Speaker A
– Sure, should I share the presentation at the same time?
Muslim speakers critically analyze evolution, challenging its status as fact and urging rational scrutiny of its evidence.
Key Takeaways
- Evolution should not be accepted as an absolute fact without critical examination.
- The burden of proof lies with those who claim evolution is true.
- There are significant evidential and rational challenges to the theory of evolution.
- Muslims should engage confidently and rationally in discussions about evolution.
- Scientific evidence cited for evolution is often contradictory or insufficient.
Summary
- The video questions the classification of evolution as an unquestionable scientific fact.
- Speakers emphasize the importance of demanding evidence from evolution proponents rather than accepting it by default.
- They highlight the logical fallacy of assuming evolution is true before debating its validity.
- The discussion includes the burden of proof principle, where claimants must provide evidence.
- Key topics addressed include fossil records, vestigial organs, homology, natural selection, random mutations, and genetic similarities.
- Darwin’s acknowledgment of difficulties in his theory, especially the need for numerous transitional fossils, is examined.
- The speakers point out contradictions in evolutionary arguments, particularly regarding gradualism and the absence of transitional fossils.
- They encourage Muslims to confidently challenge evolution rather than defensively explaining disbelief.
- The video frames evolution as a theory with rational problems rather than an established fact.
- The overall tone promotes critical thinking and rational debate from a Muslim perspective.
Full Transcript — Download SRT & Markdown
Speaker A
– Yeah, yeah. That’s fine. Alright, بِسْمِ الله (Bismillah: In the name of God). "The theory of Evolution: Fact or Fiction." I want to say something important here: What is a "fact"? Something that we need to keep in mind.
Speaker A
Now let's leave the definitions, philosophical definition, jogging, and all of this nonsense— we're not going to get into that. Generally, when someone says something is a fact, they say that there is NO DOUBT in that thing, there's no doubt in it. We agree on it.
Speaker A
It's a fact that water is wet. We're not going to get someone in the future who's going to come and disagree on that. "You know what? No, water, I'm not really sure that water is wet, but no, it could be wet sometimes and sometimes it could not be wet."
Speaker A
A fact is a fact! What happens is this: in the scientific community, what they do is that they sell you Evolution as a fact, that there's no doubt about that. You go to universities, you’re studying in university, anything related to biology, it's already a fact. People believe Evolution is a fact.
Speaker A
What I'm going to try to demonstrate now is: is it really fact or is it the opposite of fact? Is it fiction?
Speaker A
I want to say something important; there are a group of people—just before we get started I want to make two points. First thing is that there are people who've already made up their minds. If you've made up your mind, if you were willing to actually open your mind and to listen
Speaker A
and to see what this person is going to present to me, then this kind of stream I would say is for you. If you already closed up your mind, it doesn't matter what this guy is going to say,
Speaker A
it doesn't matter what he's going to bring up, I'm not going to accept what he says, he doesn't know what he's talking about. Look at this Arab! Trying to tell me this and that! If you already made up your mind then this stream is not for you.
Speaker A
So I'm making it clear and simple for the people. I want people who are watching two minutes and then go on the comments all about this and that watch the full thing. Once you've watched the full thing, then say what you want to say.
Speaker A
The second thing I want to say is that what we need to do as Muslims is very important here. We cannot be on the back foot when it comes to Evolution. What do I mean by that?
Speaker A
Evolution is not our claim. Why are we trying to disprove something which is not our claim, to begin with?!
Speaker A
I'm saying from the beginning if you're moving from this perspective you've kind of already lost. What you need to do is to ask the other individual to demonstrate to you why this is a fact.
Speaker A
If I'm talking to someone who believes in Evolution, like other than what we're going to do today, if I'm generally talking to someone who believes in Evolution, the onus of the claim is on him. He's supposed to demonstrate to me evidence why Evolution is true. But what tends to happen...
Speaker A
That’s right! Yeah, what tends to happen in our conversations; OK! We assume Evolution is true even though we don't agree it is, and then we start defending why we don't believe in Evolution!
Speaker A
– No, no. I say that's the biggest problem that we have today!
Speaker A
– Yeah. We need to understand, look! The other person needs to come and give me evidence, they must demonstrate evidence to me, in front of my eyes, "Look, this is the evidence why Evolution is true."
Speaker A
And then, I can maybe think about refuting the evidence that he’s bringing forward, critiquing it and this and that.
Speaker A
It's like you and me starting a conversation with an atheist and then him accepting the assumption according to his worldview that God exists and then I ask him: disprove God! Would any atheist ever accept that? No! So why are we doing this?
Speaker A
– That's a good example, that's a very good example.
Speaker A
– Yeah, SubhanAllah (Glorified is God). So why are we doing that?
Speaker A
– You want to say something, yeah?
Speaker A
– No, exactly what you said. I love the way that you put it. You know if a Darwinist comes up to me and they want to put the onus on me, I'm going to say: no, the onus is on you.
Speaker A
You're the one that made the claim, I'm the one who's silent, you're the one that's claiming there is a Universal Common Ancestor. It's a blind random process. So what you did right now, I think it will give a lot of people confidence
Speaker A
because they know that they can just sit there, fold their arms, and they need to wait for the other side to give the presenting case.
Speaker A
– And all they need to do is challenge...
Speaker A
– Absolutely! And this is what I'm saying.
Speaker A
This is what we need to do from now onwards. We cannot be those people who are like "Yeah, OK! Evolution is true, let me try to explain it." You’re already defeated, man!
Speaker A
You’re already defeated, SubhanAllah. We're defeated in a battle we never started anyway. Sometimes I do that with the existence of God, but that's a different discussion for a different day. But generally, this is the idea. The person he's got to demonstrate to us why Evolution is true.
Speaker A
Now let's move on, inshaAllah (God's willing), to what we're going to talk about today.
Speaker A
– OK?
Speaker A
– Alright. We've got what we call "evidence." I'm putting it in quotation marks for a very important reason.
Speaker A
This is what people in the Darwinian field will present to you as evidence. I don't know if there's anything else that we can consider to be evidence anyways, but let's say this is the bulk of what is considered to be evidence, this is the main topic.
Speaker A
These are the most important things obviously: Fossil Record, Vestigial Organs—will go into what Vestigial Organs are if someone doesn't know—, Homology, and obviously the Natural Selection, the blind processes that happen based on your environment for survival and reproduction, etc.
Speaker A
We've got Random Mutations: the mutations happen randomly and all of this story. And then we've got similarities in genes, humans and chimpanzees and different animals with each other and all of that. Lastly, we're going to talk about some Rational Problems that we have; the Theory of Evolution as a theory.
Speaker A
And I'm going to go into an important thing later on for what I mean by the Rational Problems, OK?
Speaker A
– OK.
Speaker A
– Let's go on to the first thing, inshaAllah. The important thing is this: Darwin, when he put his theory in chapter 6 of his book, obviously here: "Origin of Species," chapter 6 "Difficulties in the theory," he put this chapter about the problems and difficulties
Speaker A
that can come up with his theory, etc. And he said something interesting here. He said: "but, as this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed." He put forward this thing which every Evolutist comes up to us with as well, I will explain why they come up to us with this idea:
Speaker A
They say that there's thousands of creatures, thousands of animals, thousands of things which have evolved over a long gradual period of time, and gradual process that took billions and millions of years.
Speaker A
Why is this important now? Because the people who will deny this today based on certain individuals, they still, when we ask them can you show us a transitional creature TODAY that has evolved?
Speaker A
They always use this excuse of Gradualism! So when it suits them they say "Oh, this takes thousands and thousands of millions of years." But when it doesn't suit them, they say "Oh yeah, we don't have to believe it, it's a long process!"
Speaker A
And I need you guys to pay very close attention too, because you will see in everything that they present there's a contradiction. They self-contradict literally in every action that they do. So Darwin here said that we need to have this massive amount of transitional fossils of transitional creatures that whenever we...
Speaker A
You see—here—different levels here obviously you've got the Cambrian, etc. All of these are the different levels in the soil, and because it was a gradual process, then when we go in the first one, we will see the latest creatures that have evolved.
Speaker A
When you go deeper and deeper, you'll find less evolved creatures? The more you go deep.
Speaker A
So, this is what the theory is, this is a general understan...
Speaker A
And what this did? It completely destroyed this idea of Gradualism! So they started to us with this idea of Gradualism. Now, no longer we can accept this idea of Gradualism.
Speaker A
They had to find the solution, how can we find deep within the Earth in that very very long period this extremely evolved "creatures"?
Speaker A
How can we explain these phenomena? How can we account for that? Then what do we find? We find someone like Stephen Jay Gould –I don't need to say who he is, I'm sure he's very well known– In his book –sorry, let's go back– in his book "The Panda's Thumb", what he says is: "It is sudden appearance of species"!
Speaker A
– Yeah! – OK, can you explain why? Can you explain how? Can you explain?
Speaker A
So what they started saying is that: "you know what? It's not that all of these things have evolved, because we found different things like Ants for example that have not evolved.." and all of that All of these different Fossils from the Cambrian period, there's no explanations for them
Speaker A
So what they did is that they shifted the goal post, they said "you know what? Some creatures will have sudden appearance, Sudden Evolution, quick sudden Evolution, while the other ones will take a gradual and transitional period", – Without giving any justifications! – Yeah
Speaker A
What is the justification? We found something that goes against our Theory, now we're going to shift and twist and change what we were saying into trying to fit this new information into our Theory!
Speaker A
OK! But this has a lot of problems, as we said they're not giving us why?
Speaker A
Not giving us reasons and evidence behind them giving this idea that OK some of them are like this and some of them are like that!
Speaker A
The second thing is how? How would an animal or a thing evolve very quickly suddenly by itself by random processes?
Speaker A
– How does that happen? – Yeah! So you were giving the excuse this is a big issue now, because they were giving the excuse of Natural Selection, this happens over a long period of time based on the environment and this and that
Speaker A
So how can you account for this very sudden perfect Evolution –if you want to use that term– that happens at a certain time suddenly?!
Speaker A
How can you account for that? How can you explain that? And what we would say is: it's impossible to explain!
Speaker A
For example, animals like giraffes, what they said is that they didn't have that long neck, they were trying to eat from the trees, so they were extending their neck, extending, extending,.. and through a gradual process their legs started stretching!
Speaker A
How ridiculous these things happen when you start to actually listen to their claims! And then it started to stretch until they started reaching the leaves and started eating from the food!
Speaker A
Now what is the problem there? Is if we assume Sudden Evolution, are you trying to say to me that the blood vessels, the bones, tissues, the heart, everything related to blood evolved suddenly all together in the perfect manner and the giraffe is not going to die?!
Speaker A
Let alone now to go to speak about the breathing system of the giraffe and all of these things, If there’s a sudden Evolution that took place, how come that all of these organs and everything in the body changes in the perfect way?
Speaker A
in the perfect time? for that creature to survive without any external factors? That's a claim I want to ask Stephen Jay Gould if he was here, I would ask him that question: Can you account for how it is possible for an animal like a giraffe, which has all of these massive changes,
Speaker A
if you look at the blood system for a giraffe, how the blood goes from the heart to the brain in all of this long neck you’d be shocked!
Speaker A
Are you telling me that, "Oh just random, chances"?! OK, this is the first thing that we want to talk about. Let's move on.
