This is actually one of the worst discussions of evolution I've ever heard. This is of the same level as creationists . He completely misrepresents evolution and how science works during this whole video just to spread Muslim propaganda
@@stevebert2936 naaah he understand it perfectly he juste doesnt agree with the intrepretation of the data thats it see thats how science work , science never get past hypothesis, but the data does and when the data does we make new hypothesis and we find the most compatible one of them with the data and we have our new theorie untill new data comme and thats what he is saying, natural selection and random mutation is built on a probalistic framework and have assumption that can be challenge and have been challenged by ponctuated equilibrium and then by the thirdway of evolution and of course by the intelegent desgin movement well thats sciennce i'm sorry if it goes against your athiest genisis story.
@@stevebert2936 yeah of course when you cant argue its easier to call everything a salad of words i can do that to the origin of spicies i read the book and its nothing than a salad of words look at me i feel smart now
Subboor Ahmad is the Atheism and darwinian nightmare. MashaAllah, Tabarak Allah. May Allah increase him in knowledge and reward him. Keep the great content coming!
He's more the Atheism clown. Never seen someone this clueless about how evolution and science works. An absolute liar lying for Allah is what this video is
@stevebert2936 That's the most cowardly thing to say. Attacking the person instead of his ideas. You're only proving to everyone what's said is true with your hostile reaction. He has approached the matter from an intellectual and scientific perspective and you can't hack it. I wonder why. If you were not so filled with hate and had an ounce of sincerity you would have pointed out what's wrong instead of meaningless personal attacks. Why are you so hurt, coz he's exposing the truth that you are following a religion when you like to believe otherwise? You should be brave enough to confront the claims and try to defend it intellectually if there is any merit to what you have to say, isn't that what atheism is supposedly about, Science and logic, do that perhaps people will take you seriously, else you're simply proving your athiest position is a fraud and it's exposed. Truth can hurt, embrace it for your own good and it will set you free.
@@Layth71 his whole thing is full of lies, whether it's him lying about what neo-darwinism is, or how scientific theories work, or how scientists proceed when doing science,... there so many examples of him not understanding or lying, and I'd have to rewatch it to list then all
@stevebert2936 I don't agree. I would start off saying he sounds genuine for a very simple reason that he actually cites evidence and quotes academics, whereas many others, particularly darwinists do not and this what shows their bias and religious type of attitude. You'd have to be insincere to discredit evidence provided either way. Also no one in the scientific world disagrees with the understanding that science does not give truth or facts but working models. What exactly are you trying to argue here? You're just attacking his character instead of providing any substance to your argument.
@@Layth71 because the implicit message here is that no matter what science says, you should always believe the Quran. And that's my problem . Creating a distrust in science to then easily misinform people and make then believe whatever you want
Have I had not found this video from you guys, I would not be able to shed some light on my doubts. Alhamdulillah! It's been four months now since I embraced Islam. And from someone who, from Roman Catholicism, went through extreme Marxist-Leninist-Maoist ideology, this theory of evolution is haunting me. This is certainly what I need at the moment🙏 May Allah bless you, brothers, for all your hard work❤
Brother Suboor jazaakAllahukhairan for this video, I'm a biology major and after being in an evironment which teaches evolution I started to question and get shubuha about the validity of creationism and the general refutations to evolution. But after watching this video, rest assured I am alhamdoulillah seeing clear again. Much thanks to you, may Allah provide you in this live and the hereafter.
2. Secondly, there are circular dependencies that are impossible to resolve. For example, which came first: the DNA or the protein? Can’t have DNA without protein. Can’t have protein without DNA. James Watson, the Rockstar of genetics, struggled with this question and failed to come up with a good answer for this. There must be an external actor that created these two simultaneously. To me, that’s God. Which came first: the laws or the organisms that obey the laws? Can’t have laws without the obedient organisms. Can’t have organisms without the laws that govern their behavior. There must be an external actor that created these two simultaneously. To me, that’s God. You cannot have a male without a female. Likewise, you cannot have a female without a male. How did the animals go from asexual to sexual? Natural selection (or any other mechanism of evolution) cannot go from asexual to sexual reproduction. It’s impossible. To believe otherwise is irrational. Not to mention that natural selection takes the least path of resistance. It cannot switch from asexual to sexual just like that. Not to mention it would be extremely inefficient and take too much work and energy. Our awe-inspiring universe too contains examples of such circular dependencies. Matter and antimatter cannot coexist in the same physical space because if they come into contact, they annihilate each other. Yet, that’s exactly what happened in the beginning phases of the universe. Equal amounts of matter and antimatter were created after the Big Bang. The Standard Model of particle physics - which accurately describes all the particles and interactions that make up our universe - says our universe should NOT exist! What brought it into existence? There must be an external power that stopped matter and antimatter from killing each other. For me, that’s Allah. The All-Powerful. The All-Knowing. The only Creator of the heavens and the earth. All these circular dependencies only prove the existence of a Creator. 3. Thirdly, the fossil record is highly problematic, fails to provide a valid sample, is statistically insignificant, and inconclusive. Fossil record mostly indicates stasis (i.e., virtually no change), not Darwinian gradualism. While microevolution has been demonstrated in labs, macroevolution, for obvious reasons, has NEVER been demonstrated in a lab and the fossil record fails to prove it. It takes a lot of blind faith. Stretch your imagination to the point of absurdity, believe in trillions of statistically impossible events taking place in the universe with perfect timing over billions of years before you can make sense of the fossil record. 4. Fourthly, the molecular and biogeographic evidence only points to similarities. Evolutionists claim that similarity of organisms indicates common ancestry. That’s jumping to conclusions. Not to mention that there’s one perfectly rational and reasonable possibility they eliminate without any explanation: Why can’t similarity of organisms point to Common Designer? Why was this logical possibility eliminated? Ask any scientist and they will not be able to give you a logical answer. 5. Fifthly, a solid scientific theory should predict something concrete. The prediction should be specific (not vague), quantifiable (i.e., measurable), and verifiable. If you do X, then Y happens. If you drop the ball, it will fall to the ground at 9.8 m/s2. What exactly does macroevolution reliably predict? Nothing! All we hear is vague promises of change that are impossible to verify and quantify or measure. 6. Sixthly, a solid scientific theory should be associated with a mathematical equation. For example, Newton’s second law of motion states that F = m x a. I love that! It’s so mathematical, precise, quantifiable, predictable, and verifiable. That’s real science. Where’s the equation of macroevolution? There’s none! We’re told there “too many variables” to form an equation. Of course, that is true. But the fact there’s no mathematical equation for it sticks out like a sore thumb. 7. And lastly, there are several leading scientific theories that question critical aspects (mechanisms) of macroevolution. While these theories do not outright disprove the occurrence of macroevolution, they do however put the mechanisms for macroevolution in serious doubts. For example, the Chaos Theory, which questions the concept of adaptation to the environment driven by natural selection, implies that environment does not produce complex adaptations, and says that evolution is chaotic. The Punctuated Equilibrium Theory casts serious doubts on Darwinian gradualism. The Tangled Tree or Lateral Gene Transfer Theory casts serious doubts on the idea of Tree of life and splitting (speciation) that require only vertical gene transfer which is based on pure lineages/common ancestry. The Convergent Evolution Theory casts serious doubts on common ancestry. All this means that we have a statistically impossible theory that we do not exactly understand how it works. Richard Dawkins ignored this in his famous book, The Evidence for Evolution. Jerry Coyne also ignored these theories in his book, Why Evolution Is True. With all the above-mentioned problems, how can macroevolution be considered a fact? Why not mention all these counter-scientific theories in the books of evolution as taught in schools and colleges? Why is macroevolution (often inaccurately referred to as just evolution) advertised and preached as an undeniable fact when the above theories have challenged many critical aspects of it? Why do scientists use statistics to prove every single scientific law, but then ignore the glaring fact that macroevolution is statistically impossible? If evolutionists don't tell us about such counter-theories, they're making evolution look like blind faith, not science. Why should I leave the perfectly rational belief in a Creator for a statistically impossible theory whose mechanisms we do not exactly know or agree on? In the absence of a decent scientific explanation of how we got here, let's not become so desperate and dogmatic that we dream up of empirically impossible scenarios that are very unscientific and laughable. There’s a group of scientists who are reject Darwinian mechanisms of macroevolution (dissentfromdarwin.org/). No mechanisms that truly explain macro-evolution. Probability is zero. Rationally problematic (circular dependencies). That's macro-evolution that we're asked to blindly believe in. Macro-evolution is nothing but fairy-tales. We're stuck in the bubble called universe. At the end of the day, how can science know how we got here when we're locked in a closed system? We cannot get out, there’s no escape. The only way to know how we got here is to escape the universe which is impossible. God remains the ONLY logical and sensible explanation.
