Evolution and Speciation: An Ahmadi Muslim Khalifa (Mirza Masroor Ahmad) Explains

Umar, my response to various topics raised in your tweets, follows. Your tweets {1, 2, 3} of course, in response to my tweet presenting a YouTube video of Mirza Masroor Ahmad speaking with children in the Jama’at, on the topic of evolution:

In response to my having stated that:

your khalifa is implicitly rejecting outright, the concept of speciation anywhere and everywhere, in the tree/graph of life.

You’ve asked:

Where did he say that, and how do you define speciation?

First, I’d recommend you watch the linked video. It’s short (2 minutes) and if you listen carefully, you should be able to pick out these implications from his statements. But let me give you time indices for this, with transcript from the translation found in the captions, which you are free to dispute (though, I don’t believe the captions are off in any way; they do seem to track the Urdu quite well).

Here’s the portion of the video relevant to your question above:

• [0:15] Some say that there was an insect or beetle and it evolved in such a way. <Mirza Masroor Ahmad gestures with his hand, implying incremental improvements>
• [0:19] So why did evolution end, if it has happened in such a manner?
• [0:24] Why have the monkeys stayed as monkeys?
• [0:26] Why have the beetles remained as beetles?
• [0:29] We agree that there is evolution.
• [0:31] However, God made man as a man.
• [0:34] slowly but gradually his capabilities, faculties, brain development
• [0:45] all of that has gradually increased and man continuously advanced

We can glean from this that Mirza Masroor Ahmad (herein, ‘MMA’) believes that if man could come from lower forms such as beetles, or even higher forms like monkeys, then those species (beetles, monkeys) should no longer exist. Now since they do, then humans (or any other animals by this logic) could not have come from other animals that exist today.

This is a serious misreading of neo-Darwinian evolution by your Khalifa. Surely you know this. Who proposes that monkeys and beetles are human ancestors? With monkeys of course, it’s a now-extinct common ancestor (say, of the Order Primates), between us humans and chimpanzees/monkeys/etc.

Where do you think MMA gets these suppositions from? Science? The Qur’an? Personal revelation?

Regardless, MMA is suggesting that the existence of beetles implies that beetles could not have evolved into anything that eventually became humans, because beetles clearly still exist today as beetles. However, if we allow for this principle, it isn’t restricted to just humans.

By implication, MMA is suggesting that every species today is not the ancestor of any other species that came after it, because an antecedent must necessarily have gone extinct in that process of evolution (i.e. all members of that species would have co-evolved into the new species).

Surely Umar, you are familiar with the idea that a sub-group of a given species can go into a different environment and face different selection pressures, consequently leading that splinter group to evolve / evolve differently? i.e. allopatric speciation.

I suspect where we differ is with regard to (loosely defined), ‘micro’ evolution versus ‘macro’ evolution.

Regarding your question:

how do you define speciation?

As a layman in this field, the way I use the term speciation involves the gradual genetic variation of a species through natural selection. The process is so gradual and slow that the original ancestors of modern day fish would no longer exist. Successive speciation, iterated over long periods of time can result in more significant transitions.

Examples

1. A ancient large shark (some hypothesize it was the Megalodon) which is now extinct, to the modern great white shark.
2. Some animal whose ancestor used to live in the sea, but who now breathes above land, etc.

So not only “micro” evolution, but “macro” evolution, given enough time / the right conditions.

You further state:

“God guided evolution” does not mean we believe in anything akin to Darwin’s ideas or a tree of life. In fact the general belief is that species evolved separately without branching, possibly from multiple origins of life.

In Jama’at literature, the emphasis tends to be on humanity’s distinct origins from other animals. This is the first time I’ve come across an Ahmadi Muslim suggesting that the Ahmadiyya position is that each and every animal species, and not just human beings, has it’s own distinct branch. Duly noted.

This part is quite interesting:

possibly from multiple origins of life.

So your view is that it is possible that there were multiple independent abiogenesis events that just happened to establish a common genetic encoding mechanism (DNA)? Feel free to correct my molecular biology references, as this is more your domain than mine. Hopefully, the broad-strokes ideas of what I’m attempting to relay, are coming across.