Speaker A
The first thing we said is the Cambrian Explosion, what we said here in the Cambrian Explosion is that they did not found those species with the testimony of someone like Darwin and other people They did not find those transitional creatures. If they did find them, we wouldn't have anything to contest anyways
Speaker A
We would say OK, you've got all of these different Fossils, that makes sense, now we will look into what you guys are saying.
Speaker A
But they don't have it! So what did they do? If we don't have something, what do we do?
Speaker A
Like the Christians do, some Christians they make it up! If I don't have a verse in the Bible that supports the Trinity, we will make up a verse that supports the Trinity!
Speaker A
It's the same idea with science, we don't have evidence for this idea, what we will do is that we will make up evidence for this idea So let's go on to look at some of the links in what I'd call clear cut forgeries with their own testimony,
Speaker A
and I want to say something very important: All the magazines that I'm going to put forward here are magazines that actually support Evolution What does it mean? They accept Evolution to be a fact, they are well-accepted scientific magazines in the scientific Community
Speaker A
I'm not going to bring you "Creationists", I'm not going to bring you books of people who already deny Evolution, I'm going to bring you their own testimonies about their own things. So if you're an Atheist that accepts the scientific community,
Speaker A
or you're a Muslim that wants to say what they say themselves about their own Theory, we'll go on to look one by one Let me open the first link InshaAllah, just give me one second and then let me share my screen
Speaker A
OK, I'm going to go quickly because I'm not going to go into much details, you can go later on, you guys can look at the links and go into many details of each single Fossil and why it's a forgery.
Speaker A
Let me share the screen for one second here Share screen, OK! So this is the first forgery here: This Fossil that was announced as the missing link, as possible evidence is what? Is a forgery! That's the first link
Speaker A
Let's go on to the next link, let me stop sharing my screen and let me share another link.
Speaker A
I don't want to go into too much into these different.. because I have so many honestly, so many examples. OK, reject all Piltdown Man Infamous what? "Piltdown Man Infamous FAKE FOSSIL"!
Speaker A
And all of these things that they talk about here, they were using as evidence!
Speaker A
If you open the scientific textbooks, you'll find these things "claimed to be evidence for Evolution", right?
Speaker A
– Yeah – OK, let's go to a third link. We're going to talk about even Lucy, a little bit more in details as well, but let's talk about Lucy quickly now Lucy.. OK, I don't know it's always these cookies everywhere!
Speaker A
So, "Baboon Bone Found In Famous Lucy Skeleton", if anyone knows about the Lucy Skeleton, we're going to talk about it in depth as well. Baboon bones are found in it right?
Speaker A
Now coming back to the slide, let's come back to the slides for a second.
Speaker A
Yes, So all of these are articles saying the same things, I'm going to save you the time.
Speaker A
Some of the.. Look, why the Fossil is not the missing link, you can find even in the link of the thing says some statements about these things So all of these are talking about the same thing, all of it are forgeries.
Speaker A
We have an example here, Science Magazine claiming that there was a specific thing in the end; it's a Pig Toot.
Speaker A
They draw the actual creature, a whole creature based on one tooth! They drew an actual creature saying that that creature was called X, Y and Z, he was walking on, going around here, he's doing X, Y and Z
Speaker A
– And in the end "oh! sorry we discovered it's a Pig tooth!" – Yeah!
Speaker A
Let me actually open that link, let me open that link for a second. So, it is like..
Speaker A
It is honestly embarrassing, that's what I would say. What those people do when we find their mistakes, they try to even justify it in a different way, like for example look he say: "Apparently, Not A Man Nor An Ape" but you're claiming it is a man and an Ape! It is the missing link and all of that
Speaker A
So what happened now? Let's come back, let's open the slides again sorry! – Yeah – OK, this is another example here, this.
Speaker A
There was a part of a skull that they found and they drew a whole picture again and all of that, and they said it’s transitional creatures, etc.
Speaker A
– In the end it was a skull of a Donkey! – Haha.. By the way.. And there were even books mocking that magazines, putting a man holding a sticker with a Donkey head, mocking them, mocking the scientific claims that this was a transitional creature between Human beings, etc.
Speaker A
So it's a skull of a Donkey and they called it "The discovery of the century at that time"!
Speaker A
Which shows how these people use all of these false evidences to try to justify, as if they have evidence for what they say, when in reality they got nothing supporting what they say.
Speaker A
We've got Haeckel's Drawings. If you speak to someone today –as I said to you– someone who's a little bit well learned about Evolution, and this and that, If you talk to them about Haeckel's Drawings, all he's going to say to you "oh this is a long time ago, disputing, and this and that!"
Speaker A
– That's what they say, but these are used in medical textbooks – Yeah! Until 2013, this link I have is showing you how many textbooks used them up to 2013, Even though this idea was refuted in 1909, so Darwin's time!
Speaker A
So this idea was refuted in Darwin's time to be forgeries, but they're still using it today in scientific textbooks, medical textbooks until 2013 Are you now coming saying to me that they did not know this basic information?
Speaker A
That me someone who's not specialised in the medical field knows? So I know that this is a forgery, but the people who are Doctors, Professors that are writing books, medical fields, Professors teaching students, they don't know that this is a forgery?
Speaker A
And they still have it in their medical textbooks?! Or is it that they know, but they don't care!
Speaker A
Or is it that they know this is fake, but they don't care and they want to push forward whatever they believe in?
Speaker A
There are other ideas that we have of the Human tail, that say Humans are born with tails, and these tales used to be from Apes and from all of these different types of animals And in the end, it is a disease called "Lipoma" and there are many different names for that specific disease,
Speaker A
it's a skin disease where you have an extra part of the skin coming out, - Right? - Yeah So what is it that I'm trying to show here, is when they do not have evidence for something– because they worship this thing as a religion, that's why I compare them with Christianity,
Speaker A
they worship it to be a religion and their idea and their understanding this is like a religion, So if I don't have evidence for something that I already believe in, then I will make up evidence to support what I believe,
Speaker A
- OK? - Yeah And I'll try to maybe InshaAllah comment with my channel for all of these links.
Speaker A
There are so many links there, so I'll try to gather all of these links for the people one by one, and then people can look at, if they want to look at InshaAllah.
Speaker A
Now moving on to what we’d call Fictional Characters. But first I want to ask this question, maybe you can tell me, maybe if you know this common knowledge, Do you know when they say it is the first appearance of Homo-Sapiens? How long ago? Do you know?
Speaker A
– Well, our species they would say around 200,000 years – 200,000 years, right! 195 and 5 give or take which is what you just said so this is what they say.
Speaker A
This is the common knowledge brother Subboor, this is what people are spreading If you go to a person, this is what they will say to you but we'll move on now to talk about this a bit by bit
Speaker A
Well I'm going to say also why I'm calling them Fictional Characters but not now So Nature Magazine Research is what you said here: earliest appearance is 195, give or take 5 years it's in this article by Nature Now we have a next article here by Nature. Actually, let me open this article,
Speaker A
we have a next article that I want to look at here, let me share my screen sorry, apologise.
Speaker A
– We said what? 200 – Yeah! – Now they found one that is 300,000 years – Yeah, yeah in Morocco Now what do they say? "Moroccan Fossil Rearranges Homo-Sapiens Tree''. So what they found..
Speaker A
By the way, these 200 years that they had –let me close this for a second–, These 200 years Gap that they have, they have the whole Family Tree based on it! So in the day..
Speaker A
Now we have to understand the significances of these changes that I'm putting forward now It's not as simple as OK yeah it was 200 and going to be 300. No no! The whole Theory is based on that The whole Evolution of the Human is based on that, because they have this Gradualism and they have these periods,
Speaker A
this person was in this specific period of time, this animal transitions from here to there, it gradually evolved in this specific way So it's not just simple changes, this has to rearrange the whole Family Tree!
Speaker A
So they said 300 000 years. Let's move on to the next thing that they say,.. let me share my screen So it's not 300,000 years actually it's according to this is the first Europeans remains in Spain.
Speaker A
It is actually 780,000 years, so what do we have to do now? More rearranging!
Speaker A
– What do we have to do? We have to rearrange again! – It's Musical Chairs Yes! It's Musical Chairs. This chair doesn’t fit here, let’s bring another chair!
Speaker A
OK, let me share another example. Another example! And people don't talk about these things because they only talk about the 200 years, this is what they teach in Universities, this is what they talk to students about, this is the old information that they still recycling until today.
Speaker A
Let’s share screen again another face.. look how they're putting it! Look how they're trying to beautify it!
Speaker A
"Another Face In Our Family Tree" actually it's dated to 3.5 million years ago! So it's just "Another" Face In Our Family Tree, they're trying to put it in a way as if: You know what?
Speaker A
There are no issues in that, we don't have a problem, we were just telling you this..
Speaker A
And the reality is not this! but OK. Let's do another one because I want to read a little bit of what it says here as well, –let’s share screen- "The Oldest Member Of The Human Family Found" Voilà! Now let's.. look, "Toumaï is the tip of the Iceberg on that could sink our current ideas about Human Evolution"
Speaker A
It's not me saying that it's the guy who found it, so I think.. says Wood, yeah?
Speaker A
It's not me I'm not saying that "anybody who thinks this isn't going to get more complex isn’t learning from history!" - Right? - Yeah "When I went to medical school in 1963, Human Evolution looked like a ladder" He says "the ladder stopped from Monkey to man through a progression of intermediates each slightly less Ape-like"
Speaker A
"Now Human Evolution looks like a bush!" Haha.. OK! "We have a menagerie of Fossil hominids in the group" So what is he trying to say here? What is he trying to say? He's trying to say "OK we had.."
Speaker A
"When I went to University we had this Family Tree, now because of all of these things that people are trying to avoid," because, he says: "that you cannot avoid this, you cannot escape this, this is.. don't think this is not an issue", this is what he's saying
Speaker A
Someone who believes in Evolution was propagating Evolution, he himself is telling you this is an issue, He himself is telling you this is rearranging all of what we had, as you said, Musical Chairs, we rearranging everything.
Speaker A
So first we found a problem with the idea of the Fossil Record, they make it up If they have any idea which is a contradiction, they change the premises, they change whatever they used to believe in into something completely different; and they claim as if; Oh there is no issues!
Speaker A
Now this is another example of Nature Magazine, 1.8 million we found a Human hand Bone 1.8 million, so it's not 200 years, it's not 300, it's not 780, it's not 3.5, it's not 6.7 ..
Speaker A
And also in Asia, because some of them are saying all of these ones are found in Africa.
Speaker A
No! there is in Asia, there is a Chinese Bone that is found that is also older, that is in the link that I put forward So what we have here is fictional stories or fictional trees or fictional and transitional creatures in fictional times,
Speaker A
that they put forward to the people, and they start drawing and they start rearranging for you one by one telling you Look! this is now the tree of the Human Family!
Speaker A
I think the tree of Pokemons has been rearranged less than this! This is what I would say, this would be rearranged more than these people rearrange, let's move on to the next fictional characters.
Speaker A
We have here fictional characters, I'm not going to even bother to read the first name, that's why they called it Lucy they changed the name from that name to Lucy!
Speaker A
So those are the 4 main ones that they use today, they moved away from most of the other ones, and now they focus on those 4 main ones: Homo Habilis, Homo Erectus, Homo Neanderthalensis and Lucy.