@@Heldan Here it is... Posting it again for you. (I posted it, but it seems to have "drowned" in the comments.). Not everything about evolution is false. Not everything is true either. Evolution is a mixed bag. Rejecting everything is dogmatic. Blindly accepting everything is also dogmatic. So how do we filter the truth from the monkey business (pun intended)? Start by differentiating between MICROevolution and MACROevolution. Microevolution is about small changes or small variations. Changes so small that the organism undergoing such changes does NOT evolve into an entirely new species that’s completely different. For example, cross-breeding of dogs changes certain characteristics in the offspring, but the animal in question remains a dog. Another example of microevolution is when a species of birds becomes flightless, that is, losing the ability to fly after once having it. The bird is still a bird of the same species or subspecies. It did not change into a whole new species. That’s basically microevolution. To put it in more scientific terms, microevolution simply represents variations in species over time for which the information was already present in the genes. It’s true. It’s an undeniable fact. Not against Islam. Doesn’t prove anything against existence of God. God is the one who’s causing it all to happen. On the other hand, macroevolution is when the species gradually changes (evolves) so much that it becomes a whole new species. This is where we find some monkey business. Based on the above definitions, belief in microevolution is completely rational, scientific, and totally consistent with Islamic theology. Scientists have repeatedly demonstrated microevolution in labs. Microevolution can be observed happening all around us. Prophet Muhammad ﷺ observed farmers in Medina practice cross-pollination of certain plants which is an example of microevolution. Dog breeding to enhance certain traits is yet another example of microevolution which we all can witness. Marrying someone of a very different skin color than yours (e.g. a black person marrying a white person) will allow you to observe microevolution of the skin color (as well as other traits) in your offspring. In all of the above examples, the species remains the same. The offspring of a dog is a dog, but with slightly different traits. The offspring of a human is a human, but with slightly different traits. The offspring of a plant is a plant, but with slightly different traits. There’s nothing surprising about a child having different traits than a parent. We see this all around us. That’s microevolution. Small changes or variations within the same species. The species remains the same. It does not turn into another species. With so much evidence, only a dogmatic fool would deny microevolution. Now, let’s talk about MACROevolution. The theory of evolution says that, “Life on earth evolved gradually beginning with one primitive species-perhaps a single self-replicating molecule--that lived over 3.5 billion years ago; it then branched out over time, throwing off many new and diverse species . This is where we find some monkey business (pun intended). Here are some of the major unresolved problems with the current theory of evolution: 1. Firstly, macroevolution is statistically impossible, empirically dead theory. That’s an undeniable fact that any honest scientist will admit. Statistics are used to prove all scientific (empirical) laws. Yet the glaringly obvious fact that macroevolution is statistically impossible is completely ignored. Every scientific law must not only be statistically possible, but also statistically highly probable. Macroevolution is the only scientific theory that has not only failed to be proven to be statistically possible, but also statistically impossible. Statistics are used to prove everything, yet when it comes to macroevolution, they pretend statistics does not exist. Richard Dawkins, the Rockstar of evolution, failed to come up with an answer to address this impossibility. If you decide to never leave your house for the rest of your life because you’re afraid of getting hit by lightning every day you leave your house, that would be considered a mental illness. Yet, macroevolution, which is trillions of times more unlikely, is somehow considered scientific. The probability of just ONE single protein forming is 1 in 10^164 (Meyer, p. 212). That’s zero. In other words, it is statistically impossible. Yet, we’re asked to put our faith in it. It’s retarded to think this can happen by chance. Put it in perspective. A cell has 100 million proteins, and an average human body has over 30 trillion cells. Watch “Mathematical Challenges to Evolution” ua-cam.com/video/noj4phMT9OE/v-deo.html to see how statistically impossible it is.
I actually had an older video of him on my to-translate playlist where he tackles this topic but this interactive one is even more of a banger! barakallahu feekum!
Just Bc the guy that came up with a theory, has his flaws, does not mean the theory is any less true especially when he has born way before many of the modern industrial advancements that further prove the theory.
Yes I believe in evolution, the evolution of man from a drop of semen into a fully thinking human being. And that’s the decree of Allah. There you go evolution problem solved 😁
@@PizzaPenguin650 he is obviously not referring to fertilisation as an alternative to darwinian evolution, he is contrasting the two in his comment. evolution does not always refer to darwinian evolution and the gradual adaptations in species overtime, evolution in a more general sense quite literally just means the gradual development of something, which is what happens when us humans gradually develop.
That , brother is where macro evolution comes in, plus lets leave evolution aside for a min, have you read the quran with meaning, because there is mentioned in the quran the human embryology, and some people call it out too by not giving proper or full info, or sometimes the critics have no knowledge of the arabic language, when you go to someone who actually knows arabic and read thier paper you realize that there is no clash, is that not evidence enough? You could argue arabs dissected women but most of the stages described are microscopic, the quran also clearly mentions the expansion of the universe, and the nature of worker bees as well as communication between ants and sooooo many more things. May Allah guide you
@@4bidden1 hmm you dont believe that anta communicate with each other? Furthermore it is ground breaking cause the female terms were explicitly used and was told where in the bee's body the honey is made and that the bee has more than one stomach.
Surah Al-Hujurat chapter 49 verse 13 يا أيها الناس إنا خلقناكم من ذكر وأنثى وجعلناكم شعوبا وقبائل لتعارفوا إن أكرمكم عند الله أتقاكم إن الله عليم خبير O people! We created you from a male and a female, and made you races and tribes, that you may know one another. The best among you in the sight of God is the most righteous. God is All-Knowing, Well-Experienced.
It seems clear that the ones who seek to Sow seeds of doubt around the truthness and truthfulness of thé Quran and what it says about the first origins of all creatures,on top of them humans,are in fact the ones who try to defend it with all means despite thé fact that that theory isn't or can't be proved whatsoever.And the undeniable Quranic truth is that all creatures (including flaura) started out from male and female couples, and we humans are no exception to this Quranic fact. A moslim from Morocco
evolution is a fact. A theory in common language and a scientific theory are 2 completely different things. In science, a theory is a functional explanation of a natural phenomenon, it explain how a fact works, such as evolution in this case., it is the highest level in the scientific field. (gravity theory, tectonic plate theory, cells theory). it is very different from a theory in common language which is just a hypothesis
definitely, but in my opinion i doubt natural selection/sexual selection, for example the new guinea birds of paradise are very diverse in morphology and behavior, sure energetic dances and bright colors show that an individual is healthy, but species are very different despite what natural selection would predict lets take a step back; a species of bird's population looks very normal, but the brighter dancing ones are more successful in reproduction, thus developing brighter colors and dances, so how would that make one population develop two super long and shiny head feathers and a yellow chest (king of saxony bird of paradise) while another population develops a jet black color and a cape that shows an iridescent blue smiley face (superb bird of paradise) and another develops shiny blue wings and two wire-like feathers from its tail (blue bird of paradise) and so on and so forth... what would happen is that the small mutations would make no difference in the original species' morphology or behavior, and unless a population is isolated from others of the species, they wouldnt diversify that much only god could diversify them like that.
you lost me when you stated that science claims to give absolute truth. It does not. Science is based on " best available knowledge" and is continually revised. Any student of history would understand how scientific knowledge has undergone evolutionary and, at times, revolutionary change
@maghishanx7928 point is: science does NOT "claim" to give absolute truth, so the "IDEA that science claims to give absolute truth" contains a false premise, so of course it's false. But it was stated that way to suggest the premise was true in order to denigrate science - right?
