Do you believe in evolution?

[Photon]

ERVs are still not about homology lmfao.

You are not putting any effort into this. Just regurgitating the same old debunked gish gallop nonsense thats been around for ages

It kinda is in principle as @BleakAsh said

They found that humans, chimpanzees, and other nonhuman primates share the same exact spot of ERV insertion in the DNA sequence. Thus, they infer that it must be conclusive proof that we share a common ancestor with other primates. I promise you, there's a twist

First of all, that study was done in the early 2000s and began to be known to public a few years later. You should first ask yourself this question: why, even after that finding we still have many biologists/evolutionists that still think the hypothesis of a common ancestor is still an open debate and remains controversial.

The inference was due to the following assumptions: that ERV is non-functional and thus is an evolutionary artifact in primates; ERV was inserted through the insertion of the virus to the gametic cells; and the insertion is random, which makes it very unlikely that humans and other nonhuman primates share different ancestors because otherwise the location of the ERV would differ in humans and nonhuman primates.

Recent studies suggest that ERV might have served several functions all along, which makes it possible that the similarity was due to the similar functional capabilities of the virus in humans and nonhuman primates. They also found that ERV most of the time can only infect the somatic cells, and very rarely the gametic cells (the cells that can be passed on to the offspring). As any other viruses, it is also now known that ERV insertion is not random at all, they have various site preferences to insert their nucleotides to our DNA which might explain the similarity of the location of insertion. Moreover, it has been discovered there is divergence in several type of the ERV; there are several ERVs that are found in chimpanzee and gorilla, and not in human despite human being more closely related to chimp than gorilla to chimp.

 

[Zenos7]

They found that humans, chimpanzees, and other nonhuman primates share the same exact spot of ERV insertion in the DNA sequence. Thus, they infer that it must be conclusive proof that we share a common ancestor with other primates. I promise you, there's a twist

Well thats just one line of evidence.and no, ervs have nothing to do with homology.

But yall are performing mental gymnastics on all lines of evidence anyway because you guys are starting off with the conclusion that we arent primates and then try to find evidence supporting that. Emphasis on try.

Post automatically merged: Mar 21, 2023

Is this a fucking sad joke?

Nope. Some people just dont value truth

 

[Photon]

Well thats just one line of evidence.and no, ervs have nothing to do with homology.

But yall are performing mental gymnastics on all lines of evidence anyway because you guys are starting off with the conclusion that we arent primates and then try to find evidence supporting that. Emphasis on try.

Post automatically merged: Mar 21, 2023

Nope. Some people just font value truth

Well, it doesnt matter much if ERVs have nothing to do with homology anyway cuz the vocal points have already been adressed.

Skepticism is always open in science (I mean youre an Atheist you should know it already), it doesn't matter if you have doubts because of your conflicting beliefs as long as you can provide your arguments with scientific evidences and studies. So i don't know how is that a problem, you're just deflecting as usual.

Oh yeah, you're also ignoring the fact that there are many biologists that think CA is still an open debate. That is one thing that i would rather put my trust on than to put it on to a random on internet xd

 

[Zenos7]

Well, it doesnt matter much if ERVs have nothing to do with homology anyway cuz the vocal points have already been adressed.

Skepticism is always open in science (I mean youre an Atheist you should know it already), it doesn't matter if you have doubts because of your conflicting beliefs as long as you can provide your arguments with scientific evidences and studies. So i don't know how is that a problem, you're just deflecting as usual.

Oh yeah, you're also ignoring the fact that there are many biologists that think CA is still an open debate. That is one thing that i would rather put my trust on than to put it on to a random on internet xd

There are MANY biologists who question that we are primates?

Im calling bullshit on that.

And well it does matter. If you make my point of ervs about homology, that just means younare utterly ignorant on the topic of evolution. Thats not surprising anyway if you start off with the conclusion that evolution isnt real. Makes people less willin to put effort into understanding it.

And the vast majority of arguments against any aspect of evolution from creationists stems from misconceptions or straight up lies about it

 

[Photon]

There are MANY biologists who question that we are primates?

Im calling bullshit on that.

Ive met 3 so far that considers that possibility and i already cited it in my earlier response. They were Theobald, Michael Gilchrist, and Rob Knight. I'm pretty sure there are more if you spend your time scrolling through pages in credible scientific journal.