Speaker A
So Lucy here, there is an article from Science Daily it says, actually, it has an Ape-like brain, and the rest of the bones that they have, they actually collected from different things, collecting a bone from here, a bone from there, a bone from a different country,
Speaker A
and then assembling them together to try to have a Human looking-like creature that evolved from something Today you can do that, you can bring a little head of a monkey and a hand of a Human being, a tale of a rat,
Speaker A
and then gather them together and say that this was a creature that was evolving!
Speaker A
So they themselves say actually: No, that's not from Homo-Sapien Tree, that's actually it has an Ape-like brain.
Speaker A
We move to the Homo Habilis, the same thing Ape-like bones, we move on to the Homo Erectus, it's the same thing..
Speaker A
There's a link here that talks about sinking the Homo Erectus, it's a whole research showing you how the Homo Erectus is sinking because it's from "erect/erecting", so they're even making fun about it, they're even mocking their own evidences!
Speaker A
So it’s sinking, there is no evidence for the Homo Erectus as people are claiming, and here in this Nature Article, it says to you it could be from Homo Sapiens actually, it could be included in Homo Sapiens' Tree. It's not really Homo Erectus, this is actually from the Tree of the Homo Sapiens.
Speaker A
You look at another research; actually, let's open this last one in Life Science, let me open this one.
Speaker A
We can look at it for a second, because I want to read some of the phrases that they have in there, and I want everyone to bear with me by the way, I know.. I'm going to present you a lot of things,
Speaker A
but the point I want to do is this; is I don't want to leave to anyone excuses, later on coming and saying: OK but what about this? But what about that?
Speaker A
I'm going to give you a crazy amount of forgeries, a crazy amount of lies, a crazy amount of what they claim to be the evidence, how they themselves admit that it's not evidence for anything and they still come to you trying to convince you that this is some sort of an accepted fact!
Speaker A
Let's look here, sharing this one, "Homo Erectus Facts About The 'Upright Man' " let's look at the facts that they say No, thank you..
Speaker A
OK! I want to say something important here, let me see the part I want to talk about OK (Compared with the modern Homo Sapiens.. 200,000 years Homo Erectus or 'Upright Man' had longer range ..) Oh yeah! but what I wanted to say is this:
Speaker A
– Do you see this part called lineage? – Yeah I opened the same link a while ago, this part here called "lineage" was in the beginning, but what they did is they took this part and they changed it with this, I'll tell you why,
Speaker A
because you're going to start reading now what it says, why did they remove it from the beginning of the research?
Speaker A
Because they don't want people to be reading this in the beginning: "The Lineage and Evolutionary History of Homo Erectus and other Homo Sapiens is unclear, and it has been muddied further by recent funds.
Speaker A
Homo Erectus was once thought to have first evolved from an earlier Human ancestor, known as the Homo Habilis somewhere in East Africa" Is the start of it, OK, false information!
Speaker A
"However there is much disagreement about whether these populations are actually Homo Erectus, confusing matters more after analysing the new skull. Scientists also do not agree about Homo Erectus is directed.." I can go on and on, the point is that they don't want that to be in the first page,
Speaker A
because if that is in the first page, what you see is just further confusion upon further confusion, So let's close this page, let's go back to the research, and I'm sure people have heard these names.
Speaker A
This is what Atheists come up with talking to you about; they assume they existed.
Speaker A
I've seen you talking to maybe an Atheist who believes in Evolution. He starts mentioning these names to you as if they’re facts – Right or wrong? – (right) Since they've actually done that, and they've actually learned it, OK, but this is what your Nature Magazines are saying!
Speaker A
– Yeah! – This is what your own research is saying. Now the Homo.. I'm not going to even mention the name, I'm not going to be bothered The last one this is called "the demise.." –of that whatever that specie is called– it's the demise of it
Speaker A
It's the research here showing how it is demised, it is 151 research reviewed put in that research that I'm putting for you, showing you how that is the demise now of this idea of the existence of the Homo Neanderthalensis, etc. whatever they're called
Speaker A
But the point is this; if you go to any University today, they are teaching you these things are facts Yeah They're not teaching you that these things are not.. are contested, they're confusing, they actually "oh these are not bones of Humans, they're actually bones of Apes", they're not actually
Speaker A
What we used to say to you, it's not actually true, and all of these fictional drawings are movies that they make Literally movies, there's a movie about Lucy that the Baboon skeleton now a day There's a whole movie about it, showing you how she used to live and what she used to do,
Speaker A
And all of that is coming from an Ape brain, and a collection of different Fossils from different animals from different things!
Speaker A
Now these fictional characters, why am I calling them "fictional characters"? Because they literally are!
Speaker A
Imagine constructing a full character from a TOOTH that later on, you found that it's a PIG TOOTH!
Speaker A
and you have this fictional character come; even children they have less imagination than this to be honest, Even DC movies and all of that, they are more plausible than these things that they're putting forward to be honest, They're more plausible! Let's move on
Speaker A
Now we have something called Vestigial Organs. What's Vestigial Organs? Vestigial Organs –and I want to say something important here– Vestigial Organs is the claim that there are organs that are useless, They're not useful for survival and reproduction, they're not useful for that animal because they're left over from a previous ancestor.
Speaker A
Like for example if me; I had a tail for example –yeah seriously tail– is not helping me survive and reproduction, but actually it's coming from previous ancestors that's why it's still there. So that is the claim!
Speaker A
Now the first thing I want to put forward and it's a very important thing to look at when it comes to this idea of Vestigial Organs, It is based on circular reasoning. Why is it based on circular reasoning?
Speaker A
That's very important to look at now, because they claim these Organs are Vestigial, they're useless.
Speaker A
Why? Because Evolution is true! And Evolution says that all Organs must be used for Survival and Reproduction.
Speaker A
Because Evolution is true, they’re Vestigial Organs. And because they’re Vestigial Organs, they’re evidence that Evolution is true!
Speaker A
– Hahaha.. – No, I want you to look at this circular.. – People don't think about that, but this is circular reasoning literally! – Yeah yeah Do you get what I'm trying to say? They say the Vestigial Organs are evidence for Evolution!
Speaker A
– I'm not making this claim, they make this claim. – Yeah Let's read it here: "Why Evolution is true?" by Jerry A Coyne. He has it on page:60. What does he say?
Speaker A
He says: "We Humans have vestigial features PROVING that we evolved. The most famous is the Appendix." Which by the way I just put the research from 2018, showing how it is very useful.
Speaker A
In fact there is a research under, saying "How Appendix Could Save Your Life!" How it actually saves you from certain diseases that’d kill you, but the point is that this is circular reasoning!
Speaker A
They're claiming they're Vestigial because Evolution is true and they're Vestigial therefore they're proving Evolution is true!
Speaker A
How are we not challenging this nonsense, you know! Are we allowing this nonsense to go by?
Speaker A
So that's the first thing I want to say; this is circular reasoning. Now the claims that they make are also lies, like the Appendix for example is a claim.
Speaker A
Another claim is the Inverted Retina in the Eye, which is very sophisticated, very useful and I'm putting the research here showing you how it is super useful for the Human eye and then you've got someone like Richard Dawkins in his book "The Blind Watchmakers" claiming it's useless,
Speaker A
As evidence for Evolution, because it's a Vestigial Organ according to him. You've got the Whale Pelvic Bones –and I want to say something very important–, we've got research..
Speaker A
That link that I put, we've got a research 150 years ago, brother Subboor, saying that they are useful for mating!
Speaker A
And then we have a book today "Biology" By Ravens and Johnson, taught in Universities 2017 Edition still has the information!
Speaker A
My question is: can you please tell me –I already mentioned one example like this– but can you please tell me; have they missed a research that has been done?
Speaker A
What even that research I'm putting now that is reasons they're quoting that research from 150 years ago?
Speaker A
Are you telling me those professors in Universities who are supposed to be editing these books, teaching them to students, they do not know that there is 150 years ago research Showing how these Pelvic Bones are actually used for mating for the whales?
Speaker A
Therefore they're no longer -as they claim- Vestigial Organs? 2017 this book is being taught in Universities and you've got someone like Richard Dawkins he's claiming "Oh look! this is evidence for Evolution" You got Stephen Jay Gould, he is saying the same thing!
Speaker A
All the people that you see, you hear, the biggest names propagating Evolution, If you open their books these are the things they're using Brothers and sisters, I'm not bringing you something from last century, I'm bringing you what they write in their books, claiming this is evidence for Evolution
Speaker A
And I'm bringing you their own Magazines showing you how these "evidence" are actually not evidence and how they're lying, ignoring a research 150 years ago completely as if it doesn't exist, completely!
Speaker A
Now, let me open this link to show you an example of what they say, let me open one more link.
Speaker A
Sorry, OK! Let me get to where I stopped. OK! Let's open this link here. So many links to open for you guys, but I don't want to keep this for thousands and thousands of years and by the way this..
Speaker A
I want to be honest, this is not in-depth research that I put forward by the way.
Speaker A
I organised this because brother Subboor recently just told me that he wants me to come on.
Speaker A
I literally organised all of this today, in few hours I put everything together. If you really want me to put an in-depth research of the amount of lies that these people put forward, I can do that But Wallahi (By God) this is just a few hours today. Wallahi I've done this today!
Speaker A
I can go into the dates showing you me putting all of this information today, This is not an in-depth research brothers and sisters, this is a basic surface level showing you how these people are lying OK! Let's go here and share this thing. Let me show you one thing here, interesting!
Speaker A
I want to show you what they're saying, OK? What they say "Whale Reproduction: It's All In The Hips" New study "New study" look! We already said 150 years ago, there is information about this "New study that turns a long accepted Evolutionary assumption on its head"
Speaker A
That's what they're saying brothers and sisters, this is not what I'm saying, this is what they're saying in their Magazines, It's saying it's turning this Evolutionary assumption, while 150 years ago I'm telling you this information has been already..
Speaker A
People have been sleeping and they know this information you know! The actual professors know this nonsense.
Speaker A
Now we've got another example of Snakes (Pythons) You got a book "Essentials Of Biology" again taught in Universities, 2018 Edition!
Speaker A
There's a research 50 years ago, already showing how– what they call the Handlimps are actually hooks used for fighting and mating by the Pythons, while they will claim to you today in 2018, in their books, and what you learn at University,
Speaker A
Probably some people watching this, they might be learning in the University I want you to open your Textbooks that you're learning from, and you go to the page of Vestigial Organs, and you will see these things I'm telling you about in these books in 2018!
Speaker A
40 years ago there's a research that debunked that, but they're still lying in 2018 in their books claiming that you know what! This is evidence. This is Vestigial Organs You've got Penguin Wings, you've got the Ostrich Wings, I could go on and on
Speaker A
The point is; as I said, I just collected some of them. I don't want to go into extensive detail The point is anything that they will claim is Vestigial Organs, there is a function for it, and there is a research demonstrating that there is a function for it, but they will lie and they will still claim this is evidence
Speaker A
Like I just showed you Jerry A. Coyne in his book "Evolution Is True" claiming to you the famous– He says the most famous is the Appendix!
Speaker A
He's claiming –this is the famous that people are sharing– that the Appendix is useless and I've already got research showing you that it can save your life!
Speaker A
By their own Nature Magazines!.. Let's move on. Now we've got something here called Homology –maybe some people have heard about Homology or not but OK– What is the idea of Homology?