@@pwagzzz no, the IDEA that science gives the absolute truth is what atheist, or those who follow scientism think. All you have to do is scroll down a little and you’ll see people saying “evolution is an undeniable fact”. People do think science gives absolute truth
@maghishanx7928 science is a methodology to discover... it starts with theorems that fit observations and make predictions that can be tested. Things like electromagnetic fields, gravity, and relativity are shown to be so accurate and consistent that we can send probes to other worlds, and you can use the internet or mobile to post generalizations. Evolution is also highly proven but there are no absolute truths and theories will be replaced if they are shown to be wrong. Contrast this with Intelligent Design. How do you test? What does it predict? Ever seen an organism "created" from dust, fully formed, no parents? Easy to criticize but not so easy to prove your alternative - just believe right?
@@HishSwish "no, the IDEA that science gives the absolute truth is what atheist, or those who follow scientism think." but it isn't. i know of no atheist who thinks that.
Imagine trying to refute a scientific fact with a religious book and question the epistemology, through which science seeks the truth as being faulty. You have no idea how silly you people come across. It is so blatantly embarrassing for Islam
It’s weird for you to talk about kin selection about sibling when the biggest kin selection in from parent to child…when a parent loses a child it is a million times worse then when a child loses a parent..it’s Bc of the genetic legacy at its core
I saw 2 debates with Subboor in which he was caught quote mining and tried to use evidence for a claim he made while that evidence was actually going against him. It's nice for his audience to listen to him since he tells them what they want to hear, but it's more interesting to let him speak with someone who actually knows what he is talking about.
This guy has absolutley no idea of what he's talking about and just spreads lies and half-truths just to propagate his religious agenda. These kind of people are dangerous and contribute to misinforming people . He deserves no respect nor audience from anyone ,he's an absolute fraud to science. He has no experience whatsoever in biology therefore shouldn't be taken even remotely seriously when he talks about evolutionary biology.
@@stevebert2936 exactly I’m Muslim and know evolution is the truth of life and it amazes me how ignorant ppl will listen to someone based on their authority
What is this guy smoking? The fossil record shows (based on carbon dating) when the organism live and when you have enough similar species it give you insight how long they survived and clues into which species it evolved into if a resembling species start to pop up in the fossil record when the previous one ends.
To me instead of wasting Time trying to prove the falseness of Darwin's theory of evolution of species, Muslim biology reseachers should invest their Time and scientific knowledge to prove the truthness and correctness of what our Creater tells us about the beginning of his creations on planet earth. A Muslim from Morocco
Thank you very much. I just want to highlight that Newtonian mechanics is not false but it is limited. It does not work for very high speeds (near the speed of light). The main idea is that science is not absolute.
Just so everyone knows, there is nothing wrong in holding evolution as true, Shoaib Ahmed Malik writes about it in his book, we muslims can believe in Adamic Evolution
Fossil record shows “spikes of new organisms” bc not every organism gets fossilized 😂 does this guy not know how special and lucky we have to be to find fossils to begins with and how lucky that a specimen even exist especially if it’s been millions of years ..
Adam was not the first human but the first prophet chosen amongst humans to have the concept on one God and the concept of obeying God and not committing sin explained to him. Evolution is a fact there is no disputing it. The more knowledge we gain the more understanding we have of evolution. Allah gave us a little knowledge it is up to us to seek knowledge.
For religious fundamentalists, their religious dogmas come first. If the science fits, no problem, if not, it's discarded. It's as simple as that. Evolution is a scientific subject that has nothing to do with religion. The same methods that led to the discovery of the evolutionary process also led to the ubiquitous technological innovations. These are used and accepted by most religious people, at least those arguing in these comments and videos. Why this? The simple reason is that they see no contradiction to their dogmas. When religious people feel at odds with their very different claims but stick to their dogma, they attack any scientific evidence or other religions. When defending, they only accept arguments that support their dogma. All objections, no matter how rational, are rejected.
Absolutely correct. Many muslims, christians and jews are alike in this regard. Science and the scientific method is applauded until the point where it contradicts their holy texts. Then science become suspect if the facts contradict scripture. Theists want to have it both ways.
Well now it is fine but at the time when i was commenting there was not sound For confirmation i played audio from my mobile then also played another video on UA-cam but that video was completely silent i moved it backward and forward but was not sound But not it is ok Thanks for reminding me By notification of your comment i came back to it Now watching it
Reciprocal altruism doesn't mean that everything we do has to support reproduction. It just means that we have pro-reproductive instincts (e.g. loving our children) that are in us because of evolution. We can use our reasoning ability and System 2 brains to overrule these instincts. The existence of hospitals is perfectly compatible with evolution. No one is arguing that every human action is done solely to pass genes along.
I have some basic questions ? Why Muslim / Abrahamic religious people only interested in Evolution theory? why not other theories, like gravity, relativity. Why only discredit this theory and science as a whole (Cannot depend on ever changing relm). Will this not turn away young impressionable muslim minds away from scicene? Why do you have dual standards? why dont you apply the same standards to discredit religions? What serious discussions are going on in academia about Adam and Eve? Is Evolution more likely or the story of Adam and Eve to be a fact more likely? Why was Adam 29 meters tall (10 storey building)? Should it not be very easy to find his remains? After discrediting science, why do you not prove the Theory of Adam and Eve to be a fact without God-Quran circular arguments? How old was Adam created and How old was Eve created ? Where did they live on Earth? In which language did the converse with each other and with the serpant ?
Who is Subboor correcting when he says scientific theories are not absolute facts? Who is claiming they are? His entire routine seems to be utterly pointless. I look forward to debunking his book though.
You should look at his debate with Aron Ra where Aron was unable to concede a single definition and was using " facts" interchangeably. You may know the difference, but I guarantee you that 99% of people dont.
Also you wanna debunk something when you havent even read it first and given it some thought? That s dogmatic blind faith right there. Proving how evolutionary biologists are just as brainwashed as volcano worshippers.
@@dadush4 I have seen debates with AronRa. I don't recall Subboor making a single intelligent point. You will have to be more specific. As for debunking his book, I have heard his arguments. He hasn't improved the many that I have already debunked. I'm also aware that he is incompetent. So I am quite confident he will simply repeat the same already debunked mistakes.
@@DetInspectorMonkfish Then you must have fast-forwarded Subhoor's entire opening speech which addresses the definition of "fact" and how it has a multitude of definitions possible depending on context. And now you claim to know his arguments which you clearly dont since you're unable to understand something as simple as the definition of the word "fact" and it's signifigance. In summary: 1. You have no knowledge of Subhoors position since you fast forward through his speech and dont take the time to understand it. 2. You assume Subhoor is incompetent though his degrees clearly prove otherwise. 3. You say he "hasnt improved that much" though I have been following Subhoor for 10 years and his position has evolved significantly. Conclusion: you are arrogant, blind, dumb, deaf and a dogmatic individual that is creating a HUGE strawman to label Subhoor and attack as if you destroyed the actual arguments. That is why you dont care what Subhoor writes in his books, because you already have your refutation written. Classic intellectual fraude and insincerity. Talk about conceited and deluded. The general atheist mindset. And that's why there is hellfire :).
@@dadush4 "Then you must have fast-forwarded Subhoor's entire opening speech which addresses the definition of "fact" and how it has a multitude of definitions possible depending on context." Why are you telling me this? Is this supposed to be an example of an intelligent point that Subboor made? Doesn’t the meaning of any word depend on its context, and isn’t this amazingly obvious? Why are you wasting my time with this? And why are you proud of yourself for making a worthless point?