And you're still on this kind of fallacy lol? how disingeneous lmao despite having been told several analogies.

You keep thinking that saying CA is an open debate is mutually inclusive with saying human must be primates. That is not the case and is obviously a logical fallacy.

And well it does matter. If you make my point of ervs about homology, that just means younare utterly ignorant on the topic of evolution. Thats not surprising anyway if you start off with the conclusion that evolution isnt real. Makes people less willin to put effort into understanding it.

I'm not going to go over everything I've already said. Go straight to the topic and make your response there.

And the vast majority of arguments against any aspect of evolution from creationists stems from misconceptions or straight up lies about it

Not gonna disagree, i mean there are many who are uneducated that still think evolution means human evolved from primate. But there are also many studies done by credible biologists.

 

[Zenos7]

And you're still on this kind of fallacy lol? how disingeneous lmao despite having been told several analogies.

You keep thinking that saying CA is an open debate is mutually inclusive with saying human must be primates. That is not the case and is obviously a logical fallacy.

So your point is humans are evolved primates just dont share an ancestor with chimps?

Despite admitting that you believe humans were created in their present form?

And then you talk about disingenuity?

 

[Photon]

So your point is humans are evolved primates just dont share an ancestor with chimps?

Despite admitting that you believe humans were created in their present form?

And then you talk about disingenuity?

I believe humans were created in their present form and i also believe that the current evolution theory is still a valid theory, so far. Both dont conflict with each other as it is not a fact.

Also, you're still on this logical fallacy train

What did i say? I say biologists think CA is an open debate

Do the majority that think CA is an open debate still think that human and primates share a common ancestor? Yes

But what the point actually is? That it is not conclusive if human and primates share a common ancestor! It's that simple

And yes, you're disingeneous because you keep getting iritated when i present you the shortcomings of the common ancestry hypothesis even though it is from credible studies. I can accept that Darwinian evolution still a valid theory but i also acknowledge the weaknesses. You believe it is a valid theory but you act as if it is a fact despite many biologists saying otherwise and keep getting iritated when faced with the weaknesses of evolution theory. Pretty telling whos disingeneous here

Post automatically merged: Mar 21, 2023

@BleakAsh

I think you should watch this

Basically we still have to acknowledge that it is still currently a valid theory, but we also do need to acknowledge the weaknesses

 

[Zenos7]

I believe humans were created in their present form and i also believe that the current evolution theory is still a valid theory, so far. Both dont conflict with each other as it is not a fact.

Also, you're still on this logical fallacy train

What did i say? I say biologists think CA is an open debate

Do the majority that think CA is an open debate still think that human and primates share a common ancestor? Yes

But what the point actually is? That it is not conclusive if human and primates share a common ancestor! It's that simple

And yes, you're disingeneous because you keep getting iritated when i present you the shortcomings of the common ancestry hypothesis even though it is from credible studies. I can accept that Darwinian evolution still a valid theory but i also acknowledge the weaknesses. You believe it is a valid theory but you act as if it is a fact despite many biologists saying otherwise and keep getting iritated when faced with the weaknesses of evolution theory. Pretty telling whos disingeneous here

It is conclusive though.

And im well aware of details we dont know about in evolution theory. Kinda talked about that in my first couple posts here iirc.

And im not irritated at all.

And with scientific theories, its still not about believing.

But lets wrap this up: you can name 3 that think CA is an open debate, but say majority of those zhat think so still think we are primates, i.e. share ancestry with other primates. So even among the small.minority of peeps who think CA is debatable still think we share ancestry with primates.

So yeah i dont see you making any point really at this point.

 

[Photon]

It is conclusive though.

It is not and i already explained it

And im well aware of details we dont know about in evolution theory. Kinda talked about that in my first couple posts here iirc.

Not just the holes missing in evolution theory, but there exists conflicting studies against darwinian evolution such as some ERVs not existing in human but exists in chimp and gorilla, etc.

And with scientific theories, its still not about believing.

But lets wrap this up: you can name 3 that think CA is an open debate, but say majority of those zhat think so still think we are primates, i.e. share ancestry with other primates. So even among the small.minority of peeps who think CA is debatable still think we share ancestry with primates.

So yeah i dont see you making any point really at this point.