Speaker A
Homology is the idea that the similarities between creatures in anatomy are due to common descent Is this my claim? No, I'm bringing you what they say in their books "Essentials Of Biology", 2018 Edition, p:247 They say "the unity of anatomy is EVIDENCE of Common Ancestor" I'm not saying that, they're saying that in their books,
Speaker A
And they say here "Homologous structures suggest common derivation" So they're claiming that "Biology By Raven & Johnson", Essentials Of Biology, 2018) These are recent things, I'm not claiming something from the last century That means what? The more similar the creatures are, the closer they are in relation.
Speaker A
Am I correct in my understanding brother Subboor? Doesn't that mean the closer they are in the looks based on this information –You're muted by the way if you want to say something– yeah go ahead Yes, sorry I was muted. You're in a flow and I don't want to stop you but
Speaker A
– Yeah, yeah no problem – Because you know when you get going – Absolutely, I appreciate that a lot – I mean..
Speaker A
– what you're saying so far is the conceit way to explain these points – Alhamdulillah (All praise is due to God) – Because the deeper you get it, can actually get more confusing – Absolutely – But that's the crux of it what you just explained – OK, Kheir inshaAllah (that's good, God willing)
Speaker A
Let's move on to the next point So here what do we have? Can you sorry spell these two? because it's easier for me to say المشيميات and الجرابيات – Can you spell the two on the top? – Yeah, Marsupials and Placentals this is a..
Speaker A
– Can you explain to the people the difference between the two? – OK, so you have two different types of Mammals here, And these are geographically distinct, you get some in remote parts of the world which are completely unrelated to the others,
Speaker A
Yet they have similarities in terms of their traits and anatomical features which to the untrained eye, you would say these two creatures are related but it's actually according to them Independent Convergent Evolution It's not actually due to Common Ancestry and that totally smashes this idea that similarities are due to Common Descent
Speaker A
– Absolutely – Because we have to remember, everything goes back to Concepts So, its similarities are due to Common Descent, that means that differences must be due to Separate Ancestry, And that means if there's similarities that are found that are not due to Common Descent, then that undermines their entire thesis!
Speaker A
This is something I funnily enough had a debate yesterday with SkyDivePhil in the Park, because they don't tell us about these probabilities, they don't tell us about the assumptions that they're making, because the fact is, if you start off with assumptions, whatever conclusions you make, are going to be based upon those assumptions
Speaker A
So a lot of these examples that you're actually giving; these examples only go on to highlight the assumptions that they have in the beginning, why they're erroneous.
Speaker A
But even if, Mohammed, you never had these examples, it would not change the conclusions that we're currently arriving at!
Speaker A
Absolutely! and the basic difference between these two types of animals is for example Kangaroos They have the baby, they still hold it in the sack and then it still feeds and comes back until it's ready to come out,
Speaker A
While other animals will give birth and that animal will be able to go by itself and after the birth is given.
Speaker A
So that's the difference between these two types of animals and they look the same Now the same book that I quoted "Biology By Raven & Johnson" in the previous page that said to us here that these Homologous structures are evidence for Common Descent, the same book has given you an image of others
Speaker A
that look exactly the same, but it claims that they're not from Common Descent! What bigger contradictions can you have, reading this book?!
Speaker A
I don't know how people are opening these books, reading them and they're not realising "You know what man! what's going on here?" "In the previous page is telling me the more they look similar, the more evidence that they are from Common Descent"
Speaker A
"the picture they gave me later on, oh they look exactly the same but you know what? They're not actually from Common Descent!" You've got all of these pictures that I put here.
Speaker A
The picture next to it showing you where they separate it, so according to them.. go ahead No, I just wanted to add to that point that the same problem –that you just highlighted– exists at the genetic level You get sequences which are so similar
Speaker A
– I’m going to come to that – Yeah, OK – No, I prepared beautiful things for them today, don't worry! – MashaAllah! (what God has willed!) OK, moving on. Now look! First, they said to us what? Similarities are due to Common Descent
Speaker A
We gave them an example that Homology doesn't work and they're lying and that's what most laymen think "Oh these two things look the same therefore.." that's what the guy was saying to me in the video if you watch it;
Speaker A
"oh they look the same, therefore they're from Common Descent" that's what laymen think as evidence So they say to us similarities are due to Common Descent. In the same book they contradict themselves!
Speaker A
Moving on now, we said similarities are due to Common Descent. We've got this research from "Nature" showing you how they separated 160 million years ago, those two types of animals and that they're close to be ratted because they separated a long time ago.
Speaker A
The question is why are they Homologous? They cannot find an explanation, so they make up a new thing they call it Convergent Evolution. We've got the solution now!
Speaker A
The answer to that question it's actually not just similarities are due to Common Descent, but some animals, because of the environment they will evolve to look like other animals even though they're not from Common Ancestry!
Speaker A
So which one is it? Are similarities due to Common Descent? Or are animals based on their environment, looking the same as other animals, because the environment shaped them to be this way?
Speaker A
The answer is "oh some animals are like this, some animals are like that. Sorry, we found this problem, So now we're going to make this new Theory and we're going to call it Convergent Evolution! There you go, OK?
Speaker A
Now we move on. We say to them OK what about the Bats and Whales?
Speaker A
They're not Homologous in their anatomy, in their outside structure, and they are from different environments.
Speaker A
The conclusion according to what you said to me is because this environment or structure that they are closely related, why are they similar according to your own testimony? Why are they similar? Why do they have this Echolocation system?
Speaker A
Both of them functioning the same way in these two different things, one is a land animal, one is a sea animal?
Speaker A
Can you explain this to me? Can you give us an explanation of how to kind of reconcile between these things?
Speaker A
They said "oh yeah, there is actually a new type of Convergent Evolution that you'll find in this research down here where actually you can get these types of similarities between animals, even though they're not from the same environment, and even though that they're not a Homologous in their shapes!
Speaker A
How long are you going to be moving the goalpost? You took the goalpost with you home literally!
Speaker A
I don't know what you're going to do with the goalpost anymore and we asked the question: Why are animals similar to Bats living in similar environments; did not develop the Ecosystem?
Speaker A
Why is it only the Whales that do that, while the animals that live around the same environments, as the Bats and they are similar to it did not develop that same equal Location-System? Can you explain that to us?
Speaker A
What we see is what? They keep contradicting themselves every two seconds. Is that it? No no, that's not it, we’re not done. Let's move on They got something that we call the what? The Cichlid Fish.
Speaker A
The Cichlid Fish is a very interesting example, why? Because it's not just two animals that look alike, That you can explain "oh just similar environments". No! It's one fish, one animal that produces different species, that are exactly identical to the same type of fish in a different lake, in a different environment!
Speaker A
Two minutes ago you're telling me there's something called Convergent Evolution, that can explain two animals that look similar, and this and that.
Speaker A
OK what about now one producing different fish in different environments, in different lakes that are almost identical!
Speaker A
How can you explain that? How can you explain that by Blind Natural Selection? And blind processes that you claim are not directed, and they happen by themselves because of Evolution the animal tries to survive before it happens?
Speaker A
So how can you explain this happening to us? What did they say? And you name Parallel Evolution!
Speaker A
The answer to that question is that some of these fishes, there is something new called "Parallel Evolution"!
Speaker A
And when Parallel Evolution happens, this takes place. But actually, the interesting thing that they said; Is that in that research, they said to you it's not just Random Blind Natural Selection, it is a guided one!
Speaker A
That research I'm putting for you here in the Nature Magazine, they will say to you "Developmental bias and natural selection work together rather than selection being free to transverse over any physical possibility, it is guided along specific routes"
Speaker A
My question is guided by who? Who is Guiding this Natural Selection? And they just put a fancy name "Parallel Evolution", and they say to you that it has to be guided, And they don't give you an explanation. Who's guiding it?! Who's guiding that fish to produce the same exact species?
Speaker A
almost identical to the same other fish that is in a completely different location? that you claim to us it is based on your environment, you have the Evolution taking place?
Speaker A
Come on! What are you guys saying?! I don't know how these people.. I mean SubhanAllah (Glory is due to God), I don't know how these people.. They can come with a straight face and say to you Evolution is a fact! I seriously don't know!
Speaker A
OK, moving on. They have something called Random Mutations. What they claim is that Mutations are random. This is a whole list here of research showing you how Mutations are not random.
Speaker A
Let's go through some of them, them telling you themselves –not by people who are Creationists– who believe in Evolution.
Speaker A
This research is in Nature.. by people who believe Evolution is already true. Let's go to showing you some of the how these Mutations that they claim to be random, are nowhere near being random.
Speaker A
If you open this.. let me share my screen, I'll give you one example. OK! Research here, published by Nature. 791 citations, you can go into it, it talks to you about the origins of Mutations, and how they're not random, how they're not Random Mutations.
Speaker A
So an example, let me show you another example Let me open this one sorry, Let me present my screen again.
Speaker A
OK, "New Study", new study! it's 2000 what? 2022 by Harry Baker, 2022. "New study proves.." First, the claim, but we're going to prove that now; that it’s not..
Speaker A
I just showed you a research before it that's showing the opposite to that, "first evidence of non-Random Mutations in DNA", It's not the first, but this is the lie that they will bring for you, is this is just recent research last year literally! It was just in February.
Speaker A
What else? Let me show you this– By the way the same research that I just showed you which is the research of the fish, Cichlid fish, in that same research they will say to you that– here, I put it here
Speaker A
"variation is not random" that they will claim to you that's random, I already told you is guided So, it's not Random Mutation, it's not Blind Natural Selection. All of it is guided, it's not random.
Speaker A
Let's see here, let's watch this video of Dennis Noble. Who knows what Dennis Noble is? Do you know who Dennis Noble is, brother Subboor?
Speaker A
– You know? Can you tell us just a brief, – Yeah! – You can even.. Yes, go ahead – I’m just going to briefly describe him..
Speaker A
But just before that sorry, I keep muting myself, I don't want to.. you know because when someone..
Speaker A
– Yeah, it’s ok I appreciate it – Yeah With Dennis Noble before I introduce him I just wanted to say that I actually sent him an Email, because he's really into music and this type of things. So, I said to him that here is something for you to listen to,
Speaker A
– and it's actually the Call To Prayer – SubhanAllah the Adhan – Is actually the beautiful Adhan that someone did – MashaAllah and he was so moved by it! So you know some of these Academics, they're so much into dry boring stuff,
Speaker A
That sometimes, you have to give them.. you don't even have to give them like deep Da'wah, I just gave him this thing – Yes! – And he listened to it So anyway, about Dennis Noble, Dennis Noble is an Anti-Darwinian Evolutionist
Speaker A
Now this is hard for people to believe, like what on Earth is an Anti-Darwinian Evolutionist?
Speaker A
He's basically someone that doesn't accept the modern synthesis, he doesn't accept this idea of neo-Darwinism and its many assumptions He's actually said neo-Darwinism in terms of most of its assumptions has actually failed.
Speaker A
And he is a professor at Oxford University, he's challenged Richard Dawkins to a debate which he didn't actually accept.
Speaker A
Dennis Noble from my understanding –and this is on the public record as well– He is not a Christian, he's not a Muslim, he doesn't actually believe in any religion, yet he is somebody that is well respected And as you pointed out, he's against this idea that Random Mutations along with Selection can create the biodiversity that we actually have.
Speaker A
He considers the mechanism to be insufficient and therefore he's pushing out the ideas like the ones that you're just speaking of, by actually challenging the modern synthesis And I want to say one very important thing, he still believes in Evolution.
Speaker A
That's what I want people to keep in mind, we're not bringing you –again– I said to you I'm not going to bring you Creationists!