Always differentiate between microevolution and macroevolution. • Micro: small changes in traits (e.g., height, size, shape, weight, color, etc.). This is TRUE. • Macro: one species changes to an entirely new and completely different species. This is FALSE. Microevolution is true, all around us, observable & proven in labs. Everyone accepts Microevolution. The offspring of an animal is an animal, a plant is a plant, a human is a human.. The traits (size, color, shape, weight, etc., ) change, but it does not turn into a whole new, completely different unique species. Macroevolution is false, rejected by 1,000+ scientists, statistically impossible, self-contradictory (circular logic), lacks a mathematical equation, does not predict anything concrete, 99.9% of mutations are harmful which in turn leads to disorder & extinction, the fossil record does not prove anything, & the so-called tree of life is highly misleading. The fossil record is over-rated, shows stasis (not Darwinian gradualism which is contradicted by Cambrian explosion) & has way too many missing links. Even if the fossil record was perfect & statistically significant (which is not the case), it still does not & simply cannot establish or prove common ancestry.
Same process using the exact same mechanisms. To believe in micro evolution and not macro is like believing a puddle could get half full but never over flown no matter how long it rained. Obviously it’s illogical. Macro evolution has been repeatedly demonstrated to be true, the tree of life is problematic in what way? We have a great idea how the tree looks and the fossil record looks just as evolution predicts. The fossil record alone does not demonstrate common ancestry, you are taking piece of the puzzle and claiming they don’t fit because they don’t form a full picture. It’s illogical.
@@TmanRock9 i would actually dare you to bring me a single direct observation today where a species of an animal turned into another species , otherwise all what you have is some fossils and speculations
@@myinstgiscarbenuim1693 nope what we have is fossils, shared anatomy, vestigial organs , observed mutations, observed natural selection, observed genetic drift, and shared dna. I’m not aware of any speciation events nor do I need to be, the process has been directly observed. This isn’t guess work like you try to imply, you are more than welcome to try and discredit it but you’d be the first.but if you can’t then all you have is wishful thinking.
@@TmanRock9 this is 100% guess work since everything that you named can be explained through a completely different explanation that does involves evolution from Common ancestory at all, - fossils are evidence for the existence of certain organisms and that's it . - vestigial organs is a myth, the The pituitary gland and the appendix were thought to be vestigial organs until we discovered that they have major roles in many important biological processes within the human body, this have been consistent throughout the years for any previous organ that is thought to be vestigial and then proven not to be the case after furthermore advancements in biology, so the concept of vestigial organs is a logical fallacy of itself that is based on ignorance, since it has been disproven over and over and over , this isn't even an evidence in the first place . genetic drift itself isn't special to evolution through common ancestory and it cannot be used as evidence for it in the first place since it's a general rule that happens with all animals and it doesn't even lead to speciation in the first place and there's no single observable evidence for genetic drift causing speciation, so again weak and unreliable evidence. shared DNA is simply idiotic since you would expect all the animals that exists within the planet to have shared dna in the first place, and this isn't even an evidence for anything, a creationist would say that god created all animals and plants and everything alive with a DNA from the same materials according to the same basic blueprints of life , natural selection is the funniest thing you can use to substantiate evolution through common ancestory since again natural selection is a general rule that isn't special to macro evolution and also three's no empirical nor observational evidences for any species turning into a different species through any of the mechanisms you talked about, what you did was show completely unreliable and weak evidences that can be used in any other theory. you failed to substantiate your argument
@@TmanRock9 also i like how you said ", you would be the first, considering that all the biologistes and scientists that were against this theory in the 90s were reported and expelled for doubting the theory, almost sounds like how the church used to deal with the people who went against it , only less bloody and more formal
24:02 this is infuriating, Saboor is lying through his teeth bringing up points which have absolutely nothing to do with whether evolution is true or not,
We are permiting to much arguments, it is easy natural seleccion only select from what already exists and mutations are literaly the loss and damage info in 99 percent are neutral or harmful and 1 percent maybe benefecial but soes not never lead to a new mecanism only destructa what exists
People evolve an we can watch it happen. Sarting out as an embryo, then a baby , then a child, then a teen ager, then a adult with a brain that makes decisions about different things, there you have evolution. another example: Elk at one point whaile living had fangs, which now have evolved to two small teeth in the roof of their mouth called canines
Thanks to Allah i came across this video. I was having a little issue with evolution. This video clears things up a lot
Same here
Can you explain it to me i dont really understand please
@@poloc4652 cuz u don't wish to understand
@@powerball200 im Muslim but i dont get it
@@poloc4652 what don't you get?
Subboor Ahmad is killin it! Excellent discussion! Best discussion I've ever heard on evolution.
This is actually one of the worst discussions of evolution I've ever heard. This is of the same level as creationists . He completely misrepresents evolution and how science works during this whole video just to spread Muslim propaganda
Yea he either doesn’t understand evolution or he does and is actively lying to himself and to others
@@stevebert2936 naaah he understand it perfectly he juste doesnt agree with the intrepretation of the data thats it see thats how science work , science never get past hypothesis, but the data does and when the data does we make new hypothesis and we find the most compatible one of them with the data and we have our new theorie untill new data comme and thats what he is saying, natural selection and random mutation is built on a probalistic framework and have assumption that can be challenge and have been challenged by ponctuated equilibrium and then by the thirdway of evolution and of course by the intelegent desgin movement well thats sciennce i'm sorry if it goes against your athiest genisis story.
@@AimeneZemmour none of what you said is of any scientific relevance, just a salad of words trying to make sense
@@stevebert2936 yeah of course when you cant argue its easier to call everything a salad of words i can do that to the origin of spicies i read the book and its nothing than a salad of words look at me i feel smart now
As a muslim, i've been strugling about how to put Science and Islam together... This video inspired me so much... Thank you...
Subboor Ahmad is the Atheism and darwinian nightmare. MashaAllah, Tabarak Allah. May Allah increase him in knowledge and reward him. Keep the great content coming!
He's more the Atheism clown. Never seen someone this clueless about how evolution and science works. An absolute liar lying for Allah is what this video is
@stevebert2936 That's the most cowardly thing to say. Attacking the person instead of his ideas. You're only proving to everyone what's said is true with your hostile reaction. He has approached the matter from an intellectual and scientific perspective and you can't hack it. I wonder why.
If you were not so filled with hate and had an ounce of sincerity you would have pointed out what's wrong instead of meaningless personal attacks.
Why are you so hurt, coz he's exposing the truth that you are following a religion when you like to believe otherwise?
You should be brave enough to confront the claims and try to defend it intellectually if there is any merit to what you have to say, isn't that what atheism is supposedly about, Science and logic, do that perhaps people will take you seriously, else you're simply proving your athiest position is a fraud and it's exposed.
Truth can hurt, embrace it for your own good and it will set you free.
@@Layth71 his whole thing is full of lies, whether it's him lying about what neo-darwinism is, or how scientific theories work, or how scientists proceed when doing science,... there so many examples of him not understanding or lying, and I'd have to rewatch it to list then all
@stevebert2936 I don't agree. I would start off saying he sounds genuine for a very simple reason that he actually cites evidence and quotes academics, whereas many others, particularly darwinists do not and this what shows their bias and religious type of attitude.
You'd have to be insincere to discredit evidence provided either way.
Also no one in the scientific world disagrees with the understanding that science does not give truth or facts but working models.
What exactly are you trying to argue here? You're just attacking his character instead of providing any substance to your argument.
@@Layth71 because the implicit message here is that no matter what science says, you should always believe the Quran. And that's my problem . Creating a distrust in science to then easily misinform people and make then believe whatever you want
This bloke knows what he's talking about!! I want to see Sabour Ahmad do a professional video on macro-evolution.
He has a lot of old stuff with raw arguments and sometimes short talks. Search his name and Darwinian Delusions .
His debate with skydivephil is pretty good.
