Discussion of articles whose authors claim they are responses to Dr. Iyad's two episodes about the Dheeh program
Two weeks have passed since the episode (Does the Dheeh publish science or atheism and doubts) was published, and no one has come with a scientific response to what I mentioned.. Then finally, as expected, someone appeared claiming to respond scientifically: one of the specialists in international relations and a translator in a scientific journal according to her claim. I wrote a discussion of what was in her article but found that comments are not available to those who are not on the friends list as it seems. Therefore, whoever from her followers wants to put this comment, please do so: thank you. I reviewed your long article quickly and will respond to some of its paragraphs to show who is actually distorting or does not understand what is being said!:
1. You claimed that I cited research on Archaeopteryx as refuting the theory of evolution from its roots..which I never said at all. My exact statement was: The Dheeh says about dinosaurs: (There is an agreement from the scientific community that the 10,000 species of birds existing today are their descendants) Of course, I had explained in the episode (Tarzan) and with papers from the most famous journals such as Science and Nature that this is not an agreement from the scientific community nor is it necessary, and I mentioned the research that refutes that Archaeopteryx is a link with birds. This is what I specifically criticized..the claim of a scientific consensus that dinosaurs are the ancestors of birds. And I did not cite these studies to refute "the theory of evolution"! I have discussed it in detail in more than 25 episodes. So you told me what I did not say, then you began to formulate poetic and resonant phrases about distortion and misunderstanding.
2. You also claimed that the research I cited is anomalous, refuted, and that's it..it did not shake the alleged "scientific consensus" nor is it necessary... - This paper I mentioned in my response to the Dheeh: Nonavian feathers in a late Triassic archosaur. It has been cited 93 times..meaning 93 studies have referred to it. And this one I also mentioned: An Archaeopteryx-like theropod from China and the origin of Avialae It has been cited 210 times. Of course, the studies that referred to these two papers are supporters, opponents, or just mentioning. However, the point is that they are not two passing papers that appeared with errors and were refuted, and that's it..and the alleged "scientific consensus" returned to what it was!
3. This is in addition to the invalidity of the claim of a scientific consensus on the "theory of evolution" from its foundation..which you claim as an assumed truth and you are mistaken based on it! Although I dedicated an entire episode to explaining the invalidity of this alleged consensus: (Are 99% of "scientists" really supporting the "theory of evolution"?) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCfMYV7JaAw
4. You say: (As far as I know, there is no Quranic verse or hadith that prevents dinosaurs from being the ancestors of birds, so I do not understand where the atheism is in this) Correct understanding!! Where did I say that saying this is atheism?! Rather, I explained in detail in the episode (Why does the "theory of evolution" conflict with Islam) that our problem is not here, as I said: - (Rationally, everything is possible in the Creator's power: to bring creatures from a common origin, or to create each of them independently, or to keep some as they are and vary others). - Rather, our problem is with the claim of randomness and chance and the distortion of scientific evidence for that. So you either did not attend my detailed episodes where I explain my position or you attended and did not understand, and yet you tell me what I did not say, then you launch the attack with resonant phrases of condemnation!
5. The human tail..here is a severe misunderstanding - if we assume good faith - from you! The Dheeh's exact statement was: (The things called atavism, which are the things that remain hidden in our DNA from the traces of our ancestors, you will find, for example, sometimes children are born with a tail) So he is talking about "children born with a tail"..not about the apotosis that occurs during fetal development, which leads to the disappearance of what appears as a tail in the fetus. Of course, the Dheeh presented images of fetuses and yet talked about children "born with a tail." As for your claim that I am talking about skin appendages while there is a human tail, it is also either you did not review the research I referred to in the episode or you reviewed and did not understand! My talk is about what they call a real tail and the research I mentioned also talks about it, not skin appendages. These are the research I presented in response to the Dheeh:
1. The human tail and spinal dysraphism. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1779337 And it contains the following statement that clarifies the definition of what they consider a real tail, not just the presence of muscles as you claimed: - The human vestigial tail lacks bone, cartilage, notochord, and spinal cord
2. Human tail–caudal appendage: tethered cord https://www.nature.com/articles/jp200839
3. The ‘human tail’ causing tethered cervical cord https://www.nature.com/articles/3101988
4. The Human Tail: A Simple Skin Appendage or Cutaneous Stigma of an Anomaly? http://www.turkishneurosurgery.org.tr/pubmed.php3?year=2016&volume=26&issue=1&page=140) You misled your readers that I am talking about skin appendages, which is a misunderstanding from you..I am talking about what you call a real tail, and the research I mentioned also talks about it, not skin appendages. This is my quick response..because I expect that people will write long speeches and say in the end: (Who said we did not respond? Here we have responded scientifically)..and upon investigation, it turns out to be a distortion of what I said and then attacking the imagined statement! (Straw man fallacy), or a boring repetition of doubts that I have responded to in detail scientifically.. And if I remain to respond to every speech of this kind, I will keep going in circles and reaffirm what I have already affirmed!! I hope you go to the episodes, review them seriously, and try to understand them, and then either you will be convinced or you will respond to them scientifically if you have..but respond to them, not to the imagined image of my words and the illusions in your mind! Peace be upon you.