Speaker A
So I could come and say to you this guy is a Creationist, he’s a well-respected Academic, as you said at Oxford University taught many different things, he invented even certain things.. I don't even have them now If you just Google his name, you'll see he's inventing new things. Even people are using mathematical formats and this and that
Speaker A
You can go into the research that he's done, and all the inventions that he made – But let's listen to what he says. – Yeah!
Speaker A
Let's listen to what he says, let me share my screen and it's a very quick and short and beautiful as they say video I want everyone to confirm if you can hear the voice, OK?
Speaker A
So this is what? This is an.. International Conference that happened in China, and he was speaking in that International Conference, it happened in 2012.
Speaker A
Let's just make sure that everyone is hearing. OK can people hear? I want to see; is the people in the chat.. if you can hear? I think they can hear isn't it?
Speaker A
– Can everyone hear? – They should be able to hear yeah OK, let's play the video then, let’s see what he says: "It's difficult, if not impossible, to find a genome change operator that is truly random in its action
Speaker A
within the DNA of a cell all careful studies of Mutagenesis find statistically significant non-random patterns of change" OK, he says what? All research– this is not a guy that is going to come out and say something, and people are going to allow him to say, I want people to keep that in mind he's saying "ALL research",
Speaker A
Put that in your mind very well, they all have patterns, there is no such thing as Random Mutations, If an idiot comes to you and says to you it is Random Mutation; just show him that video.
Speaker A
So there's no such thing as Random Mutations. Let's listen to what he says: "So my first conclusion is this: not only is Mutation not random, that was one of the essential assumptions of the Neo-Darwinian synthesis but proteins, at least some of them, did not evolve via gradual accumulation of Mutations"
Speaker A
OK! So, he refutes what? He refutes gradual accumulation when it comes to proteins, – and he refutes any idea called Random Mutations in the Genes – Yeah!
Speaker A
So there is no such thing as Random Mutation. And as I said to you, any idiot comes to you and says to you there's Random Mutations, He's an idiot who did not study the research, and I already put 3 links here, you don't believe me? I just put you 4 links!
Speaker A
Couple of them are from.. one of them is from Life Science, a couple of them from Nature, these are all accepted scientific Magazines, all of them are of people who support Evolution, it's not from Creationists.
Speaker A
Now the question is; directed by WHO? Would they ever say directed by God? That's an impossibility in the scientific field.
Speaker A
So what do they say? It's actually directed by cells! In the first research I showed to you here, that I said to you by Nature, the first one, The claim is; actually, the cells are smart and intelligent and that's how prior to their creation,
Speaker A
they already had these Codes of how to be organised, and they started functioning on them after their creation What an idiotic thing to say!
Speaker A
Some others they'd say to you, it's microbes. Actually there's a– and they've invented a new term Called "Microbial Intelligence"! "You know what? These microbes are intelligent and they know how to have these mutations" "These mutations happening because microbes are smart."
Speaker A
Another research says to you –by Nature– is bacteria! Bacteria is intelligent and you’ve got intelligent bacteria and that's how it's guided.
Speaker A
What kind of.. who buys these things? Who literally listens to this nonsense and says Evolution is true?
Speaker A
Who listens to this rubbish and says that Evolution is true? OK, let's move on from that Let's move into the Genes now, let's go to the pool of the Genes.
Speaker A
We already spoke about Random Mutations and how it doesn't exist, let's go a little bit to some research talking about Genes and Genetic Similarities.
Speaker A
This research I put here which is by the NationalLibraryOfMedicine.Gov well accepted, there is no doubt about it, everyone hears about it 98.80% identical between Human and Chimpanzees Everyone hears this research, right or wrong? If you speak to anyone in the basic..
Speaker A
Even Laymen, if you go to them and you say to them they’re 99% or 98%, they'll all say to you yeah, they’re 98 or 99% identical.
Speaker A
The question is now are Humans and Chimpanzees actually 98.8% identical? Is that claim true?
Speaker A
How do we understand this? By going into the methodology that these people use to come up with this conclusion of 98.8% identical, – And I want people to pay close attention with me. Yes? Go ahead – Can I just say something?
Speaker A
Just before we get into that, I just want everybody watching to just be aware of something, which is super important Mohammed is going to go over the reasons why the comparison of 98% is misleading, and it's lying, by omission, and this is well known and established.
Speaker A
However, I want to give a counterfactual; what if it's not 98.8%? What if it's a 100% or 99.99%? And they're not wrong, similarities in of themselves do not prove anything, you need a transformation being done by a mechanism, and you need the origination probability being close to Zero
Speaker A
Without these two things, even if the similarity was even closer than 98.8%, it would make no difference to the claim between Human-Chimp ancestry being true, or actually being false, because you need the background information to do that.
Speaker A
So just as the upshot of what I'm saying is: similarities simply mean similarities, They don't mean anything else, unless you have a background assumptions Absolutely! And as a simple example I make to that guy, all IPhones look the same, they are from the same manufacturer
Speaker A
Yeah! Just because two things are identical, does not change this idea that "you know what? We don't want to go into specific details Let's go to the Genes now, let's talk about the Genes.
Speaker A
In that research; why is that research highly problematic or sorry why its conclusion is highly problematic?
Speaker A
I'm going to go into details now. First you can open a book, it's called "Bioinformatics And Functional Genomics".
Speaker A
This is what is taught in Universities, I'm not bringing you my own thing, this is what is taught in Universities If you go to the Third Edition, if you go to the 3rd chapter; introduction– If someone says I'm making this up, I'm giving you the refresh OK?
Speaker A
They say that "two Genes or proteins are Homologous if they evolve from a Common Ancestor" So they say they are Homologous, IF we accept the assumption that they evolve from a Common Ancestor, that's what the book is saying
Speaker A
Now when you go under the same book, there's a section called "Scoring Metrics." The Scoring Metrics that they use in those studies, they say "most database searching methods such as BLAST and HMMER", There's many differences "depend in some form on the Evolutionary insight of the Dayhoff model".
Speaker A
So they're saying to you the systems that they're using to look for those similarities, already assumes that Evolution is true!
Speaker A
Already assumes you and the Chimpanzee are from Common Ancestors, already assumes that you're both..
Speaker A
Your Genes are Homologous BEFORE doing the search it already assumes So it moves from Humans and Chimpanzees are Homologous IF we consider them from a Common Ancestor 2°/ Humans and Chimpanzees are Homologous therefore they are from a Common Ancestry!
Speaker A
The same idea of the circular reasons I displayed earlier when it comes to the Vestigial Organs. The same type of nonsensical things This is a bit confusing but I will explain it when I'll go into the research and I'll give an example.
Speaker A
The point is; it's no longer an assumption or sorry it's evidence they already assume that it is the case before they do the research, rather than doing the research to come to the conclusion that it is true or not,
Speaker A
They already assumed it's true and they used the method that assumes it is true to prove what they already believe!
Speaker A
That's the point that I'm trying to make. So in this study why was it problematic?
Speaker A
First, they used three million Genes out of three billion, literally 1 out of 1000 genetic codes only, in that research.
Speaker A
Now, within 1 out of 1000 in that research that they used, they ignored 28% differences, and 7% differences between Humans and Chimpanzees which is actually 35% So if we were to take that 35%, it's what?
Speaker A
65% similarity now already and given the fact that we're only taking 3 million out of 3 billion of the genetic codes!
Speaker A
So first, they're ignoring the majority of the Genes, number 1. Number 2, they're excluding that which they don't like which is 28% and 7 differences, and they say in the same study why they excluded it, they say "we excluded it because there's no similarities" oh you don't say!
Speaker A
So now which is not similar, you ignore and you bring that which is similar, and you claim that there's identicality 98.8%, And now they do this beautiful very beautiful nice things that they call it Deletion, Substitution and Insertion,
Speaker A
and it is between 1 to 65 codes in the sequence that they will do Deletion, Substitution and Insertion in, and I will explain what Deletion, Substitutional Insertion and we're going to go into that, and I want to say some..
Speaker A
I want to make a very important point here; the research I put, Scientific American, If you just search "Hidden Treasures in Junk DNA", they used to have this stupid belief that there's something called Junk DNA, and it's useless and all of that Richard Dawkins and these people who are talking about it.
Speaker A
And today we know this is nonsense, and all types of Genes are useful and important for the Human being.
Speaker A
The important thing is that changing one gene, one genetic code in certain situations, can be fatal, you can die, you cannot exist as a Human being.
Speaker A
The point is they're claiming thousands, if not millions, of changes in these studies, but they will ignore them, they do Insertion, Deletion, Substitution, they ignore all of these different things, and they substitute literally, they change, they delete certain genetic codes, they delete them!
Speaker A
Even though, as I said to you, one of them can be fatal, they delete them in order for them to push this narrative that is actually 98.8% identical.
Speaker A
So this is the nonsense that they do to come up to this conclusion 98.8%. Is that it? No!
Speaker A
What they did in that study they ignored all the Insertion and Deletion that they did, and they only left the Substitution.
Speaker A
So they ignored all the percentages that they did Insertion and Deletion in them, they completely ignored them, and they only put what they did Substitutions.
Speaker A
So what do you mean by Substitution and Insertion and Deletion? Let me explain; and why are we saying that they use methods that already assume Evolution?
Speaker A
So look here if you can see in the the image that I have.. First we have the Chimp, let's assume these Genes that I have on the top are the Genes of the Chimp, OK and let's look down here, we have the Human.
Speaker A
So the Genes between the Chimp and the Human are completely different Can you see it brother Subboor? Starts with C and then it's even longer as I said to you, so it starts with C This one starts with T, it doesn't start with C
Speaker A
This one ends with G, this one ends with A We can go on this, many differences between the two. So what do they do?
Speaker A
When they use these methods that already assume Evolution, they assume that there is a Common Ancestor, and then they add this type of Genes in the middle that they brought from their pocket, that have no evidence for it, and they assume that this is a Common Ancestor between the Human and the Chimp
Speaker A
So they bring additional data that there is no evidence for, and what they do now, is that they use that as evidence to align between the Chimp and the Human.
Speaker A
So if they found extra Genes, that I said to you, they can either do Deletion –so they'll completely remove the C and A– If they find there's a difference between the C and the T, they will do what we call Substitution:
Speaker A
They will change the T into a C, or the C into a T, and they will claim that there is a similarity there.
Speaker A
Or they would do Insertion if there is more down and there is less in the top.
Speaker A
"Let's add one more Gene on the top, and let's add one other Genes in the end so we can have the same identical process".
Speaker A
What do they do? They do this Insertion, Deletion and Substitution and this is the problem They've already assumed that we have evolved from the same Common Ancestor, – that's why they add this selection of Genes in the middle – Yeah!
Speaker A
And that's why they use as a stick to combine or to explain the differences that are between us and them And as I said to you, if you remove one Genes in certain cases you can die!
Speaker A
They're removing thousands and millions of Genes depending on how big the study is They're not only doing all of this nonsense to come up to this conclusion, but they're ignoring all the other studies that says otherwise!
Speaker A
So when you come to anyone, they'll say to you it’s 98.8. Here, same magazines PNAS –these are world renowned Magazines– 98% the difference is actually 96%. Actually, it's 95%. No, actually 77%. Actually it’s 70%..
Speaker A
The question is why are they all different? The answer is simple: they're all using different methods!
Speaker A
One is using BLAST, one is using HMMER, one is doing more Insertion than the other, one is using more Deletion than the other..