Much love and support from Ethiopia 🇪🇹
Have I had not found this video from you guys, I would not be able to shed some light on my doubts. Alhamdulillah! It's been four months now since I embraced Islam. And from someone who, from Roman Catholicism, went through extreme Marxist-Leninist-Maoist ideology, this theory of evolution is haunting me. This is certainly what I need at the moment🙏 May Allah bless you, brothers, for all your hard work❤
There is a series by a Muslim professor named Iyad Quneibi in which he notes the theory of evolution and it is translated into English
It’s just a meth
Why would the theory of evolution haunt you? It is just the best description of the origin of the current species.
Salam, love and support from Somalia🇸🇴
Ethiopia better
@@MKB720P a raw Meat eating country 😂😂
Lessgo walaal
Smae
@@MKB720P thats jahiliya
much, much and much love from Malaysia 🇲🇾
Salem, love and support from Algeria 🇩🇿
Brother Suboor jazaakAllahukhairan for this video, I'm a biology major and after being in an evironment which teaches evolution I started to question and get shubuha about the validity of creationism and the general refutations to evolution. But after watching this video, rest assured I am alhamdoulillah seeing clear again. Much thanks to you, may Allah provide you in this live and the hereafter.
I guess you didn't evolve did yu?
Please make dua for my aunt Syeda, she is old and suffering from bladder cancer and tomorrow is her surgery.
2. Secondly, there are circular dependencies that are impossible to resolve. For example, which came first: the DNA or the protein? Can’t have DNA without protein. Can’t have protein without DNA. James Watson, the Rockstar of genetics, struggled with this question and failed to come up with a good answer for this. There must be an external actor that created these two simultaneously. To me, that’s God. Which came first: the laws or the organisms that obey the laws? Can’t have laws without the obedient organisms. Can’t have organisms without the laws that govern their behavior. There must be an external actor that created these two simultaneously. To me, that’s God. You cannot have a male without a female. Likewise, you cannot have a female without a male. How did the animals go from asexual to sexual? Natural selection (or any other mechanism of evolution) cannot go from asexual to sexual reproduction. It’s impossible. To believe otherwise is irrational. Not to mention that natural selection takes the least path of resistance. It cannot switch from asexual to sexual just like that. Not to mention it would be extremely inefficient and take too much work and energy. Our awe-inspiring universe too contains examples of such circular dependencies. Matter and antimatter cannot coexist in the same physical space because if they come into contact, they annihilate each other. Yet, that’s exactly what happened in the beginning phases of the universe. Equal amounts of matter and antimatter were created after the Big Bang. The Standard Model of particle physics - which accurately describes all the particles and interactions that make up our universe - says our universe should NOT exist! What brought it into existence? There must be an external power that stopped matter and antimatter from killing each other. For me, that’s Allah. The All-Powerful. The All-Knowing. The only Creator of the heavens and the earth. All these circular dependencies only prove the existence of a Creator.
3. Thirdly, the fossil record is highly problematic, fails to provide a valid sample, is statistically insignificant, and inconclusive. Fossil record mostly indicates stasis (i.e., virtually no change), not Darwinian gradualism. While microevolution has been demonstrated in labs, macroevolution, for obvious reasons, has NEVER been demonstrated in a lab and the fossil record fails to prove it. It takes a lot of blind faith. Stretch your imagination to the point of absurdity, believe in trillions of statistically impossible events taking place in the universe with perfect timing over billions of years before you can make sense of the fossil record.
4. Fourthly, the molecular and biogeographic evidence only points to similarities. Evolutionists claim that similarity of organisms indicates common ancestry. That’s jumping to conclusions. Not to mention that there’s one perfectly rational and reasonable possibility they eliminate without any explanation: Why can’t similarity of organisms point to Common Designer? Why was this logical possibility eliminated? Ask any scientist and they will not be able to give you a logical answer.
5. Fifthly, a solid scientific theory should predict something concrete. The prediction should be specific (not vague), quantifiable (i.e., measurable), and verifiable. If you do X, then Y happens. If you drop the ball, it will fall to the ground at 9.8 m/s2. What exactly does macroevolution reliably predict? Nothing! All we hear is vague promises of change that are impossible to verify and quantify or measure.
6. Sixthly, a solid scientific theory should be associated with a mathematical equation. For example, Newton’s second law of motion states that F = m x a. I love that! It’s so mathematical, precise, quantifiable, predictable, and verifiable. That’s real science. Where’s the equation of macroevolution? There’s none! We’re told there “too many variables” to form an equation. Of course, that is true. But the fact there’s no mathematical equation for it sticks out like a sore thumb.
7. And lastly, there are several leading scientific theories that question critical aspects (mechanisms) of macroevolution. While these theories do not outright disprove the occurrence of macroevolution, they do however put the mechanisms for macroevolution in serious doubts. For example, the Chaos Theory, which questions the concept of adaptation to the environment driven by natural selection, implies that environment does not produce complex adaptations, and says that evolution is chaotic. The Punctuated Equilibrium Theory casts serious doubts on Darwinian gradualism. The Tangled Tree or Lateral Gene Transfer Theory casts serious doubts on the idea of Tree of life and splitting (speciation) that require only vertical gene transfer which is based on pure lineages/common ancestry. The Convergent Evolution Theory casts serious doubts on common ancestry. All this means that we have a statistically impossible theory that we do not exactly understand how it works. Richard Dawkins ignored this in his famous book, The Evidence for Evolution. Jerry Coyne also ignored these theories in his book, Why Evolution Is True.
With all the above-mentioned problems, how can macroevolution be considered a fact? Why not mention all these counter-scientific theories in the books of evolution as taught in schools and colleges?
Why is macroevolution (often inaccurately referred to as just evolution) advertised and preached as an undeniable fact when the above theories have challenged many critical aspects of it? Why do scientists use statistics to prove every single scientific law, but then ignore the glaring fact that macroevolution is statistically impossible?
If evolutionists don't tell us about such counter-theories, they're making evolution look like blind faith, not science. Why should I leave the perfectly rational belief in a Creator for a statistically impossible theory whose mechanisms we do not exactly know or agree on?
In the absence of a decent scientific explanation of how we got here, let's not become so desperate and dogmatic that we dream up of empirically impossible scenarios that are very unscientific and laughable. There’s a group of scientists who are reject Darwinian mechanisms of macroevolution (dissentfromdarwin.org/).
No mechanisms that truly explain macro-evolution. Probability is zero. Rationally problematic (circular dependencies). That's macro-evolution that we're asked to blindly believe in. Macro-evolution is nothing but fairy-tales.
We're stuck in the bubble called universe. At the end of the day, how can science know how we got here when we're locked in a closed system? We cannot get out, there’s no escape. The only way to know how we got here is to escape the universe which is impossible. God remains the ONLY logical and sensible explanation.
💚😳😦🤯
Bro went IN
Where is 1?
Amazing analysis
@@Heldan Here it is... Posting it again for you. (I posted it, but it seems to have "drowned" in the comments.).
Not everything about evolution is false. Not everything is true either. Evolution is a mixed bag. Rejecting everything is dogmatic. Blindly accepting everything is also dogmatic. So how do we filter the truth from the monkey business (pun intended)? Start by differentiating between MICROevolution and MACROevolution. Microevolution is about small changes or small variations. Changes so small that the organism undergoing such changes does NOT evolve into an entirely new species that’s completely different. For example, cross-breeding of dogs changes certain characteristics in the offspring, but the animal in question remains a dog. Another example of microevolution is when a species of birds becomes flightless, that is, losing the ability to fly after once having it. The bird is still a bird of the same species or subspecies. It did not change into a whole new species. That’s basically microevolution.
To put it in more scientific terms, microevolution simply represents variations in species over time for which the information was already present in the genes. It’s true. It’s an undeniable fact. Not against Islam. Doesn’t prove anything against existence of God. God is the one who’s causing it all to happen. On the other hand, macroevolution is when the species gradually changes (evolves) so much that it becomes a whole new species. This is where we find some monkey business.