Their proposed alternatives also dont have conclusive evidences. As such, no known hypothesis that include human sharing a common ancestor with primates is conclusive. So yes, i do make a point

And yes, you did act as if you're irritated because you went for the "muh, it's just mostly creationists nonsenses" first, and not trying to get into the points

 

[Bisoromi Bear]

They will blame it on natrual selection on this minerals LOL

and natrual selection itself is a highly contentious topic in the field of Philosophy pf science and evolution

The whole Human - Ape ancestry is a thousand uear old assumptions of Indus hindus and greeks that we sgare a common ancestor with primates or chimps..

This is an assumption of homology whivh hasn't been prove because we have a counter assumption called homoplacy which are observations where similarity is not due to common descent.

And darwin came in and gave the Hindu-greeks mechanism for this assumption which is NATRUAL SELECTION which has A whole seperate set of assumptions

Any data of comparison is based on these assumptions and to think they reflect reality is delusional

Which is what people like @Zenos7 @Toby D. Dog @Admiral Maynard @Chrolette Horchata are

What are you even talking about!?

 

[Zenos7]

It is not and i already explained it




Not just the holes missing in evolution theory, but there exists conflicting studies against darwinian evolution such as some ERVs not existing in human but exists in chimp and gorilla, etc.




Their proposed alternatives also dont have conclusive evidences. As such, no known hypothesis that include human sharing a common ancestor with primates is conclusive. So yes, i do make a point

And yes, you did act as if you're irritated because you went for the "muh, it's just mostly creationists nonsenses" first, and not trying to get into the points

me saying its the same old creationist nonsense is me being irritated? yeah no.

also have you anything that shows any of the scientists you mentioned think that humans dont share ancestry with primates?

because i just looked at theobald again, and cant find anything of the sort.

Post automatically merged: Mar 21, 2023

It is not and i already explained it




Not just the holes missing in evolution theory, but there exists conflicting studies against darwinian evolution such as some ERVs not existing in human but exists in chimp and gorilla, etc.




Their proposed alternatives also dont have conclusive evidences. As such, no known hypothesis that include human sharing a common ancestor with primates is conclusive. So yes, i do make a point

And yes, you did act as if you're irritated because you went for the "muh, it's just mostly creationists nonsenses" first, and not trying to get into the points

obviously we dont share all ERVs, as eventually a split happened.

Post automatically merged: Mar 21, 2023

also from the abstract to the paper of theobald that you cited an article about:
"Among a wide range of biological models involving the independent ancestry of major taxonomic groups, the model selection tests are found to overwhelmingly support UCA irrespective of the presence of horizontal gene transfer and symbiotic fusion events. These results provide powerful statistical evidence corroborating the monophyly of all known life."

lul. you getting your info from answersingenesis or what?

 

[Bisoromi Bear]

Is this a fucking sad joke?

Sadly it's not.
These people are so in love with their 2000 or 1500 year old mythological books that they use mental gymnastics and try to prove that centuries old mythology is to be taken literally and modern fact based research is evil.

 

[Photon]

me saying its the same old creationist nonsense is me being irritated? yeah no.

also have you anything that shows any of the scientists you mentioned think that humans dont share ancestry with primates?

because i just looked at theobald again, and cant find anything of the sort.

You can, just look at the tabulated data of the result. Or you can simple use the search and find and search "+H". He considered a ABE_H+H model, which is basically homo sapiens having different ancestor than ABE (Archae, Bacteria, Eukaryotes including metazoans).

obviously we dont share all ERVs, as eventually a split happened.

You didnt get the whole picture. Acoording to current phylogenetic tree (taxonomy), there was a splitting between gorillas and an ancestor which later diverged into chimp and humans. If the occurence of the ERV insertion happened during that time, then human should have those specific ERVs as well.

also from the abstract to the paper of theobald that you cited an article about:
"Among a wide range of biological models involving the independent ancestry of major taxonomic groups, the model selection tests are found to overwhelmingly support UCA irrespective of the presence of horizontal gene transfer and symbiotic fusion events. These results provide powerful statistical evidence corroborating the monophyly of all known life."

lul. you getting your info from answersingenesis or what?

No, i quoted Theobald from Scientific American. I mentioned this to you and that Charlotte something guy several times. The same Theobald still think it still is an open debate and remains controversial. Several scientists like Yonezawa, Hasegawa, Kool, Wolf, Posada, etc have also pointed out the weaknesses of his method.

