48,466
edits
Embryology in the Quran: Difference between revisions
m
→The Formation of Bone
| [checked revision] | [checked revision] |
| Line 150: | Line 150: | ||
===The Formation of Bone=== | ===The Formation of Bone=== | ||
There is a clear mistake in the | There is a clear mistake in the Qur'an embryology's idea of the formation of bone. Drs Needham and Needbeer of freethoughtmecca explain this well. | ||
{{Quote||While we will return to the issue of mudgha below, we should now move on to the issue of izhaam (bones). As was noted above, after the alaqa is turned into a mudgha, the Qur'an states fa-khalaqnaa al-mudghata izhaaman, or "then we formed the morsel into bones." Moore and his cohort try to change the translation to "out of the mudgha we formed bones," so as to give the impression that the bones are forming inside the embryo, rather than the entire object becoming bones. This brings to light the duplicitous nature that these people are taking to the text. | {{Quote||While we will return to the issue of mudgha below, we should now move on to the issue of izhaam (bones). As was noted above, after the alaqa is turned into a mudgha, the Qur'an states fa-khalaqnaa al-mudghata izhaaman, or "then we formed the morsel into bones." Moore and his cohort try to change the translation to "out of the mudgha we formed bones," so as to give the impression that the bones are forming inside the embryo, rather than the entire object becoming bones. This brings to light the duplicitous nature that these people are taking to the text. | ||
| Line 162: | Line 162: | ||
As was alluded to above, there is an argument put forth by those who push this polemic that the "bones" are actually a reference to cartilaginous models that will later ossify. Of course, the text has izhaam, which only means bone - there is no reference to cartilage (Arabic: ghudhroof), so we see that the champions of this deceptive polemic are importing things. Furthermore, as was noted in the previous paragraph, the text has a past tense conjugation followed by the word "then" (fa), thus the logic of the text is that the bones were completed, finished, and then they were clothed with flesh. This does not square with the actual process that some wish to correlate the text with, where cartilaginous skeletal models ossify while muscle forms around them simultaneously.}} | As was alluded to above, there is an argument put forth by those who push this polemic that the "bones" are actually a reference to cartilaginous models that will later ossify. Of course, the text has izhaam, which only means bone - there is no reference to cartilage (Arabic: ghudhroof), so we see that the champions of this deceptive polemic are importing things. Furthermore, as was noted in the previous paragraph, the text has a past tense conjugation followed by the word "then" (fa), thus the logic of the text is that the bones were completed, finished, and then they were clothed with flesh. This does not square with the actual process that some wish to correlate the text with, where cartilaginous skeletal models ossify while muscle forms around them simultaneously.}} | ||
Unless and until a | Unless and until a proponent of Qur'an embryology can adequately explain why the syntax of stage transformation is somehow different in the izhaam stage compared to all the other stages, one must logically conclude that the Qur'an is in error in believing that the mudgha turned totally into izhaam. | ||
Some may simply say that the syntax allows both interpretations, i.e. khalaqna can mean made into or made within. However, | Some may simply say that the syntax allows both interpretations, i.e. khalaqna can mean made into or made within. However, no proof has been provided for this assertion. It is easy to make assertions. Supporting them up with evidence is another matter. Therefore, in the failure of evidence otherwise, the conclusion must be that the syntax of verse 23:12-14 must reveal the QEP to be in error. | ||
Secondly, they have to explain why the author | Secondly, they have to explain why the author of the Qur'an was deficient in their language and forgot to mention cartilage (ghudhroof)<ref>ghudhroof, alternatively spelt ghurdoof - Lane's Lexicon - [http://www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume6/00000032.pdf Volume 6/ 32] - StudyQuran.org></ref> but bone (izhaam).<ref>'azam - Lane’s Lexicon - [http://www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume5/00000372.pdf Volume 5/ 372] - StudyQuran.org</ref> | ||