Based on the above definitions, belief in microevolution is completely rational, scientific, and totally consistent with Islamic theology. Scientists have repeatedly demonstrated microevolution in labs. Microevolution can be observed happening all around us.
Prophet Muhammad ﷺ observed farmers in Medina practice cross-pollination of certain plants which is an example of microevolution. Dog breeding to enhance certain traits is yet another example of microevolution which we all can witness. Marrying someone of a very different skin color than yours (e.g. a black person marrying a white person) will allow you to observe microevolution of the skin color (as well as other traits) in your offspring.
In all of the above examples, the species remains the same. The offspring of a dog is a dog, but with slightly different traits. The offspring of a human is a human, but with slightly different traits. The offspring of a plant is a plant, but with slightly different traits. There’s nothing surprising about a child having different traits than a parent. We see this all around us. That’s microevolution. Small changes or variations within the same species. The species remains the same. It does not turn into another species. With so much evidence, only a dogmatic fool would deny microevolution.
Now, let’s talk about MACROevolution. The theory of evolution says that, “Life on earth evolved gradually beginning with one primitive species-perhaps a single self-replicating molecule--that lived over 3.5 billion years ago; it then branched out over time, throwing off many new and diverse species . This is where we find some monkey business (pun intended).
Here are some of the major unresolved problems with the current theory of evolution:
1. Firstly, macroevolution is statistically impossible, empirically dead theory. That’s an undeniable fact that any honest scientist will admit. Statistics are used to prove all scientific (empirical) laws. Yet the glaringly obvious fact that macroevolution is statistically impossible is completely ignored. Every scientific law must not only be statistically possible, but also statistically highly probable. Macroevolution is the only scientific theory that has not only failed to be proven to be statistically possible, but also statistically impossible. Statistics are used to prove everything, yet when it comes to macroevolution, they pretend statistics does not exist. Richard Dawkins, the Rockstar of evolution, failed to come up with an answer to address this impossibility. If you decide to never leave your house for the rest of your life because you’re afraid of getting hit by lightning every day you leave your house, that would be considered a mental illness. Yet, macroevolution, which is trillions of times more unlikely, is somehow considered scientific. The probability of just ONE single protein forming is 1 in 10^164 (Meyer, p. 212). That’s zero. In other words, it is statistically impossible. Yet, we’re asked to put our faith in it. It’s retarded to think this can happen by chance. Put it in perspective. A cell has 100 million proteins, and an average human body has over 30 trillion cells. Watch “Mathematical Challenges to Evolution” ua-cam.com/video/noj4phMT9OE/v-deo.html to see how statistically impossible it is.
I actually had an older video of him on my to-translate playlist where he tackles this topic but this interactive one is even more of a banger! barakallahu feekum!
Just Bc the guy that came up with a theory, has his flaws, does not mean the theory is any less true especially when he has born way before many of the modern industrial advancements that further prove the theory.
Assalamu alykum
Love from🇮🇳🇮🇳 india
wakaykum salam
Great work onepath..
جزاک الله خيرا ❤️
Awesome, we need these contents.
16:00 Great Brother, It was like a sigma move👍
Great video, Subboor Ahmad is very well spoken and has great knowledge on his field of expertiese. May allah make his speaches beneficial to others.
Yes I believe in evolution, the evolution of man from a drop of semen into a fully thinking human being. And that’s the decree of Allah.
There you go evolution problem solved 😁
Funny😂
But that's wrong.
Thats not evolution, Thats fertilization
@@PizzaPenguin650 he is obviously not referring to fertilisation as an alternative to darwinian evolution, he is contrasting the two in his comment. evolution does not always refer to darwinian evolution and the gradual adaptations in species overtime, evolution in a more general sense quite literally just means the gradual development of something, which is what happens when us humans gradually develop.
Great ..plz continue to make such videos
I was running out of video. thanks.
"Here's a trilobite, what are you gona do about it?"
This literally sums up the attitude of most internet evolutionists
جزاك الله خيرا
May Allah guide us
Thanks a lot, watched till end!
Amazing and very important talk! Mashallah
Evolution is a fact.
It’s a fact that we share a common ancestor with the other primates.
You can accept that fact of reality or not.
And you saying it's a fact doesn't make it so
Darwinian evolution is a fact for the atheists.
@@ggghgf885
No, what makes it a fact is that it is a fact, an observation has much as a fact as gravity
@@mickqQ has anyone observed evolution or maybe if you have a recording?
@@ggghgf885
Yes.. ya observed everyday i laboratories
Surely you can’t be badly informed
Suboor refers to a dozen academics that challenge evolution and ignores the thousands that don’t…
That , brother is where macro evolution comes in, plus lets leave evolution aside for a min, have you read the quran with meaning, because there is mentioned in the quran the human embryology, and some people call it out too by not giving proper or full info, or sometimes the critics have no knowledge of the arabic language, when you go to someone who actually knows arabic and read thier paper you realize that there is no clash, is that not evidence enough? You could argue arabs dissected women but most of the stages described are microscopic, the quran also clearly mentions the expansion of the universe, and the nature of worker bees as well as communication between ants and sooooo many more things. May Allah guide you
@@rahilakhtar1842 what is mentioned about bees is not ground breaking at all, and talking ants 😂. May logic guide you.
@@4bidden1 hmm you dont believe that anta communicate with each other? Furthermore it is ground breaking cause the female terms were explicitly used and was told where in the bee's body the honey is made and that the bee has more than one stomach.
Ants do communicate through chemicals with each other
@@rahilakhtar1842 smh. I don’t believe an ant talked to king Solomon
Surah Al-Hujurat chapter 49 verse 13
يا أيها الناس إنا خلقناكم من ذكر وأنثى وجعلناكم شعوبا وقبائل لتعارفوا إن أكرمكم عند الله أتقاكم إن الله عليم خبير
O people! We created you from a male and a female, and made you races and tribes, that you may know one another. The best among you in the sight of God is the most righteous. God is All-Knowing, Well-Experienced.
very interesting
It seems clear that the ones who seek to Sow seeds of doubt around the truthness and truthfulness of thé Quran and what it says about the first origins of all creatures,on top of them humans,are in fact the ones who try to defend it with all means despite thé fact that that theory isn't or can't be proved whatsoever.And the undeniable Quranic truth is that all creatures (including flaura) started out from male and female couples, and we humans are no exception to this Quranic fact.
A moslim from Morocco
you should make a short clip out of the last section
I highly recommend Subboors channel.
May Allah bless you
evolution is a fact. A theory in common language and a scientific theory are 2 completely different things. In science, a theory is a functional explanation of a natural phenomenon, it explain how a fact works, such as evolution in this case., it is the highest level in the scientific field. (gravity theory, tectonic plate theory, cells theory). it is very different from a theory in common language which is just a hypothesis
definitely, but in my opinion i doubt natural selection/sexual selection, for example the new guinea birds of paradise are very diverse in morphology and behavior, sure energetic dances and bright colors show that an individual is healthy, but species are very different despite what natural selection would predict
lets take a step back; a species of bird's population looks very normal, but the brighter dancing ones are more successful in reproduction, thus developing brighter colors and dances, so how would that make one population develop two super long and shiny head feathers and a yellow chest (king of saxony bird of paradise) while another population develops a jet black color and a cape that shows an iridescent blue smiley face (superb bird of paradise) and another develops shiny blue wings and two wire-like feathers from its tail (blue bird of paradise) and so on and so forth...
what would happen is that the small mutations would make no difference in the original species' morphology or behavior, and unless a population is isolated from others of the species, they wouldnt diversify that much
only god could diversify them like that.