 

[Zenos7]

Hasegawa

This dude disagreed with your garbage as well

 

[Toby D. Dog]

When people like you are mere by standards don't even try to engage in academic debate and like to pepper from the sidelines it really shows your standards

Definitely sometlone who has inherited Ape genes

Bleak I'm not gonna get into an insult fight back and forth with you, but be intellectually honest, there isn't one self respecting biologist in Academia who is gonna deny evolution. You are not an academic, and this is not my area of expertise by a long shot. But I've informed myself by listening to people that actually know about this and have studied it all their lives. If you were intellectually honest you would at least admit that your beliefs are based on your faith and not on a logical conclusion, and you wouldn't be disregarding and ridiculing something as widely accepted as evolution by the scientific community. Now you can respond to this, use all the big buzz words you love to use in order to try to come across as an "academic", but it really doesn't come across that way. I'm not sure if I'm right about this but you strike me as someone who is really young, I hope that you can still find a path towards deradicalization.

 

[Rayleigh22]

Biological evolution is a fact. The problem is most people do not even know what it actually is. They believe it is something like some random monkey just turning into a human when in reality is the just the change of variation of genes over time in a population of a species. For example: Gen A is 70% (70% of the population have it) and Gen B is 30% and after some time its not like that anymore but 10% Gen A and 90% Gen B. Even if a new Gen ("Gen C") appears, biological evolution happened (because there is new variation of genes).



Also Scientists use the knowledge of evolution e.g. in medicine .

 

[Zenos7]

Rob Knight

"To address these questions, we first describe the human gut microbiome and its contents. We then place this information in the context of our closest relatives, the primates, and more distant relatives, mammals."

From the first paper one finds on google when you type his name and add human evolution

Was your point about UCA again? (Cause you only typed CA the last couple posts. . .)

Because these scientists clearly dont question humans sharing ancestry with other primates and being closely related

 

[BleakAsh]

ERVs are still not about homology lmfao.

You are not putting any effort into this. Just regurgitating the same old debunked gish gallop nonsense thats been around for ages

Thats analogy and biologists dont say each time there is sinilarity that its homology.

You are an absolute joke mate..this level of clownery and self-induced delusion is only to be found in atheist darwinian apologists

"You are Putting no effort"
Why do i require effort to rebuke a clown who doesn't even get what Homology is or the fact that his clown ass assumes just coz there is no mention of homology NO HOMOLOGY IS USED this is logical fallacy clowns use

homology is not an analogy or a conclusion its a fundamental assumption that s required for you to prove common ancestry without it COMMON ANCESTRY CANNOT BE PROVEN and you have tonroll that assumption through a through a mechanism called Natrual selection which your old racist buddy Darwin did which has AND WHOLE OTHER SET OF ASSUMPTIONS UNDERLYING IT LIKE GRADUALISM

You don't even know what the problme of theory ladedness is that leads to homology

You can laugh and attempt to trivialise what i say but you just disagree for the sake of disagreeing while gas lighting yourself into believe hypothesis are actually the case and are even remotely likely

Its ironic and contradictory where you accept the probability of something is mere probability yet calim factuality even when the opposition argues that its based on probabilistic framework and you YOU ARE THE ONE THAT IS HIDING BEHIND ASSUMPTIONS LIKE A WEASEL



Before we move on with your pathetic knowlege backed by NO ONE literally just YOURSELF ASSUMING ANY PROBABILITY HAS ROBUST AND FACTUAL FRAMWORK WHICH YOU HAVE TO PROVE but you don't address it and just attack and demean whatever you see that goes against your mainstream delusion


Let me address this disaster too:

The quran says the embryo forms bones and then the bones are covered with flesh. Thats just wrong and there is plenty more anti-scientific nonsense in the quran.

SO QURAN GOT EMBRYOLOGY WRONG?

This is why you should not just feed off of the shit on Internet without proper research i mean you even laughed at Philosophy of Biology which stands at the crux of any scientific evolutionary thought which determines the logic on data u see , so shows more of your arrogance like the clown you are parading that you have a dense yet intellectually vacuous head.