Speaker A
If we were actually 98% this is what science is brother Subboor; it is experiments, repeatability and falsification If we were actually 98.8%, every study that is done will come with the conclusion that we're 98.8%!
Speaker A
This is how science work. And then we will say that, actually, this is a scientific reality that we are 98.8%.
Speaker A
But because of this nonsense that they're doing, and because of all these different methods, and games that they're playing, they're coming up with different conclusions, they're ignoring any other research that would say less, and they're doing all of these games of Insertion, Deletions, Substitution,
Speaker A
and there's many other things, I just brought a few, because I don't want to bore you with the amount of nonsense that they do when they try to pick the Genes that look like each other and the Genes that do not look like each other.
Speaker A
– You want to say something before I move on? – No, you know the point that you're raising here..
Speaker A
I think because some people they'll look at these particular pictures, they’ll look at the Insertions and the Deletions, and the different numbers you're going over, and they'll get confused.
Speaker A
But I think a way to summarise; is they are subjective in how they come to their conclusions They can pick and choose what they want, and because of that, that's why you have all these discrepancy – and even if these discrepancies were.. – Sorry brother Subboor
Speaker A
– Not just picking and choose, they CHANGE! – Yes yes! The Substitution; they completely change the genetic makeup, sorry, go ahead!
Speaker A
So that's very important. It's not just picking and choosing that's different. Yeah? It's super important, and what we have to realise about whenever it comes to any comparison between the Human genome and the Chimpanzee genome, the scientists who's studying
Speaker A
the Human genome and the Chimpanzee genome, and they're doing the studies Take the names of each one of these scientists who are putting together these papers, and interview them BEFORE!
Speaker A
–Let's just say hypothetically– before they did the experiments and ask them do you believe in Human Chimpanzee Tree?
Speaker A
Every single one of them will say "Yes". So the thing is it's a foregone conclusion, they already believe it!
Speaker A
And it's just about fitting the data to make it appear that the similarities less or more than they previously thought – Absolutely! – So no one's..
Speaker A
and this is super important brothers and sisters, nobody is coming to the evidence from a perspective-less perspective, they already have it clear in their head that Universal Common Ancestry is true and therefore they are not objectively coming to this data,
Speaker A
they are simply coming to it with their.. what was known as Theory-ladenness in philosophy of science, – And that's why these conclusions are absurd! It is simply absurd – That's what they taught in Universities brother Subboor – Yeah – They already taught the students it is,
Speaker A
And that’s what I'm saying; why am I building up with all of that? Because they already taught this is a reality, is a fact So whatever method they use, that's why I open their own textbooks, and what they teach them in their own Universities is they already use these methods.
Speaker A
If you open this research I showed you, they use BLAST. If you open a science research with the same exact percentage but different types of Genes, they apply the same method but they're also using BLAST again they're using all of these different methods that already assume the truth of Evolution,
Speaker A
and they add all of these different data like for example to simplify very simply to any Layman: If I say "Mohammed ate Camel meat", what they would do is that, because they want these two statements to be identical;
Speaker A
"Mohammed ate Camel meat" / "Camel ate Mohammed meat", They want these two statements to be identical, so what they're going to do, is they’re going to change Camel with Mohammed in the position and they're going to do Substitution,
Speaker A
and they will change the positions or they will do a Deletion of Mohammed and they will put Camel in there, then Deletion of the other Camel where they put Mohammed in there to come up with the same conclusion,
Speaker A
even though these two statements are completely contradictory! "Mohammed ate Camel meat" and "Camel ate Mohammed meat" is complete opposite but they will do these methods Now to simplify, very simple for the people; rather than doing all of this, they will do Substitution, Insertion and Deletion,
Speaker A
and they will say to you: Look! it is 100% identical now. This is actually 99% identical.
Speaker A
By this method, I can make anything 100% identical, literally I can make any Genes between any Human and anything 100% identical That's why you have this banana and Human being 50% similarities – because of the methods that they use – Yeah!
Speaker A
It just depends on which method that they use to come into similarities between these two different things, and you can say any amount that you want to say 96, 95, 77, 70 whatever you like you can say Yeah, and an additional point that I want everybody to just keep in mind is that before Darwin, there was Carl Linnaeus
Speaker A
Carl Linnaeus was a Swedish scientist who put together a Taxonomy the way that we have it, in terms of all these different Organisms being put together in these categories, and he put Humans and Chimpanzees together because of their similarities and Anatomy, but he didn't believe they had a Common Ancestor..
Speaker A
So it's pretty bloody obvious that things are similar, but that doesn't mean they have a Common Ancestor.
Speaker A
And the other thing to keep in mind, and this is something that Atheists they pull out as if it's some sort of miracle, they say: "Well, if Humans and Chimpanzees are not related why are their genomes similar?" And the answer to that is; why wouldn't their genomes be similar because they are anatomically similar?
Speaker A
– We would expect their genome to be similar! – Absolutely! It's the same to what I was saying before about the Vestigial Organs, it is that already the Assumption the Evolution is true, and the organ can be only useful if it is for Survival and Reproduction. But Allahﷻ says (AnNahl16:6)
Speaker A
وَلَكُمْ فِيهَا جَمَالٌ حِينَ تُرِيحُونَ وَحِينَ تَسْرَحُونَ (in these animals, you have Beauty) I can accept with you that they're completely useless for Survival and Reproduction, and still there's a purpose The purpose is beauty! Allah created it in that way for the beauty, for them to look more beautiful, for them to look more amazing
Speaker A
So even if I were to steelman their argument, and accept that they're not useful for Survival and Reproduction, – we can find an alternative explanation, right? – Yeah, and also I just want to add a beautiful point related to what you said, because what you said is absolutely beautiful when it comes down to the points that they're making
Speaker A
– They cross over from biology into theology, so.. – I’m going to come to that – as I said to you I prepared a huge meal for them, – MashAllah, you did! MashaAllah – will satisfy them – I need to get this presentation, they said this is beautiful
Speaker A
– I'll send it to you InshaAllah – InshaAllah yeah, Jazakallahu khairan (May Allah reward you) As I said it's a quick one, I could have gotten more detail, but I don't want to bore the people, you know!
Speaker A
Yeah, but you know these presentations Mohammed; they're very important, because whenever we're talking to Atheists, – we need to have them ready! – Absolutely!
Speaker A
– We need to have these references ready when we.. – Absolutely! That's why I have them ready. Yeah!
Speaker A
I have them ready, the links, whatever, whenever they come to you, they claim that there's Random Mutation already slap them with research showing that there's no Random Mutation and then slap them with the video that I showed you,
Speaker A
and that's the end of it! You don't need to debate too much with that.
Speaker A
They come to you with the Fossil Record. I want people to –this is a very important point– they will come to you, "Where's the evidence for Evolution?" They'll say to you "the Fossil Record!" You just say the word what in the Fossil Record is evidence for what you say?
Speaker A
That's what you're supposed to ask, you've got to peel one layer back, say to them what is evidence..?
Speaker A
They'll say "oh these things in Museums" which is all Lucy and all of Homo.. all of these things in the National Museum, I think here in London they're showing you all of these Slavs of the Whale!
Speaker A
And they say to you these are Vestigial Organs! This nonsense I'm showing you, This is what they're using in their magazines, this fictional type of skeletons that they're put in there, and they come to the layman who doesn't know anything about Evolution, they come with this nonsense
Speaker A
So you have to be prepared as Believers. Let's move on InshaAllah, now we've done with this everything which outcalls scientific, I've demonstrated..
Speaker A
Now what did I do? Let's go back to the beginning, what did I do?
Speaker A
I've demonstrated that whatever they call Fossil Record or evidence for Evolution is in reality evidence against them.
Speaker A
So we've demonstrated the Fossil Record is actually evidence against Evolution We put forward the Cambrian Explosion, we put forward how these species are actually evolving in very quick periods, and how it's impossible for it to happen on a long period –sorry– if it's not on a long period of time it's impossible,
Speaker A
and how the Cambrian Explosion completely refuses this idea, I put forward all of the fabrication..
Speaker A
Not all by the way, I can go on and on by the way just some 13, only links of some of the fabrications that they put forward, to try to support the Fossil Record OK? So that we move on from the Fossil Record.
Speaker A
Vestigial Organs: we put forward how these are all lies, these organs are not vestigial How it's even circular reasoning that you don't even take into consideration to begin with, because it assumes already Evolution is true and when we say why do you assume Evolution is true?
Speaker A
They will say to you "the Fossil Record, you go to the Fossil Record". They go to the Vestigial Organs So you have to be very careful with these people, because they jump from one to another So when you refute all of them to make them very clear that OK there is no evidence for what you calling evidence.
Speaker A
Homology and Blind Natural Selection: we showed that Homology is not evidence It's actually the opposite as we showed with the Cichlid Fish.
Speaker A
We showed how Natural Selection is not blind and it is guided, and they're not giving us an explanation how it is guided We showed that there is no such thing as Random Mutations.
Speaker A
We showed research from their Magazines, from their own beliefs how there's no such thing as Random Mutation.
Speaker A
We showed how similarities in Genetic-Makeup is made up! How similarities in Genetic-Makeup is a concept that is MADE UP!
Speaker A
The question is now why do I get certain people trying to say let's harmonise Evolution in Islam?
Speaker A
Bro! harmonise what? What a theory of Evolution you want to harmonise? Which one? Which type of Evolution do you want to harmonise?
Speaker A
Which nonsense that they said? that they took? that they changed? that you want to harmonise?
Speaker A
This whole theory is a bunch of garbage that is put on top of each other.
Speaker A
If you have a trash can, why would I harmonise the trash can with Islam?!
Speaker A
And I wanted.. this is very important what they try to take away is the acceptance in the heart of the Believer, No, before all of this nonsense of Evolution, if we go to the 1800s and we go to a Layman,
Speaker A
we say to him look at the trees, look at the ants, look at these animals how they’re evidence for God, none of them would object, none of them! They would say: yeah, that makes sense OK, all of these things are evidence that has to be a maker that guided them to do that
Speaker A
That's why فرعون (Pharaoh) when he asked Musa (Moses) Peace be upon him (Ta-Ha20:49-50) قَالَ فَمَن رَّبُّكُمَا يَٰمُوسَىٰ (who's your lord oh Moses) قَالَ رَبُّنَا ٱلَّذِىٓ أَعْطَىٰ كُلَّ شَىْءٍ خَلْقَهُۥ ثُمَّ هَدَىٰ (Allah is The One Who's given everything its shape, its creation and then guided it)
Speaker A
This is the Lord that we worship. Why is Evolution being put forward? Because it goes against this idea, this natural innate thing in the Human being So when he looks around, he knows there has to be a Creator, a Maker for all of that.
Speaker A
So what did we do today? We showed how this whatever rubbish, nonsense that they're calling evidence, it is not evidence for them, rather it is evidence against them And they have to explain to us who guided these genetic things that are not Random Mutations?
Speaker A
How these Mutations, guided Mutations, directed Mutations happening? How this Natural Selection happening in different environments organised? How is it happening?
Speaker A
Why all of these species evolved quickly and not on a prolonged period of Time?
Speaker A
How are they evolving and all of these changes are happening in the body, and there is no one controlling them?
Speaker A
You have to explain all of that. And you have to give us an explanation.
Speaker A
Now, it is on THEM to explain these things to us. And as I said to you, if I'm speaking with someone who believes in Evolution, I'm not going to go into all of these, it is too much for him, I'm just going to say why do you believe in Evolution?