So how did you deduce that evolution is a fact by itself ?? Its a presupposition that you are actually claiming 😂
you lost me when you stated that science claims to give absolute truth. It does not. Science is based on " best available knowledge" and is continually revised. Any student of history would understand how scientific knowledge has undergone evolutionary and, at times, revolutionary change
That’s what he said, he was saying the idea that science gives the absolute truth is false 3:20
@maghishanx7928 point is: science does NOT "claim" to give absolute truth, so the "IDEA that science claims to give absolute truth" contains a false premise, so of course it's false. But it was stated that way to suggest the premise was true in order to denigrate science - right?
@@pwagzzz no, the IDEA that science gives the absolute truth is what atheist, or those who follow scientism think. All you have to do is scroll down a little and you’ll see people saying “evolution is an undeniable fact”. People do think science gives absolute truth
@maghishanx7928 science is a methodology to discover... it starts with theorems that fit observations and make predictions that can be tested. Things like electromagnetic fields, gravity, and relativity are shown to be so accurate and consistent that we can send probes to other worlds, and you can use the internet or mobile to post generalizations. Evolution is also highly proven but there are no absolute truths and theories will be replaced if they are shown to be wrong. Contrast this with Intelligent Design. How do you test? What does it predict? Ever seen an organism "created" from dust, fully formed, no parents? Easy to criticize but not so easy to prove your alternative - just believe right?
@@HishSwish "no, the IDEA that science gives the absolute truth is what atheist, or those who follow scientism think."
but it isn't. i know of no atheist who thinks that.
Love and respect from OCCUPIED KASHMIR 💪🏻 🇰🇲
Snooopy Occupied by Pakistan, yes.
@@ssimba2785 If it was, you wouldn't be offended by my comment. You know very well to which kashmir i belong to 😉
@@cnopy kashmir mai kaha?
@@cnopy Mashallah
@@tabindawaheed2643 and you?
❤ Salam. Love and Sawasdee from Bangkok, Thailand. May Allah bless muslim brothers and sisters around the world ❤
Great scientists Newton and Einstein doesn't heard and know about Black holes but they were there in the universe.
How can anyone deny the creator.
Imagine trying to refute a scientific fact with a religious book and question the epistemology, through which science seeks the truth as being faulty. You have no idea how silly you people come across. It is so blatantly embarrassing for Islam
جزاكم الله خيرا
Pray to be guided. It's the solution
It’s weird for you to talk about kin selection about sibling when the biggest kin selection in from parent to child…when a parent loses a child it is a million times worse then when a child loses a parent..it’s Bc of the genetic legacy at its core
Woah SubhanAllah 14 min ago and I thought it was years ago
ALHAMDULILLAH ❤️ JAJAKALLA KHIRAN ❤️
Please add subtitles for those who don't understand the accent.
Nailed it
I saw 2 debates with Subboor in which he was caught quote mining and tried to use evidence for a claim he made while that evidence was actually going against him. It's nice for his audience to listen to him since he tells them what they want to hear, but it's more interesting to let him speak with someone who actually knows what he is talking about.
I have analysed this video in three parts on my channel
This guy has absolutley no idea of what he's talking about and just spreads lies and half-truths just to propagate his religious agenda. These kind of people are dangerous and contribute to misinforming people .
He deserves no respect nor audience from anyone ,he's an absolute fraud to science. He has no experience whatsoever in biology therefore shouldn't be taken even remotely seriously when he talks about evolutionary biology.
@@stevebert2936 exactly I’m Muslim and know evolution is the truth of life and it amazes me how ignorant ppl will listen to someone based on their authority
@@4bidden1 bro then you aren’t Muslims ☠️
@@Just.A.Muslim what you mean bro?
Is this a re post?
Assalammualaikum from Indonesia....
Intersting in an other view.
What is this guy smoking? The fossil record shows (based on carbon dating) when the organism live and when you have enough similar species it give you insight how long they survived and clues into which species it evolved into if a resembling species start to pop up in the fossil record when the previous one ends.
Suboor brings up Darwin I bit too much as if the man was born in the 21st century to have all the tools to further prove his theory
Im not Muslim, but this is quite interesting!
May God explain your heart to Islam, my brother ♥️
Suboor, a religious man, has a problem with Darwinism Bc he thinks it’s too religious.. 🤦♂️
To me instead of wasting Time trying to prove the falseness of Darwin's theory of evolution of species, Muslim biology reseachers should invest their Time and scientific knowledge to prove the truthness and correctness of what our Creater tells us about the beginning of his creations on planet earth.
A Muslim from Morocco
Watche a not intelligent design not allow .evolution and s theory and creation is fact every thing have begging
Natural selection can edit, add, or delete genes …VHS can’t do that last time I checked.
Watched all of it 55:01
Please take care of Bangladeshi community and add bangla caption. Allah reward u so big insahallah❤️❤️❤️
Does anyone has the timestamps?
Thank you very much. I just want to highlight that Newtonian mechanics is not false but it is limited. It does not work for very high speeds (near the speed of light).
The main idea is that science is not absolute.
15:16 if things can change why can’t species over millions of years?
you could say we live in an era of jahiliyya despite living in the age of information 😂 awesome
Just so everyone knows, there is nothing wrong in holding evolution as true, Shoaib Ahmed Malik writes about it in his book, we muslims can believe in Adamic Evolution
Alhamdulilah
Fossil record shows “spikes of new organisms” bc not every organism gets fossilized 😂 does this guy not know how special and lucky we have to be to find fossils to begins with and how lucky that a specimen even exist especially if it’s been millions of years ..
This is one of the most important videos for Muslims living in the west, let’s pay attention to this, may Allah reward the brothers for their efforts
Brozer has nothing against science but spends the entirety of the video trying to expose science
“Evolution is not set in stone” …. so is religion set in stone? 😂
Yes? What?
Making counter arguments will not work all the time unless supported by logic
Adam was not the first human but the first prophet chosen amongst humans to have the concept on one God and the concept of obeying God and not committing sin explained to him. Evolution is a fact there is no disputing it. The more knowledge we gain the more understanding we have of evolution. Allah gave us a little knowledge it is up to us to seek knowledge.
For religious fundamentalists, their religious dogmas come first. If the science fits, no problem, if not, it's discarded. It's as simple as that. Evolution is a scientific subject that has nothing to do with religion. The same methods that led to the discovery of the evolutionary process also led to the ubiquitous technological innovations. These are used and accepted by most religious people, at least those arguing in these comments and videos. Why this? The simple reason is that they see no contradiction to their dogmas. When religious people feel at odds with their very different claims but stick to their dogma, they attack any scientific evidence or other religions. When defending, they only accept arguments that support their dogma. All objections, no matter how rational, are rejected.
Absolutely correct. Many muslims, christians and jews are alike in this regard. Science and the scientific method is applauded until the point where it contradicts their holy texts. Then science become suspect if the facts contradict scripture. Theists want to have it both ways.
Alslam o alikum
It has no sound
Recheck your device speakers. The video audio is working fine.
Well now it is fine but at the time when i was commenting there was not sound
For confirmation i played audio from my mobile then also played another video on UA-cam but that video was completely silent i moved it backward and forward but was not sound
But not it is ok
Thanks for reminding me
By notification of your comment i came back to it
Now watching it
Assalamualaikum
Reciprocal altruism doesn't mean that everything we do has to support reproduction. It just means that we have pro-reproductive instincts (e.g. loving our children) that are in us because of evolution. We can use our reasoning ability and System 2 brains to overrule these instincts.
The existence of hospitals is perfectly compatible with evolution. No one is arguing that every human action is done solely to pass genes along.
💕💕💕💕💕
I have some basic questions ?
Why Muslim / Abrahamic religious people only interested in Evolution theory? why not other theories, like gravity, relativity.
Why only discredit this theory and science as a whole (Cannot depend on ever changing relm). Will this not turn away young impressionable muslim minds away from scicene?
Why do you have dual standards? why dont you apply the same standards to discredit religions? What serious discussions are going on in academia about Adam and Eve?
Is Evolution more likely or the story of Adam and Eve to be a fact more likely? Why was Adam 29 meters tall (10 storey building)? Should it not be very easy to find his remains?