I'll premise this refutation on a basic principle science is based upon which is revision and corrections

Now lets address the verse you are mistranslating

You claim that the verse
:
"ثُمَّ خَلَقْنَا ٱلنُّطْفَةَ عَلَقَةًۭ فَخَلَقْنَا ٱلْعَلَقَةَ مُضْغَةًۭ فَخَلَقْنَا ٱلْمُضْغَةَ عِظَـٰمًۭا فَكَسَوْنَا ٱلْعِظَـٰمَ لَحْمًۭا ثُمَّ أَنشَأْنَـٰهُ خَلْقًا ءَاخَرَ ۚ فَتَبَارَكَ ٱللَّهُ أَحْسَنُ ٱلْخَـٰلِقِينَ ١٤

Quran 23:14
"
Is wrong in claiming that Bones are formed before flesh as emboldened

Limb development which quran Refers to,(Bone covered or clothed with flesh where you think quran mistakes the chronology ) happens around 6th-and 7th week of embryonic development where a type of cells called mesenchyme form cartilage model for bone ossification but before the cartilage ossifies (turns into solid bone) another set of cells called Myoblasts aggregate into muscle massess or muscle fiber around the cartilage which form the flexes and extenders of the joints
Ie: the development of skeletal muscles

"But OH BLEAK ASH THE MUSCLES FORM BEFORE THE CARTILAGE OSSIFY (TURNING INTO BONES) SO QURAN MUST BE WRONG ABOUT BONES COMING FIRST THE FLESH WAKING RIGHT?"

WRONG!
WITH THE BIG " W"

Here is where the linguistics come in and prove arabic's ever prominent lexical and linguistically general versatility as a language that god him self sent down his book in this language and literally adulates this language

Lets begin your funeral
arabic is a vast language with some of the most synonyms for words you could find in a language

The the word cartilage in arabic is " غضروف"

"oh but bleak this doesn't correspond with the word bones in arabic which is 'ٱلْعِظَـٰمَ' "

Dw lets look at what some of the most largest and detailed dictionaries of arabic say about cartilage or "غضروف"

The name of the dictionary is Lisān al-ʿArab
the description says this about the dictionary
Lisān al-ʿArab is one of the largest and most detailed dictionaries of the Arabic language, written by the philologist, historian and Islamic scholar Ibn Manẓūr (died 1311 CE / 711 AH). In print the dictionary is 15 or 18 volumes, depending on the edition. Ibn Manẓūr based its contents strictly on five of the most trusted references of the Arabic language: Tahdhīb al-Lugha of al-Azharī (d. 980 CE / 370 H), al-Muḥkam wa al-Muḥīṭ al-Aʿẓam of Ibn Sīda (d. 1066 CE / 458 H), Tāj al-Lugha of al-Jawharī (died about 1003 CE / 393 H), Ibn Baray's commentary on the Tāj (d. 1178 CE / 582 AH), and al-Nihāya fī Gharīb al-Ḥadīth wa al-Athar by Ibn al-Athīr (d. 1233 CE / 630 H).

here is how it defines the word غضروف

"الــغُضْرُوف: "كلُّ عَظم رَخْص ليّن في أَيّ موضع كان
translation
cartilage : " every soft, loose bone in any position " note the emboldened words
reference?
http://arabiclexicon.hawramani.com/search/غضروف?cat=3

Uhoh unfortunately for you cartilage is a type of soft bone in lexical arabic
and that means quran is accurate with its description to embryology that first the cartilage (soft bone) is formed first and then the muscle is formed around it or flesh


"OH BUT YOU JUST GAVE ONE REFERENCEE WHAT ABOUT OTHER LEXICAL DICTIONARIES "

Dw you are an easy baby to console in that regards too:

الــغضروف) كل عظم لين رخص فِي أَي مَوضِع كَانَ

The cartilage ) is every soft bone that gives relief in any position

from
Academy of the Arabic Language in Cairo, al-Muʿjam al-Wasīṭ

reference:http://arabiclexicon.hawramani.com/search/غضروف?cat=37

all in all your vapid lousy attempts at proving anything we have discussed so far have failed due to your ignorance,arrgogance,and stupidity

there isn't one self respecting biologist in Academia who is gonna deny evolution.

