What you have just explained is not evolution but adaptation. And we as Muslims have got no objection to accept this. And what you also outlined is the concept of Natural selection and survival of the fittest. Again we as Muslims have got no objection to accept this. According to your explanation, you say that Darwin never states that there is a change of kind in evolutionary biology. If I agree with this, then this means the atheists and evolutionary biologists have lied for more than 200 years when they say we have been evolved from apes . We have been deceived by the likes of Richard Dawkins and other scientists who believed in this. There are 2 categories of evolutionary biology. Micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Micro-evolution is evolutionary change WITHIN a species or small group of organisms, especially over a short period. However, macro-evolution is evolution on a scale of SEPERATED gene pools and focuses on change that occurs at or above the level of species. What you spoke about viruses and bacteria evolving is under the micro-evolution and therefore we as Muslims have no problem to accept micro-evolution. The problem comes in macro-evolution where it says one species changes to another kind. There is not a single observational evidence to support this. The most common evidence given by atheists for this is Darwin's finches where the size of beaks changes over time to adapt to a different environment. Again, this is not macro-evolution because they still remain to be birds but rather it is adaptation. There is no involvement of a species changing to another kind. Again, bacteria still remains bacteria in spite of its change in the genetic-make up. In general, we Muslims can accept micro-evolution but NOT macro-evolution because still there is no evidence for this. The Glorious Qur'an states the first human pair was Adam and Eve but we as Muslims can't say this is a scientific fact but we believe in it and later on we may be able to prove it. So The Qur'an does not go against science at all. Read it and you will the Truth. Peace. 

How can you say micro-evolution and macro-evolution are the same? If you read my comment carefully, I said micro-evolution involves a change WITHIN a species- it does not involve any transitional form but rather takes over a short period of time. However, macro-evolution involves changes which is SEPERATED from gene pools and goes at or above the level of species. This involves a transitional form.

You claim I have been dishonest by stating apes are our common ancestors yet you are saying pigs are our relative cousins due to similar DNA. I'm sorry but frankly this does not make sense at all because if they are my cousins then surely my lineage would show I had long-distance cousins who are pigs and apes. Can you show me an observational evidence for this? But no you rely on fossil records. Fossil records doesn't even prove what you are saying. That "dog-sized creature" is called Eohippus. Eohippus is still essentially having the same characteristics as the modern day horse but the difference is a change of height and bone structure. There is no involvement of a transitional form. It is due to variation which lead to different number of toes but they have the SAME gene pool- they are NOT separate. And even evolutionists today such as Boyce Rensberger states that transitional form is unknown and fossils of each intermediate species appear fully distinct, persist unchanged, and then become extinct. Biologists divide all living things into groups and subgroups. Look at birds for instance- they are at the class level (Aves), which has 23 subgroups below it called orders and 142 subgroups below them called families. Does that mean there is an involvement of transitional form? Not at all. They are just classified into different subgroups but they are all in one family. So the example of horse evolution does not demonstrate macro-evolution but rather shows variation WITHIN a species i.e. micro-evolution. Again we as Muslims have got no objection to accept there was variation within species but we cannot accept macro-evolution where species is changed to another kind. Even evolutionists admit there is no proof for macro-evolution. Even Richard Dawkins had the difficulty to give ANY evidence for macro-evolution. I wonder why he didn't use the example of horse evolution? Because he knows very well it has nothing to do with macro-evolution. It is just simply a variation within species. Nothing else.

In regards to Islam permitting to marry with 1st cousins, I know there are high chances of birth defects in the child but this can only happen if it is done continuously for generations to come. Even in outer-cousin marriages there are still chances of birth defects in the child but it is negligible. According to Professor Diane Paul of the University of Massachusetts in Boston and Professor Hamish Spencer of the University of Otago in Dunedin, New Zealand, stated, “Women over the age of 40 have a similar risk of having children with birth defects and no one is suggesting they should be prevented from reproducing". Both professors are not in favour of banning 1st cousin marriages. A study was done in Bradford, where 1st cousin marriages are prevalent states 55% of Pakistani children whose parents are 1st cousins have 10-15 times higher to inherit recessive genetic disorders than general population. The only reason why this happens is because in Pakistani families, 1st cousin marriages has been going on for continuous generations and the trait is still there. So in Islam, it is permissible but it should not be done continuously. Peace