After discrediting science, why do you not prove the Theory of Adam and Eve to be a fact without God-Quran circular arguments?
How old was Adam created and How old was Eve created ? Where did they live on Earth? In which language did the converse with each other and with the serpant ?
👏👏👏
Well easy to answer. You should accept evidence.
And if this evidence contredicts your religion, ,our religion is false
Who is Subboor correcting when he says scientific theories are not absolute facts? Who is claiming they are? His entire routine seems to be utterly pointless.
I look forward to debunking his book though.
You should look at his debate with Aron Ra where Aron was unable to concede a single definition and was using " facts" interchangeably. You may know the difference, but I guarantee you that 99% of people dont.
Also you wanna debunk something when you havent even read it first and given it some thought? That s dogmatic blind faith right there. Proving how evolutionary biologists are just as brainwashed as volcano worshippers.
@@dadush4 I have seen debates with AronRa. I don't recall Subboor making a single intelligent point. You will have to be more specific.
As for debunking his book, I have heard his arguments. He hasn't improved the many that I have already debunked. I'm also aware that he is incompetent. So I am quite confident he will simply repeat the same already debunked mistakes.
@@DetInspectorMonkfish Then you must have fast-forwarded Subhoor's entire opening speech which addresses the definition of "fact" and how it has a multitude of definitions possible depending on context. And now you claim to know his arguments which you clearly dont since you're unable to understand something as simple as the definition of the word "fact" and it's signifigance.
In summary:
1. You have no knowledge of Subhoors position since you fast forward through his speech and dont take the time to understand it.
2. You assume Subhoor is incompetent though his degrees clearly prove otherwise.
3. You say he "hasnt improved that much" though I have been following Subhoor for 10 years and his position has evolved significantly.
Conclusion: you are arrogant, blind, dumb, deaf and a dogmatic individual that is creating a HUGE strawman to label Subhoor and attack as if you destroyed the actual arguments. That is why you dont care what Subhoor writes in his books, because you already have your refutation written. Classic intellectual fraude and insincerity.
Talk about conceited and deluded. The general atheist mindset. And that's why there is hellfire :).
@@dadush4 "Then you must have fast-forwarded Subhoor's entire opening speech which addresses the definition of "fact" and how it has a multitude of definitions possible depending on context."
Why are you telling me this? Is this supposed to be an example of an intelligent point that Subboor made?
Doesn’t the meaning of any word depend on its context, and isn’t this amazingly obvious? Why are you wasting my time with this? And why are you proud of yourself for making a worthless point?
Please take care of Bangladeshi community and add bangla caption. Allah reward u so big insahallah❤️❤️❤️🇧🇩🇧🇩🇧🇩
👏👏👏👏
An amazing explanation.
💛💛💛💛💛
atheists using Darwin to prove atheism is the equivalent of jews using Paul to prove judaism 🤦♂️ typical ehli dunya spreading their jahiliyya 😂
Arre mc come out of ur delusional mindset this isnt 7 th century anymore
Darwin theory of evolution come from toughent of observation.
Always differentiate between microevolution and macroevolution.
• Micro: small changes in traits (e.g., height, size, shape, weight, color, etc.). This is TRUE.
• Macro: one species changes to an entirely new and completely different species. This is FALSE.
Microevolution is true, all around us, observable & proven in labs. Everyone accepts Microevolution.
The offspring of an animal is an animal, a plant is a plant, a human is a human.. The traits (size, color, shape, weight, etc., ) change, but it does not turn into a whole new, completely different unique species.
Macroevolution is false, rejected by 1,000+ scientists, statistically impossible, self-contradictory (circular logic), lacks a mathematical equation, does not predict anything concrete, 99.9% of mutations are harmful which in turn leads to disorder & extinction, the fossil record does not prove anything, & the so-called tree of life is highly misleading.
The fossil record is over-rated, shows stasis (not Darwinian gradualism which is contradicted by Cambrian explosion) & has way too many missing links. Even if the fossil record was perfect & statistically significant (which is not the case), it still does not & simply cannot establish or prove common ancestry.
Same process using the exact same mechanisms. To believe in micro evolution and not macro is like believing a puddle could get half full but never over flown no matter how long it rained. Obviously it’s illogical.
Macro evolution has been repeatedly demonstrated to be true, the tree of life is problematic in what way? We have a great idea how the tree looks and the fossil record looks just as evolution predicts. The fossil record alone does not demonstrate common ancestry, you are taking piece of the puzzle and claiming they don’t fit because they don’t form a full picture. It’s illogical.
@@TmanRock9 i would actually dare you to bring me a single direct observation today where a species of an animal turned into another species , otherwise all what you have is some fossils and speculations
@@myinstgiscarbenuim1693 nope what we have is fossils, shared anatomy, vestigial organs , observed mutations, observed natural selection, observed genetic drift, and shared dna.
I’m not aware of any speciation events nor do I need to be, the process has been directly observed.
This isn’t guess work like you try to imply, you are more than welcome to try and discredit it but you’d be the first.but if you can’t then all you have is wishful thinking.
@@TmanRock9 this is 100% guess work since everything that you named can be explained through a completely different explanation that does involves evolution from Common ancestory at all,
- fossils are evidence for the existence of certain organisms and that's it .
- vestigial organs is a myth, the The pituitary gland and the appendix were thought to be vestigial organs until we discovered that they have major roles in many important biological processes within the human body, this have been consistent throughout the years for any previous organ that is thought to be vestigial and then proven not to be the case after furthermore advancements in biology, so the concept of vestigial organs is a logical fallacy of itself that is based on ignorance, since it has been disproven over and over and over , this isn't even an evidence in the first place .
genetic drift itself isn't special to evolution through common ancestory and it cannot be used as evidence for it in the first place since it's a general rule that happens with all animals and it doesn't even lead to speciation in the first place and there's no single observable evidence for genetic drift causing speciation, so again weak and unreliable evidence. shared DNA is simply idiotic since you would expect all the animals that exists within the planet to have shared dna in the first place, and this isn't even an evidence for anything, a creationist would say that god created all animals and plants and everything alive with a DNA from the same materials according to the same basic blueprints of life , natural selection is the funniest thing you can use to substantiate evolution through common ancestory since again natural selection is a general rule that isn't special to macro evolution and also three's no empirical nor observational evidences for any species turning into a different species through any of the mechanisms you talked about, what you did was show completely unreliable and weak evidences that can be used in any other theory. you failed to substantiate your argument
@@TmanRock9 also i like how you said ", you would be the first, considering that all the biologistes and scientists that were against this theory in the 90s were reported and expelled for doubting the theory, almost sounds like how the church used to deal with the people who went against it , only less bloody and more formal
Short Answer : No
Long Answer : No
Selfish gene are meme that are now today 😃
24:02 this is infuriating, Saboor is lying through his teeth bringing up points which have absolutely nothing to do with whether evolution is true or not,
The funniest thing is you had no invention or any contirbution as an educated person other than talking about Muslim fulling.
Are the atheists responsible for the stage we are right now lol that's ironic
Walaikumussalam..... From 92% Muslim population of Bangladesh❤️🇧🇩
can anyone give me the sources he is talking about like the 99% of the species are undiscovered and assumptions. i would like to study that more😁
❤️❤️❤️🌹🌹🌹
We are permiting to much arguments, it is easy natural seleccion only select from what already exists and mutations are literaly the loss and damage info in 99 percent are neutral or harmful and 1 percent maybe benefecial but soes not never lead to a new mecanism only destructa what exists
Suboor basically said have no problem with science so long as it doesn’t contradict my beliefs… what a loser 😂
Assalamu alaikum do you know who created Atheism Freemasons and Freemasons call Atheists Fools
How is that
People evolve an we can watch it happen. Sarting out as an embryo, then a baby , then a child, then a teen ager, then a adult with a brain that makes decisions about different things, there you have evolution. another example: Elk at one point whaile living had fangs, which now have evolved to two small teeth in the roof of their mouth called canines