i never said evolution is false or that we didn't have ancestors we evolved from thats the evolution that is clear and crystal

but to assume that Huamn-APe is factual and scientist actually consider it a blatant end all be all fact and that there are no assumptions is something you have to provide evidence for that burden of such delusional Darwinist ahtiest jargon is not for me to prove

there are literally athiests evolutionary bilologist out that that claim that you cannot calculate the APE v HUMAN comparison nd differences and come up with a metric you have to selectively look for similarities and assume its due to common descent .and even as far as

you have to prove evidence that there are biologist that consider Ape human ancestry to be true in its most definitive form..

such questions show your ignorance.. all you do is oppose with it ...not soo constructive

 

[Krusher1357]

You are an absolute joke mate..this level of clownery and self-induced delusion is only to be found in atheist darwinian apologists

"You are Putting no effort"
Why do i require effort to rebuke a clown who doesn't even get what Homology is or the fact that his clown ass assumes just coz there is no mention of homology NO HOMOLOGY IS USED this is logical fallacy clowns use

homology is not an analogy or a conclusion its a fundamental assumption that s required for you to prove common ancestry without it COMMON ANCESTRY CANNOT BE PROVEN and you have tonroll that assumption through a through a mechanism called Natrual selection which your old racist buddy Darwin did which has AND WHOLE OTHER SET OF ASSUMPTIONS UNDERLYING IT LIKE GRADUALISM

You don't even know what the problme of theory ladedness is that leads to homology

You can laugh and attempt to trivialise what i say but you just disagree for the sake of disagreeing while gas lighting yourself into believe hypothesis are actually the case and are even remotely likely

Its ironic and contradictory where you accept the probability of something is mere probability yet calim factuality even when the opposition argues that its based on probabilistic framework and you YOU ARE THE ONE THAT IS HIDING BEHIND ASSUMPTIONS LIKE A WEASEL



Before we move on with your pathetic knowlege backed by NO ONE literally just YOURSELF ASSUMING ANY PROBABILITY HAS ROBUST AND FACTUAL FRAMWORK WHICH YOU HAVE TO PROVE but you don't address it and just attack and demean whatever you see that goes against your mainstream delusion


Let me address this disaster too:



SO QURAN GOT EMBRYOLOGY WRONG?

This is why you should not just feed off of the shit on Internet without proper research i mean you even laughed at Philosophy of Biology which stands at the crux of any scientific evolutionary thought which determines the logic on data u see , so shows more of your arrogance like the clown you are parading that you have a dense yet intellectually vacuous head.

I'll premise this refutation on a basic principle science is based upon which is revision and corrections

Now lets address the verse you are mistranslating

You claim that the verse
:
"ثُمَّ خَلَقْنَا ٱلنُّطْفَةَ عَلَقَةًۭ فَخَلَقْنَا ٱلْعَلَقَةَ مُضْغَةًۭ فَخَلَقْنَا ٱلْمُضْغَةَ عِظَـٰمًۭا فَكَسَوْنَا ٱلْعِظَـٰمَ لَحْمًۭا ثُمَّ أَنشَأْنَـٰهُ خَلْقًا ءَاخَرَ ۚ فَتَبَارَكَ ٱللَّهُ أَحْسَنُ ٱلْخَـٰلِقِينَ ١٤

Quran 23:14
"
Is wrong in claiming that Bones are formed before flesh as emboldened

Limb development which quran Refers to,(Bone covered or clothed with flesh where you think quran mistakes the chronology ) happens around 6th-and 7th week of embryonic development where a type of cells called mesenchyme form cartilage model for bone ossification but before the cartilage ossifies (turns into solid bone) another set of cells called Myoblasts aggregate into muscle massess or muscle fiber around the cartilage which form the flexes and extenders of the joints
Ie: the development of skeletal muscles

"But OH BLEAK ASH THE MUSCLES FORM BEFORE THE CARTILAGE OSSIFY (TURNING INTO BONES) SO QURAN MUST BE WRONG ABOUT BONES COMING FIRST THE FLESH WAKING RIGHT?"

