-
Macroevolution
“Created with Meta AI: A Comprehensive Case for Macroevolution
Drawing on evidence from multiple fields of study, we’ve assembled a robust argument for macroevolution. Explore the compelling connections between species and their shared evolutionary history:
_Fossil Record_
– Transitional fossils like Tiktaalik (fish-tetrapod) and Archaeopteryx (dinosaur-bird) show clear links between different species.
– Human ancestors like Homo erectus demonstrate a mix of primitive and advanced traits.
_Comparative Anatomy_
– Vertebrate limbs (arms, wings, flippers) share similar bone structures despite different functions.
– The pentadactyl limb pattern (five digits) is conserved across vertebrates.
– Eye structure is similar across vertebrates, with adaptations for different environments.
_Molecular Biology_
– Humans and chimpanzees share 98.8% identical DNA.
– Cytochrome c (a respiratory protein) is highly conserved across species.
– Molecular clocks confirm evolutionary relationships and estimate divergence times.
_Biogeography_
– Madagascar and India share similar species due to their shared geological past.
– The Galapagos Islands have unique species that reflect their isolation and evolutionary history.
– Continental drift explains the distribution of related species.
_Observed Evolutionary Changes_
– Laboratory experiments demonstrate evolutionary adaptations in E. coli and fruit flies.
– The London Underground mosquito evolved from an above-ground species.
– Antibiotic resistance in bacteria is an example of rapid evolutionary adaptation.
_Phylogenetic Trees_
– Cladistics and molecular phylogenetics reconstruct evolutionary relationships.
– Consistent tree-like patterns confirm evolutionary relationships across different data types.
_Vestigial Structures_
– The human appendix and wisdom teeth are vestiges of ancestral traits.
– Vestigial structures indicate evolutionary conservation.
_Embryonic Development_
– Vertebrate embryos show similar developmental stages despite differences in adult body plans.
– Pharyngeal arches form different structures (jaws, gills) in different species.
– Similar embryonic development reflects shared evolutionary history.
This comprehensive evidence set, generated with the assistance of Meta AI, demonstrates the strong support for macroevolution across various fields of study.”….
Has javed ghamidi sabh addressed all these points to proof macro evolution is false.. please go through points throughly..is it ok to believe in macroevolution as a believer.
-
9 Replies
-
Macroevolution
updated 1 week ago
4 Members
·
9
Replies
-
Ghamidi Sahab does not reject evolution.
He simply suggests that there were multiple abiogenesis events, each species have their own ancestor and there was macro and micro evolution within species.
He is against the the mainstream idea that there was a single abiogenesis event, single cell being the ancestor of all species and that species evolved into other species (at least in case of human beings).
So he accepts the evidence you listed, just different interpretation and conclusion of that evidence compared to mainstream interpretation and conclusion.
-
Macroevolution: Large-scale changes in species over time, resulting in new species and higher taxonomic groups and what I have understood is javed ghamidi sabh explicitly reject macroevolution
-
It is possible for e.g feline species to give birth to new species e.g tiger and lions are different (can’t interbreed) despite in the same parent species.
This much macroevolution is accepted. But for a fish to eventually become an ape. That’s the one he is disagrees with.
Ghamidi Sahab opinion is that the current evidence isn’t enough to prove species to species macroevolution (it takes too long to observe so mainstream idea simply reached this conclusion maybe all species came from a single species, Ghamidi Sahab doesn’t accept this part of the theory).
-
Saad Bhai my original question is very clear according to me leaving no room of doubt..I request you please let the moderator answer this to avoid any potential confusing Macroevolution is The long-term, large-scale evolutionary processes that lead to the formation of new species, higher taxa, and the diversification of life on Earth…Yes That’s correct! Macroevolution suggests that all living organisms share a common ancestor and have evolved over time through the process of natural selection and other mechanisms. This means that all life on Earth, from humans to bacteria, shares a common origin and has evolved from a single-celled ancestor. This idea is supported by various scientific evidences (some of evidences I have mentioned in the original question) and is widely accepted by the scientific community…and javed ghamidi sabh explicitly reject macroevolution what I have understood from watching his videos..please let moderators answer this as they are well versed regarding this matter.
-
As you wish @UmerQureshi @faisalharoon @codename.AJK @Irfan76
-
-
Just checked with meta Ai which perspective has higher chances of being correct. so this is what I got…..(
Both perspectives have valid points, and it’s difficult to say which one has a higher chance of being correct without further exploration and evaluation of the evidence.
Your perspective, based on the scientific consensus, supports the idea of macroevolution and a common ancestor for all species, backed by various scientific evidence from fields like biology, genetics, paleontology, and geology.
Saad’s perspective, influenced by Javed Ghamidi’s views, offers an alternative explanation, accepting microevolution and macroevolution within species but questioning the idea of a single common ancestor for all species.
To further assess which perspective has a higher chance of being correct, consider:
– Scientific consensus and evidence
– The explanatory power of each perspective
– The coherence of each perspective with other established scientific theories
– The potential for new discoveries and updates in our understanding of evolution
Engaging with scientific literature, experts, and ongoing discussions can help refine your understanding and assessment of both perspectives)..
rest moderators will clarify
-
You need comprehensive evidence to prove evolution happened. There first premise starts as : “a & b are similar hence they were same at a point of time but due to natural processes they look different”. But this a just a mere possibility.
We can also claim they just have a common designer which makes sense because god wants to prove monotheism.
Just image a theory which has foundations this weak. It just can induce laughter in the ones who know.
Also look around, every organism has all types of organs, everything performing their functions— vital and minor. How come you never see a feature without any function. Why don’t you find any harmful features? Is survival of fittest this perfect. It’s not! They used to say we have vestigial organs, now when one by one their functions are being discovered evolution are on a verge of complete collapse, but only in the minds that know.
For me evolution just proves how predictable are we as a whole. The proportion & the composition of the thought of the humans. Debate them with basic :nothing other than (like muslim traditionalists) consensus of understanding is their answer. Consciously or subconsciously they always prove their bais.
-
One more primise that they follow from is no god is or can be observed hence no god can be inserted in the scientific theories. Their nature of knowledge is different. For us god is proven but to them it’s either not clear or they reject it knowingly.
They just want to remove god from the picture and then this is what they come up with. Since they can’t accept god (I think because the scientific qiyadat doesn’t accept) so the evolution is very acceptable to them but for those who are comfortable with the concept of god their only conclusion is the rejection of it because evolution has many problems. The pro-evolutionists simply just think these problem can be solved over time although it’s absolutely unacceptable even if you can reject god somehow. Nothing can solve it.
Furthermore, non vital genes have been seen to be easily mutated which shows the intelligent design and answers why genetic variation may come in micro organisms and also could easily fix the problem of races in humans.
-
Please see for viewpoint of Ghamidi Sahab in this regard:
For discussion on the concept of Darwinian Evolution and the critique presented by Faisal Haroon Sahab, please see:
Sponsor Ask Ghamidi