Thirdly, muscle and bone (or their precursors) develop contemporaneously, although muscle begins developing before cartilage and bone. Therefore, there is no scientific basis for the | Thirdly, muscle and bone (or their precursors) develop contemporaneously, although muscle begins developing before cartilage and bone. Therefore, there is no scientific basis for the Qur'anic claim of a stage in which bone is later covered with flesh after its own formation. Muscles begin developing in week four. There are 40 pairs of developing muscles in the five-week embryo, and they begin to move by week six when the skeletal system is still totally cartilage which forms in week five or six. By week seven, the muscles and nerves begin work together, when ossification (i.e. bone formation) begins. | ||
It can be argued that since cartilage does not begin forming until week five or six and muscles begin forming in the fourth week, the Qur'anic verse 23:14 got the embryology completely reversed, and therefore, incorrect. | It can be argued that since cartilage does not begin forming until week five or six and muscles begin forming in the fourth week, the Qur'anic verse 23:14 got the embryology completely reversed, and therefore, incorrect. | ||
| Line 201: | Line 201: | ||
At this time, all the muscle blocks have already appeared. (Rugh p 46) | At this time, all the muscle blocks have already appeared. (Rugh p 46) | ||
Thus, Keith Moore | Thus, Keith Moore and his co-author are wrong. Muscles do not take their positions around the bone forms at the end of the seventh week and during the eighth week. All the muscle blocks have already appeared around the developing skeleton by day 36 – i.e. early week 5. Bone and Muscle develop contemporaneously. In fact, muscle appears ''before'' bone and around the same time as the cartilage precursor. | ||
A week 6 embryo (Carnegie Stage 16) already has musculature when the cartilage is forming. | A week 6 embryo (Carnegie Stage 16) already has musculature when the cartilage is forming. | ||
| Line 209: | Line 209: | ||
[http://php.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php?title=Musculoskeletal_System_-_Muscle_Development#Mouse_Limb_Muscle Musculoskeletal System - Muscle Development]</ref>It details that muscle precursor cells migrate from the somites into the limb buds (ca. day 26), well before the condensing core of mesenchyme has started to chondrify into cartilage bone models in the upper part of the limb (ca. day 37), followed by the lower part (ca. day 41). The muscle precursor cells aggregate around these cores and have grouped into distinct muscle masses by day 41. | [http://php.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php?title=Musculoskeletal_System_-_Muscle_Development#Mouse_Limb_Muscle Musculoskeletal System - Muscle Development]</ref>It details that muscle precursor cells migrate from the somites into the limb buds (ca. day 26), well before the condensing core of mesenchyme has started to chondrify into cartilage bone models in the upper part of the limb (ca. day 37), followed by the lower part (ca. day 41). The muscle precursor cells aggregate around these cores and have grouped into distinct muscle masses by day 41. | ||
Furthermore, Lane's Lexicon gives no indication that lahm means muscles specifically rather than flesh in general.<ref>Lane’s Lexicon - [http://www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume8/00000262.pdf Volume 8/ 262] - StudyQuran.org</ref><ref>Lane’s Lexicon - [http://www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume8/00000263.pdf Volume 8/ 263] - StudyQuran.org</ref> Thus | Furthermore, Lane's Lexicon gives no indication that lahm means muscles specifically rather than flesh in general.<ref>Lane’s Lexicon - [http://www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume8/00000262.pdf Volume 8/ 262] - StudyQuran.org</ref><ref>Lane’s Lexicon - [http://www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume8/00000263.pdf Volume 8/ 263] - StudyQuran.org</ref> Thus Qur'an embryology is even more inaccurate as it suggests that there is a stage when the bones are unclothed without any kind of flesh. We have more evidence supporting this interpretation elsewhere in the Qur'an. Verse 2:259 uses the same Arabic words as does 23:14 for 'bones', 'clothed' and 'flesh' to describe the resurrection of a donkey which had been dead for 100 years. Verse 22:5 (see quote in next section) suggests that embryological development has similarities with resurrection. | ||
{{Quote|{{Qtt|2|259}}|'''Pickthal:''' ...and look at your ass; and that We may make you a sign to men, and look at the bones, how We set them together, then clothed them with flesh... | {{Quote|{{Qtt|2|259}}|'''Pickthal:''' ...and look at your ass; and that We may make you a sign to men, and look at the bones, how We set them together, then clothed them with flesh... | ||