WRONG!
WITH THE BIG " W"

Here is where the linguistics come in and prove arabic's ever prominent lexical and linguistically general versatility as a language that god him self sent down his book in this language and literally adulates this language

Lets begin your funeral
arabic is a vast language with some of the most synonyms for words you could find in a language

The the word cartilage in arabic is " غضروف"

"oh but bleak this doesn't correspond with the word bones in arabic which is 'ٱلْعِظَـٰمَ' "

Dw lets look at what some of the most largest and detailed dictionaries of arabic say about cartilage or "غضروف"

The name of the dictionary is Lisān al-ʿArab
the description says this about the dictionary
Lisān al-ʿArab is one of the largest and most detailed dictionaries of the Arabic language, written by the philologist, historian and Islamic scholar Ibn Manẓūr (died 1311 CE / 711 AH). In print the dictionary is 15 or 18 volumes, depending on the edition. Ibn Manẓūr based its contents strictly on five of the most trusted references of the Arabic language: Tahdhīb al-Lugha of al-Azharī (d. 980 CE / 370 H), al-Muḥkam wa al-Muḥīṭ al-Aʿẓam of Ibn Sīda (d. 1066 CE / 458 H), Tāj al-Lugha of al-Jawharī (died about 1003 CE / 393 H), Ibn Baray's commentary on the Tāj (d. 1178 CE / 582 AH), and al-Nihāya fī Gharīb al-Ḥadīth wa al-Athar by Ibn al-Athīr (d. 1233 CE / 630 H).

here is how it defines the word غضروف

"الــغُضْرُوف: "كلُّ عَظم رَخْص ليّن في أَيّ موضع كان
translation
cartilage : " every soft, loose bone in any position " note the emboldened words
reference?
http://arabiclexicon.hawramani.com/search/غضروف?cat=3

Uhoh unfortunately for you cartilage is a type of soft bone in lexical arabic
and that means quran is accurate with its description to embryology that first the cartilage (soft bone) is formed first and then the muscle is formed around it or flesh


"OH BUT YOU JUST GAVE ONE REFERENCEE WHAT ABOUT OTHER LEXICAL DICTIONARIES "

Dw you are an easy baby to console in that regards too:

الــغضروف) كل عظم لين رخص فِي أَي مَوضِع كَانَ

The cartilage ) is every soft bone that gives relief in any position

from
Academy of the Arabic Language in Cairo, al-Muʿjam al-Wasīṭ

reference:http://arabiclexicon.hawramani.com/search/غضروف?cat=37

all in all your vapid lousy attempts at proving anything we have discussed so far have failed due to your ignorance,arrgogance,and stupidity


i never said evolution is false or that we didn't have ancestors we evolved from thats the evolution that is clear and crystal

but to assume that Huamn-APe is factual and scientist actually consider it a blatant end all be all fact and that there are no assumptions is something you have to provide evidence for that burden of such delusional Darwinist ahtiest jargon is not for me to prove

there are literally athiests evolutionary bilologist out that that claim that you cannot calculate the APE v HUMAN comparison nd differences and come up with a metric you have to selectively look for similarities and assume its due to common descent .and even as far as

you have to prove evidence that there are biologist that consider Ape human ancestry to be true in its most definitive form..

such questions show your ignorance.. all you do is oppose with it ...not soo constructive

Literal hogwash

 

[Bisoromi Bear]

The quran says the embryo forms bones and then the bones are covered with flesh. Thats just wrong and there is plenty more anti-scientific nonsense in the quran.

As a science oriented person it might be better to refrain from calling religions "anti scientific nonsense".

Religion and science have different purposes.
Science is about facts and evidence based research while religion approaches life from a meta perspective.

When an ancient people who lived 2000 years ago said that bones are formed before the flesh this is not to be taken literally.
We know better today because we have developed ways to take a look into the human body and see the foetus develop and grow.
Those who lived in the past had no such opportunities. Their beliefs and mythology provides a glimpse into their understanding of things and by learning about those who came before us we can better understand how we, today came to be the way we are.


In the current globalised age religion increasingly serves another purpose, it can reinforce our identity and may give us a sense of belonging to a certain group or a stronger connection to our own cultural heritage.
I think the latter is the case for bleakash.

Post automatically merged: Mar 22, 2023

Biological evolution is a fact. The problem is most people do not even know what it actually is. They believe it is something like some random monkey just turning into a human when in reality is the just the change of variation of genes over time in a population of a species. For example: Gen A is 70% (70% of the population have it) and Gen B is 30% and after some time its not like that anymore but 10% Gen A and 90% Gen B. Even if a new Gen ("Gen C") appears, biological evolution happened.

Also Scientists use the knowledge of evolution e.g. in medicine .

I mean we're talking about very slow evolutionary processes here.
It's hard to comprehend the sheer amount of generations it takes for a new species to evolve.