Speaker A
Start showing me your evidence and your research one by one. And what he's presenting I’m going to refute! This is a simple way to deal with it.
Speaker A
So that's what we've established now. Moving on to what we call.. It's a very important thing that we need to keep in mind, the rational problems with this idea of Evolution, and by the way, I'll put number 2 as number 1 but I changed them, I'm going to start with number 2 then, instead of number 1
Speaker A
OK, the theory or oh No, sorry number 1 is the correct thing yeah, number 1 is the correct thing number 1 or..
Speaker A
they're very similar in the explanation of what I want to say. So yeah, number 2 let's start with number 2 OK, number 2 it is not falsifiable. The theory of Evolution is not science, actually it's linked to the first point that I want to make, that it’s PSEUDOSCIENCE, they're linked.
Speaker A
The theory of Evolution is not science; you cannot falsify the theory of Evolution. Why? I've already demonstrated two examples in this stream.
Speaker A
I've demonstrated to you whenever there's something that comes up, that goes against whatever, they leave it, they change it!
Speaker A
They change the goalpost, they come up with a new name, a made-up name to try to explain whatever happened Which means that there is nothing in that theory that is falsifiable to begin with, and this is a huge rational problem that makes it not science to begin with!
Speaker A
Why? because they rely on the presuppositions of Naturalism! Everything has to be explained through natural processes, they don't accept that there could be anything unnatural, metaphysical, that explains the phenomena that happens, based on that false assumption that they already started with
Speaker A
The theory cannot be falsified, I already showed you that with the Cichlid Fish I've already showed you that with the Fossil Record, how when the Cambrian explosion happened they change it How the Homology when we show them that Homology is not due to Common Ancestors they change it
Speaker A
How we show them it's not due to environment, they change it, they change the name, Every evidence that they would put forward, they will change and they will claim as if the theory is still valid All they're going to say "oh some of them happens this way", you didn’t explain anything! He didn't bring evidence for anything!
Speaker A
So anything which will try to put forward against Evolution is not falsifiable, which by default disqualifies Evolution from being a scientific theory, because Evolution is not a scientific theory to begin with Evolution and its crux and its understanding is not a scientific theory. Why?
Speaker A
Because it's PSEUDOSCIENCE, it is not something that you can see, you can observe, I cannot observe species changing from one to another, it cannot happen, they claim because of Gradualism– we already refuted this idea of Gradualism, but they will still use it as evidence
Speaker A
"oh yeah because of Gradualism you cannot see"! OK, you claim that there are some species who can evolve quickly, Why we're not seeing them today?
Speaker A
Why are no species today evolving quickly so we can observe them and see the changes that take place?
Speaker A
So, it is pseudoscience because it's not under the scientific method, it's not under experimentation, repeatability and falsification, I cannot experiment under species that's changing from one to another, I cannot repeat the experience and I cannot falsify the theory,
Speaker A
because whatever you come up with, you will claim it is something else as all based on pseudoscience Like I showed you, all of this idea of Homo Habilis, Homo Erectus all of that; they have chapters of stories "oh the Homo Habilis who was walking in this part of the region he met the Homo.."
Speaker A
All of these fictional stories they have, it's pseudoscience it's not science, that's not how science is conducted§ You don't find a tooth, and then say that there was this creature that existed, and he was walking, he was mating, and he was in this region.. based on finding a tooth! That's not science!
Speaker A
That is now used you can call it philosophy, call it whatever you want, but the theory of Evolution is not a scientific theory to begin with, that's something that we need to look into, and whatever science that they're using is already refuted.
Speaker A
So it's the first 2 ideas that I'm putting forward and this is very important.
Speaker A
The reason behind the demonstration that we put forward is to make this idea clear in the minds, if something is unfalsifiable, you cannot ask me to falsify it to begin with!
Speaker A
That's why you have to ask them for the evidences for them claiming it is true to begin with.
Speaker A
Because all of the evidences are refuted and they're all manipulated. So if I have a building that is falling apart, you cannot focus on which part of the rocks that are problematic, the whole building is falling apart and if there is no evidences for it, it's not science to begin with.
Speaker A
That's why whenever you go to one thing, they will move on to a different thing to a third, a forth thing Now another thing is the idea of Randomness, we've already refuted there is no Blind Natural Selection or Random Mutation, but the idea of Randomness itself Randomness doesn't exist.
Speaker A
Randomness doesn't exist in reality, you cannot prove to me that Randomness exists, Randomness is basically the lack of our explanation If I flip a coin, it's not 50/50%, I just do not know how much pressure I'm putting in, I do not know the gravity,
Speaker A
I do not know which side I'm pushing the coin,.. if I were to know all of these factors, then there is no such thing as Randomness, therefore they cannot– The whole theory is based on Randomness and we've refuted already the pillars of Randomness, Random Mutation, and all of that
Speaker A
And if the idea of Randomness itself is wrong you cannot base your theory on something which doesn't make any sense, Because nothing is random. Everything is happening in a causal chain according to your beliefs if you're a Naturalist
Speaker A
So you cannot pick and choose and claim I’m a Naturalist when it comes to this part, but when it comes to this part, I'm not going to accept Naturalism, I'm going to claim that there is this hidden force is called Chance and Randomness.
Speaker A
So there's no such thing called Randomness, the whole theory is built on assumptions as we said, The Tree Of Life is based on the Genes and Homology and we showed that the Genes and Homology are not evidences for anything
Speaker A
Homology is not evidences for Common Ancestry and the Genes are not similar as they claim that they are So where this whole idea of Tree Of Life comes from? It all falls apart!
Speaker A
Abiogenesis it is an assumption they cannot explain, where is the start of.. –I didn't even go into that, I can go into details but I don't want to– Where is the start of all of that? where is the start of the– how did Carbon start to grow hands and legs??
Speaker A
And hands and legs started working, and we've got what we have today! You wanted to say something brother Subboor yeah? Ok, Unmute because you're muted Yeah, but your flow man, your flow is good, I don't want to mess around with it
Speaker A
OK, Khalas (That’s it). And the last thing I want to end up with is the idea of the changes or the one before the last, The idea of the changes in science, they would claim that all of these changes,
Speaker A
all of these articles that you provided is evidences for us because it shows how science's changed!
Speaker A
This is the biggest nonsense that they will come up with, that's why I left it as the last point Never accept this garbage from them, this is true IF you have already pillars, foundations of the theory are indisputable, and then you've got branches that sometimes happen,
Speaker A
that need explanation that you might explain in an evidential way, that's what a science is.
Speaker A
Do not make them come and break the whole thing, is nonsense. And because science is changing we're going to change the nonsense every day, a bit by bit, and this is science!
Speaker A
Do not be fooled by that, Muslims, because this is a very common nonsense that they will come up with, They will come and say this is science and science is changing that's why..
Speaker A
No no Habibi (My beloved), it's not that! It is that you've got no evidence to begin with, you've got no foundation of the theory, you've got nothing that is well established so we can base on it the theory, and then look of explaining certain things to begin with!
Speaker A
So never accept this nonsense of what they would call "changes of science", and let's go now to the last thing InshaAllah.
Speaker A
The last thing I want to say is how those people explain what they say?
Speaker A
You've got someone like Richard Dawkins who would try to explain Abiogenesis by Aliens. I want to just highlight the psyche of these individuals, why do I want to highlight the psyche of these individuals, some people will come and say:
Speaker A
"why if you've got all of these evidence, why don't you win the Nobel Prize man?" "Just go and demonstrate all of this and win the Nobel Prize"?
Speaker A
The reason, is those people already believe it and they don't want to believe in anything else!
Speaker A
Evolution to them equals no-creation and because Evolution to them equals no-creation, they will fight with everything to try to prove their nonsense, because they don't want to believe in God And many of them believe science is against religion, many of them are from Christian backgrounds,
Speaker A
they had bad experiences in their religion, generally they don't want religion, they want to move away from religion, they already have this assumption, so they would accept Aliens!
Speaker A
Someone like Richard Dawkins will accept Aliens over accepting that there is a Creator, an Intelligent Maker of the Universe.
Speaker A
They will not accept that. They will accept things like Intelligent Matter. This article that I put by Science they try to attribute intelligence, choice, to Matter!
Speaker A
They would attribute intelligence and choice to Matter but they would not attribute it to the Creator of Matter.
Speaker A
Why? because they're coming from the presupposition of Naturalism, that's why you can never disprove these people, because they will always say to you the only explanation we accept is the natural explanation, they will come from that hidden assumption, they will go to the extent of accepting Aliens,
Speaker A
accepting Matter to be intelligence, Cells, Microbes, Viruses all of these things are intelligence and that's how we have Mutations, that's how we have the first cell, that's how we have things happening in the Universe They will use anything, anything! except a Creator that created all of that, that guided all of that
Speaker A
And now, the last thing I want to show is this documentary "The Expelled". I genuinely warn people, anyone who's doubting that there is a specific agenda happening because of Evolution in the scientific community, that they're pushing away anyone who goes against them,
Speaker A
anyone who's got this idea that anyone who tries to use God or Creationism in Evolution or deny any of these things, anyone who's got any doubt that this is not happening, watch this documentary, it's available on YouTube actually
Speaker A
Let me open it, we'll just watch just the beginning of it maybe, hopefully we didn't get copyrighted or anything like that – I don't think we will but let's just watch this, just the beginning of it – If we're commenting on it we won't get a strike
Speaker A
– Yeah, we are commenting isn't it! – Yeah We are genuinely commenting actually so..
Speaker A
Well, alhamdulillah I know some of the people who are in the documentary – SubhanAllah – I'm sure they won't..
Speaker A
– Alhumdulillah, OK let's play just a part of it, not much – Yeah So here's the documentary, it's called "Expelled No Intelligence Allowed" OK just watch it, don't accept my word for it, just watch what they say; I want to move on from the music
Speaker A
"Is only one skirmish in a much larger War" "science simply makes no use of the hypothesis of God" "Ask yourself what has intelligent design given us? Nothing" "We cannot accept intelligent design as an alternative scientific theory" "They will never accept that we have a better argument it just pester us and they waste our time"
Speaker A
– Now I'm going to leave you a neck lift hanger – Yeah I'm going to leave you guys like a neck lift hanger.
Speaker A
Seriously, watch that if you really want to see if those people are genuine in the research and what they do you already heard some of the statements, watch that, look how those people no matter what, they're not going to accept any alternative explanations, and I rest my case!
Speaker A
Absolutely MashaAllah that was a very beautiful presentation and the reason I didn't want to interrupt you, is because I've done presentations before, and someone interrupts your flow, you forget where you are and you know it stops things Absolutely BarakAllah Fik (May God bless you)
Speaker A
I mean one of the things Mohammed which is very interesting about the way that you presented, is that there is a lack of trust now from the general public, if they were to take what the information that we have here and process it properly
Speaker A
There's a lack of trust with what some of these dominants are saying because essentially there is so much shoehorning, There's so much reverse engineering, there's so much at hook rationalisation The fact is sometimes we just got to get to the root of the issue.
Speaker A
The root of the issue is they've already assumed Darwinism to be true from their own set, they've just assumed it to be true, that's why when it comes to similarities between the two genomes, rather than being honest and saying one genome is bigger than the other, we can't really do a right comparison;
Speaker A
They just make all these assumptions and Deletions and Substitutions and say "hey look at the similarity" without telling us what that similarity means because similarity you know itself doesn't mean anything and likewise Randomness.
