webb wrote: 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.

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

Ron Webb wrote: 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.

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.

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". There is absolutely no reason for one to assume the DNA similarities among different species as an evidence to a common ancestor, especially when the transitional fossils are simply not there and no laboratory analysis has proven that mutations can lead to species changes.

1, It's not just the % of similarities that show the path of ancestry and the common ancestry of all life on earth it's the way the chemistry works which shows it.

2, Mutation that leads to new species has been seen in the lab and in the natural world. Lots!