If we take the other view that Ahmadiyyat is open to on this topic, that of a single abiogenesis event, and then branching at the ‘rudimentary’ eukaryote-level, then we would have a universal common ancestor (UCA), albeit it at a single-cell level only.

I’ve come across much Jama’at literature in the past which is dismissive of a UCA, and yet unless you insist on multiple independent abiogenesis events, you are leaving the door open to a UCA, no?

I’ve touched on this question trying to bracket Ahmadiyyat’s view on the distinct line of evolution of humans back in 2016. Perhaps you want to create a Rational Religion infographic video to spell out what the range of possibilities are that are consistent with Ahmadiyyat and where you feel the science on this is going. Your last video that touched upon these topics indirectly, didn’t get very specific.

Focusing on this statement of yours:

“God guided evolution” does not mean we believe in anything akin to Darwin’s ideas or a tree of life.

Am I correct in understanding that the Ahmadiyya position will accept micro-evolution (e.g. the beaks of finches changing over time due to allopatric speciation), but that jumps between whole “kinds” of animals is a bridge too far?

That is, it seems fair to say that Ahmadiyya Islam rejects the notion that frogs and salamanders having a common ancestor or that homo sapiens and chimpanzees share a common primate ancestor.

And yet there’s a lot of DNA in common between chimpanzees and modern humans.

Are you suggesting that the LUCA between chimpanzees and humans is at best, a form of life that was a single cell at most, and not some extinct primate?

Now let’s take your religious position that each animal species on earth developed down it’s own branch (whether from a common single cell, or via independent abiogenesis events). Between that single cell and a human being, did that creature ever resemble something the size of an insect? Something the size of a mouse? Something the size of a squirrel? Note that I am not suggesting these animals are our ancestors or on the same branches of the ‘tree of life’. I’m talking about size, and perhaps broad-scale comparisons of physical complexity.

I’m suggesting that between a single cell and a fully formed human being, we’re not going to look much like hominids at all stages, are we? We’ll probably look like simpler, smaller animals, don’t you agree?

Perhaps you are suggesting that we looked like humans, but at a microscopic level, and then miniature humans at a barbie-size level, and so on?

There are some natural limits to the range of possibilities here, based on your theology, but I find learned Ahmadi Muslims reluctant to go anywhere near such next-steps logical speculation. Not even with a 10-foot pole. Perhaps you can be the first.

Let’s now go to your next tweet. Here’s the first part:

Also if you followed the field you would know that there is a huge Anti-Darwinian undercurrent in Modern Evo biology.

You’ve got me. I don’t follow the field. However, as a layman, I’m referring to Darwinian ideas only insofar as they cover these simple concepts:

1. Evolution through random mutation and natural selection
2. A universal common ancestor
3. Natural selection providing a model for speciation (not just micro, but macro)

I have no doubt that there are a host of other facets to the conventional wisdom around evolution as popularized by Darwin that are constantly debated, with alternative theories being proposed. Details on molecular biology I won’t be able to grasp. That however, wouldn’t change the basic facets of the broad strokes concepts which I’ve listed above. Or would you disagree?

Allow me to ask you, since you attended the 2016 New Trends in Evolutionary Biology conference. Did you hear anything at that conference which:

1. Dislodges any of the three broad facets of Neo-Darwinism that I’ve listed above?
2. Provides compelling evidence for multiple abiogenesis events, with explanatory power for why DNA works the same way across these distinct branches that you propose?
3. Provides compelling evidence for every animal, including humans, evolving down a unique line from single cell organisms, rejecting any notion of shared ancestry (beyond a single cell)?

Regarding this “huge Anti-Darwinian undercurrent in Modern Evo biology”, is that from any of the conference speakers? If so, I’d be happy to listen to their session; you can link to it from the website. Or was this dissent from other attendees of the conference bussed in from the Discovery Institute?

As for your passive-aggressive remark:

You know, when you assume ignorance of others you indulge in it.

I’ll wait for your answer to my above three questions. For bonus marks: citations to talks at the conference which support your contentions for distinct branches of evolution from single cell organisms.

Cheers.