Speaker A
The evidence you gave, the good example of Dennis Noble, but we have James Shapiro with Natural Genetic Engineering, who's speaking about how most of the Mutations are not actually random, they're actually directed by the organism itself So then, you have people like Lynn Margulis, you have people like Masatoshi Nei
Speaker A
So many Atheist Scientists who are coming out and saying this is garbage it doesn't make sense Then you have Atheist academics like Jerry Fodor who in his book "What Darwin Got Wrong", he spoke about the pressure in Academia to conform, the pressure not to challenge Darwinism, and he's an Atheist
Speaker A
And likewise, you have Thomas Nagel, another Atheist Philosopher who speaks about how Darwinism within Academia has created a situation where you can't really question it, And I think the real issue here is whether you look at the data or you look at the Scientists themselves, this is not a normal Theory
Speaker A
This is not the way that science normally operates. There's something very dark about this Theory And that particular aspect of it, you only really start to understand it, when you understand that Darwinism feeds into Atheism and Atheism feeds into Darwinism, they have this relationship, and that is absolutely key.
Speaker A
One last thing, I just wanted to add is please go back and watch the stream, And when Mohammed's given his presentation on the various different issues, pay attention, and take notes.
Speaker A
For example one of the things he mentioned right at the beginning was about Gradualism, and why Gradualism is so important according to Darwinism.
Speaker A
If things didn't work in numerous slight successive modifications, Khalas! That's the end of Darwinism!
Speaker A
You have to have Gradualism as he showed. You actually don't have Gradualism you have punctuated equilibrium, you have Cambridge Explosion..
Speaker A
And you fancy term, and by the way I had a list of all of the Evolution, Evolution, All of the new terms..
Speaker A
But I didn't bring it, I forgot, there's a whole list I made of all of the non sense, new names Evo, Evo, Evolution, All of these new nonsense that they've brought just trying to explain. Sorry, go ahead!
Speaker A
Yeah absolutely, because they're trying to.. they're basically trying to fill up the hole, and you know Gradualism is to Darwinism what Tawheed (Monotheism) is to Islam. If you take out Tawheed there's no Islam.
Speaker A
If you take out Gradualism –which in the Fossil Record doesn't exist as Stephen Jay Gould pointed out– if Gradualism is not what you see, then that is sufficient to debunk Darwinism.
Speaker A
Everything else is not important after you've already debunked it using that. But each one of those things whether it comes to the problems in terms of how they work with genetics, or whether it's Sociobiology and the problem with Evolutionary psychology it's wrong every single time.
Speaker A
So JazakAllahu khair (May God reward you) Mohammed, the presentation was fantastic. What I want everybody to do is to learn from this presentation, spread this knowledge, because fundamentally we want people to believe in Allah and the strongest evidence,
Speaker A
the strongest evidence for the existence of Allah is found within Nature Now we as Human beings, we have a Fitra (natural inclination) that's why we believe in Allah, that's why an Atheist calls out upon Allah even if they're on a ship and they've never been told about Du'a (Prayer)
Speaker A
However what awakens the Fitra is actually things like the Design Argument We should be happily using the Design Argument we shouldn't be shy about it, – We should be confident in using it, because actually.. – I want to say something important in the Design Argument is
Speaker A
– This is the most used argument in the Quran – Yeah Because it appears– this is something that some people neglect, it's not just the idea of your ranking of what is a better argument, but the idea is that for what the Quran used the most
Speaker A
Because this is what appeals the most to the Natural Human nature of the Human being, right?
Speaker A
– That is right – And what happens, why are we not using it? Because of Evolution!
Speaker A
So the point is we need to stop doing that. What we need to do is to challenge those who, if we use argument and they bring forth Evolution, we need to challenge this idea to show them that they're brainwashed to believe in what they believe in
Speaker A
– That's right – And they actually know things are designed. Things are not just designed, they're PERFECTED – They are perfected by the Creator, right? – Absolutely – Sorry Akhy (Brother), go ahead – No absolutely, that's exactly the way I would say
Speaker A
And confidence is extremely important here. And where does confidence come from? Confidence doesn't come from just prepping yourself up, getting yourself into a state, or going to the gym..
Speaker A
Confidence comes from knowledge, confidence comes from practice, confidence comes from opposing the other side, looking at their arguments and refuting those arguments.
Speaker A
And confidence is something contagious, because once people see "wait a minute! this guy's using Design Argument, he's not getting refuted, he's refuting the other side", they start using it And ultimately what we need to realise is that Shaytan (Satan) is using certain things to try and take people away from Allah,
Speaker A
And one of the things I believe, I truly believe Shaytan's been using over the last 150 years is Darwinism!
Speaker A
– Yeah absolutely! – And the link between Darwinism and Masonism – I don't think there's a doubt about that, I don't think there's any doubt – Yeah, And well, you know what's interesting is that when we look at the way that this Theory scares the crap out of people,
Speaker A
certain people they're like "No, I don't want to talk about this, yeah!" But it's really..
Speaker A
I mean the analogy you can think of is like this; there's an extremely scary looking dog, It looks like a Mongolian lion, it's got this huge face hair all over the place, 300 pounds, However every day you come out your house, this dog starts barking, you run back inside
Speaker A
– That's what Darwinism is like for some people – Absolutely! However, one day if you just walk out your house and you let the dog attack you, you realise it doesn't have any teeth! it's toothless!
Speaker A
That's exactly Darwinism, it doesn't have any teeth, it doesn't have the power that it actually..
Speaker A
You actually realise it’s not a dog at all! You've been hearing a noise but it’s not there, – You’ve been scared to come out – It's a Chihuahua!
Speaker A
– Yeah, exactly that's it.. SubhanAllah – It's a Chihuahua, yeah.. So Brother Mohammed, you came to the studio late to come to do the stream, – I don't want to hold you back JazakaAllah Khair. – BarakAllah fik, it's late for you as well.
Speaker A
Yes, is there any last message you want to give to the people before we end?
Speaker A
What I want to give to the people is let's have what we call beneficial knowledge Let's actually not be sitting down for one hour 14 minutes listening for the sake of listening Let's actually try to do some research, opening the links that I already put forward for these things,
Speaker A
Looking into these issues in more detail and understanding.. I've summarised for you the problems, I've summarised for you the evidences of how to refute it, I've given you the links, you literally don't have to do anything, you just have to understand the points I was making;
Speaker A
Why these problems are problems? and why are these the pillars of the theory to begin with?
Speaker A
So there's no Theory without them once you understand that Khalas, you've done it! And I think brother Subboor is tired.. Some people asking "any questions?" No, brother's tired, he's not going to take any questions – I mean I'd do the stream longer but I've got work tomorrow morning – Absolutely! Yes
Speaker A
But brother Mohammed I love your stuff keep up the good work, MashaAllah I'm very happy – BarakAllah fik – I need to come down to Leicester Square and join you – I need to watch you in action InshaAllah – InshaAllah, BarakAllah fik Akhi
Speaker A
You know one of the things I think which is important for young people to realise is; when you equip yourself with information you will have more confidence sometimes people ask: why are these people confident Why is Mohammed Ali confident why is it.. The confidence doesn't come genetically
Speaker A
– the confidence comes from education – Absolutely! You spend a few hours putting together this presentation but it wasn't a few hours, Mohammed it was actually a lot of work you did previously and you were just summarising it, do you understand?
Speaker A
– Absolutely – And how much I mean.. for the people how much work do you put in when it comes to these types of things: do you basically set aside a certain time of the day where you do research
Speaker A
– How do you work it out? – Me personally? – Yeah – Wallah (By God) I've got a specific time of the day or then let's not just say one because it depends on what I'm doing like for example there's a specific time for Quran for example
Speaker A
and there's a specific time for reading a specific book and then there is a specific time for general research on all of these different topics; Atheism, etc. science and cosmology all of these issues. Point is..
Speaker A
if you have a system you stick to the system, for example: if I have after Fajr I'm going to do my Quran revision which includes Tafseer (Quran explanation) for example, if I'm doing it for 30-40 minutes then every day I'm doing it for 30-40 minutes. I'm not asking you to have the biggest..
Speaker A
you can be working and do the system that I'm doing by the way because I'm doing so many things..
Speaker A
The point is, it's not that you don't have time, it is that you're wasting your time on the wrong things, – You're spending.. – Absolutely, Bro Yeah, and I just say to the people just open your phone click screen time,
Speaker A
screen time is an answer to how much rubbish you're reading on a daily basis or probably listening to things which are not important especially if it's in this TikTok this nonsense.
Speaker A
So point is this. Just make a system for yourself 1:30 hour a day simple right?
Speaker A
If all of us can have 1:30 hour a day, I doubt that no one doesn't have 1:30 hour a day – That's right – keep it after prayers so you remember – you don't lose the time keep it after prayers, OK? – Yeah
Speaker A
Let's say half an hour after Fajr, half an hour after Asr and half an hour after Isha but stick to them!
Speaker A
Stick to them, don't say I've got this thing to do therefore I'm going to ignore my 30 minutes of today and I'm going to do this thing, this is where we got our issues; is the commitment.
Speaker A
So Wallahi 30 minutes will go through so much. You will grow so much! You will.. Look you will finish books upon books, and the more you read the more quicker you read you'll finish books upon books, you'll finish a complete amount of research, if you memorise the Quran
Speaker A
you'll be memorising the whole Quran if you stick to that. This is my method, this is what my teachers have taught me just have a specific time of the day, it's all about commitment, if you commit to it you will get the benefit.
Speaker A
The problem what some people do is that they want, this is what this age of Technology have taught us; you want maximum amount of knowledge in the shortest amount of time. This is what people started to have in their mind
Speaker A
I want in two hours to now I've understand everything, I want to read this book and now I'm able to do Dawah (Invitation to Islam) some people ask me which book do you recommend so I can do Da'wah?
Speaker A
Brother it's not that you open the door you close the door, it's not like this, and that's what our teachers thought us, it takes time, do not look at the Mountain.. look, Mountain is a Mountain but if you start taking one Rock by one Rock
Speaker A
the Mountain is gone before you know it, don't look at the Mountain and try to move the full Mountain, this is what people do they want to get so much knowledge in short amounts of time – And when they don't they give up! – That's right
Speaker A
If you're consistent and you spend a small amount of time like the Prophetﷺ said "The most beloved deeds to Allah are small but they're consistent" even if they're small but they're consistent. A consistency is key, if you're doing the consistency you will get the knowledge,
Speaker A
it doesn't matter how busy you are, you've got 1:30 hour in your day to do what I'm telling you Absolutely that's the best advice Allah loves those things which are consistent even if they're small so Jazakallahu khayr the Muslim Lantern - Mohammed Ali for joining me on this live stream
Speaker A
– Barak Allah feek Akhy, Jazakallahu khayr – I sure notice I would say – No problem – And until next time, I would love to have you back again InshaAllah – in the future InshaAllah – InshaAllah – So Jazakallahu khair, may Allah reward you – Ameen ya Rab (Accept Oh God)
Speaker A
Assalamualaikum wa rahmat Allah wa barakatuh (May the peace, blessings, and mercy of God be upon you) Barak Allah feek
Topics:EvolutionTheory of EvolutionMuslim critique of evolutionBurden of proofFossil recordVestigial organsHomologyNatural selectionRandom mutationsTransitional fossils