Again you are confusing yourself. That horse example you gave doesn't demonstrate one species changes into another animal. Eohippus is still part of the horse family with the same genes but does not imply at all it is a DIFFERENT animal. It is a different SPECIES, NOT animal. Otherwise there's no point of us comparing Eohippus with "modern day" horse if it was a different animal. The changes between Eohippus and modern day horse happens WITHIN the horse family- it does not suggest that Eohippus was a different animal as you claim. You completely misunderstood it. Eohippus STILL remains to be a horse but not the type of horse we have today. This whole process proves micro-evolution, not macro-evolution. The number of toes and different bone structure was due to variation which is part of micro-evolution. So if you now want to claim horse evolution is similar to human evolution, then we humans changed over a period of time WITHIN the human family, NOT beyond this. Again, we as Muslims have got no objection to accept this such as height difference, bone structure etc but to say we as humans were a different animal at one point has got no scientific basis at all. This is where macro-evolution comes in when there is a separation of gene pools and evolution happens at or above the level of species i.e. one species change into another kind. Darwin definitely believed when he stated that natural selection have the capability to turn dinosaurs into birds, apes into humans and mammals into whales. This all demonstrates it goes above the level of species into another animal. That's called macro-evolution, not micro-evolution. So far all your examples doesn't demonstrate macro-evolution. We Muslims believe the first human Adam was a very tall person but as generations past, our height has changed over a period of time. This is an example of micro-evolution, a change within the human family. I don't how the evidence for evolution in 21st century denies creationism and the existence of God.

The Qur'an uses the Arabic word "ayyam" which means a period with no specific time. Therefore, the Qur'an doesn't claim it was created in 6 24-hour days- that's what the Bible says. Today, scientists have got no objection to accept the Universe was created over a long period of time because before the Big Bang, there was no time, matter and energy. So the Qur'an does not go against established science at all. 

But macro-evolution doesn't explain there is variation within a given type. So the horse example demonstrates there is varieties of species within the horse family from the same ancestor, which clearly shows its micro-evolution. Which part don't you understand? Time scale is one of the explanation given but does that make a fundamental difference? No it doesn't. That 50 million years of evolution only shows there is variation within a given type and that's why you are saying this is macro-evolution. Time scale is not the only way to distinguish between micro-evolution and macro-evolution process, it is rather whether there are changes of gene pools which creates a new type of organism from a different ancestor or is it simply variation within the same organism? The horse example clearly shows there are different varieties within the same type but from the same ancestor. I think you mixed up the two together in order to try and harmonise both processes happening simultaneously. This is an incorrect explanation. Also, this does not invalidate the Qur'anic claim which states Adam & Eve was the first human pair and we are all descended from them. However, what we can say is that there are variations within the human family over a long period of time ( again it doesn't mean macro-evolution took place) such as skin colour, height difference, brain structure etc. Yet in spite of the differences, we still share the same gene pool. In other words, micro-evolution does not contradict creationism but macro-evolution does. That's the fundamental difference. So far no evolutionary biologist has proven new organisms formed from different ancestor. Until then, it is not an established fact like many people say. In regards to the translation of the Qur'an, no one can say it is free from error. The only infallible Word of God preserved is The original text of The Qur'an. Thus, to claim Sahih International is an authentic translation of The Qur'an is nonsensical. No Muslim says that. It is only from the mouths of those who falsely claims these things.
In regards to your claim humans were not created from dust. In the Qur'an, Allah reveals that the creation of the human is a miracle. The first human being was created by Allah shaping clay into human form and breathing a soul into it: Your Lord said to the angels, "I am going to create a human being out of clay. When I have formed him and breathed My Spirit into him, fall down in prostration to him!" (Qur'an, 38:71-72) Then inquire of them: Is it they who are stronger in structure or other things We have created? We created them from sticky clay. (Qur'an, 37:11) When the human body is examined today, it may be discovered that many elements present on the earth are also to be found in the body. Living tissues contain 95% carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus and sulphur, with a total of 26 different elements. In another verse of the Qur'an we are told: We created man from an extract of clay. (Qur'an, 23:12) The Arabic word "sulala," translated as "extract" in the verse, means "representative example, essence." As we have seen, the information revealed in the Qur'an 1,400 years ago confirms what modern science tells us-the fact that the same elements are employed in human creation as those found in the soil.
In regards to blood clot, this is a different stage from dust so logically speaking, I can believe that as well. No contradiction.

Just because we have similar elements in the same proportions, that does not mean we are all related. Its like saying all living things are made out of water, as the Qur'an says in 21:30 which is a universal fact. Does that mean we are all related by descent? Not at all. It just shows the similarities between all living things but it doesn't imply we all have a primate ancestor. Today we if our biochemical is different, we would not be able to eat food.

What a typical answer given by evolutionists!!!. Micro-evolution and macro-evolution are not the same process. Micro-evolution explains variation taking place within a species, especially over a short period of time. Macro-evolution explains evolution which are SEPERATED from gene pools and goes at or above the level of species, especially over a long period of time. Now let's take the time scale out of the equation. Now can you say they are the same process? Certainly not. Micro-evolution just explains there are variation of species within a given type with the SAME gene pools whereas macro-evolution explains there is a change of one species into another kind which has a DIFFERENT gene pools from their ancestry. These are 2 completely different processes. You can't treat both of them as same. That's the reason why I said micro-evolution does not contradict with creationism but macro-evolution does. And so far, no evolutionary biologist has proven macro-evolution took place, not even your beloved Richard Dawkins. This shows even you are exercising a level of Faith that we all came from a primate ancestor just like we Muslims believe the first human pair was Adam & Eve and we are all descended from them. In other words, we are both in the same boat.