Open Debate: Evolution.

samcdkey said:
So how did the dinosaurs transform into birds while we're still dragging our feet?

What did they have that we didn't?

- Lightweight hollow bones, probably for speed and agility
- Feathers (yes, theropod dino's are now known to have been covered with primitive, down-like feathers, probably for thermal regulation or courtship coloring)
- A prey-attack grasping motion that was a dead ringer for the flight-stroke of modern birds

All of that made it a reasonably short step from jumping from rock-to-rock or branch-to-branch to gliding and finally to powered flight.

Cool, huh?
 
I will. Well sam, it's been fun but I need my beauty sleep. I mean really need it, yea? ;) See yall later.
 
GeoffP said:
Alejandro, why precisely is human evolution a fantasy?

Are we to believe the current human incarnation suddenly stopped evolving? or do we accept extinct species as proof of evolution?

Furthermore i really do not see the parallel between modern (man made) religions and intelligent design.

In spite of the fact that many just want to turn this into a science vs. religion debate, it really is not that at all or at least it should not be because it does a disservice to the whole subject.

I dont reject the notion of human evolution (to a degree) outright but our understanding of it seems far from accurate.

Can you provide undeniable evidence of human evolution? Why hadnt all apes evolved from their supposed inferior being?

What other species have made such miraculous drastic changes? after all we had to evolve not only physically but intellectually. But I believe ALL life forms serve a purpose.

I am just curious, not saying it is impossible or i know it to be false.
 
Last edited:
Have you started from the beginning? Have you read ALL of it up to now? Have you? The abundant evidence is very well presented.
 
Last edited:
GeoffP said:
And I brought you a hadith which says exactly that. Why the evasion?



Sura 9 for starters. Kill, convert, or pay the tax.


No it doesn't say that. Which verse sura "9"? because firstly the chapters are not in numbers but in name (although the ones in number also have the verse number if there is no verse number then the name of she sura should be said) whats the name of the sura and which verse does it say this. Bring some evidence.
 
Last edited:
Godless said:
To my knowledge there's no such thing as an "educated country" only it's people, and unfortunately they are never in superior numbers. :(

For Muslim.



Oh! yea, yours is not a coherent religion. That's why it has different sects following the same BS book :rolleyes: My bad.

Though the asswhipe still calls himself "muslim"



I think Geoff already did, and your avoiding him.



So those kidnaped, and forced victims are lying? :rolleyes:



004.089
YUSUFALI: They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them.

Bukhari:V4B52N260 "The Prophet said, ‘If a Muslim discards his religion, kill him.'"
Ishaq:550 ". The reason that Allah's Messenger ordered Andullash Bin Sad slain was because he had become a Muslim and used to write down Qur'an Revelation. Then he apostatized (rejected islam) after becoming suspicious of some verses which prophet changed after his suggestions.

Ishaq:551 The Messenger ordered Miqyas' assassination because he became a renegade by
rejecting Islam."

Bukhari:V4B52N260 "Ali burnt some apostates publicly'

Bukhari, 5-59-632 Once Muadh paid a visit to Abu Musa and saw a chained man. Muadh asked, "What is this?" Abu Musa said, "(He was) a Jew who embraced Islam and has now turned apostate." Muadh said, "I will surely chop off his neck!"
Bukhari Volume 9, Book 83, Number 17:
Narrated 'Abdullah:

Allah's Apostle said, "The blood of a Muslim cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and
leaves the Muslims."

Oh! yea, perhaps these quotes are "out of context" and perhaps I misinterpreted.

Godless



LOl, Mohamed never said any of this non of this is in the Qu'ran, the hadeeth are based on hearsay and should not be taken literally. Anything in the hadeeth that contradicts the Qu'ran should not be taken literally. These hadeeth contradict the Qu'ran as the Qu'ran states that if you kill one person then that is like killing the whole of humanity and if you save one innocent that is like the saving of all of humanity.

our religion is based upon an overriding emphasis on the sanctity of every human life. the imperative to save a human life overrides almost every other law. This principle is clearly stated in the Quran: “Whoever kills a soul—without right or justification—it is as if he has killed the whole of humanity” (5:32).

"Truly those who believe and those who are Jews, and the Christians and the Sabeans -- those who believe in God and the last day and do righteous deeds, they shall have their reward from their Lord and no fear shall be upon them, nor shall they sorrow. " (Quran, 2:62; see also 5:69).

Moreover, the Quran says, “We have made you peoples and tribes to know one another. And the most noble of you before God is the mostpious.” (49:13)

As the Quran says, “God loves the just.” (5:42). Expanding upon this, the Prophet Muhammad said to his companions: “Shall I inform you of an act better than fasting, alms and prayers? Makingpeace between one another: enmity and malice tear up heavenly rewards by their roots.”

So non of your arguments have an basis, and are not widely accepted by Muslims, there is no such thing in the Qu'ran which says kill innocents.
 
Alejandro said:
Are we to believe the current human incarnation suddenly stopped evolving?
No. Why should we believe that? Clearly humans have evolved, are evolving and shall continue to evolve.
Indeed under current definitions of evolution, then everytime someone dies or is conceived, then evolution occurs: the proportion of alleles in the species population changes.

Alejandro said:
or do we accept extinct species as proof of evolution?
We accept the distribution, character, temporal relationships and comparative morphology as substantive evidence for evolution. Nothing gets proved in science. Ever.
Alejandro said:
Furthermore i really do not see the parallel between modern (man made) religions and intelligent design.
Certain religions reject scientific conclusions on faith, offering no evidence based alternative. Intelligent Design does the same thing.

Alejandro said:
I dont reject the notion of human evolution (to a degree) outright but our understanding of it seems far from accurate..
In detail this is true. In general it is well understood. (Also, what's with the fascination with human evolution - its such a tiny part of the whole picture it is irrelevant.)
 
Alejandro said:
Can you provide undeniable evidence of human evolution? Why hadnt all apes evolved from their supposed inferior being?
if you think about it you will come to the conclusion that evolution is a very real possibility.
there are a number of things that can alter a genes structure. some of those alterations will be workable some not
 
samcdkey said:
How can you tell?

If you look at the history of violence in the world; it may be common religion that has kept people from completely wiping each other out.

Better check your history books, especially your own religions history.

Oh dear has the margarita worn off?

Are you getting personal now?
 
(Q) said:
Better check your history books, especially your own religions history.

Even if we confine ourselves to just this century:

How many of these deaths do you attribute to religion?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_deaths_and_atrocities_of_the_twentieth_century

And to what extent did replacing the Christian doctrine with the Communist one lead to a change in violence? In what direction ?

Another reference for the roots of violence:
In 2000, an estimated 1.6 million people worldwide lost their lives to violence – a rate of nearly 28.8 per 100 000 (see Table 1). Around half of these deaths were suicides, nearly one-third were homicides, and about one-fifth were casualties of armed conflict.

(The WHO report on world violence with focus on child abuse, youth violence, intimate partner violence and elder abuse)

(from the Summary Report)
http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/violence/world_report/en/index.html


Are you getting personal now?

( I knew I would regret that; :rolleyes: No more jokes. )
 
Last edited:
Muslim said:
No it doesn't say that. Which verse sura "9"? because firstly the chapters are not in numbers but in name (although the ones in number also have the verse number if there is no verse number then the name of she sura should be said) whats the name of the sura and which verse does it say this. Bring some evidence.

Sigh...Sura 9, as recognized by all those able to rub two brain cells together would be "Ultimatum" and is sometimes referred to as the "Sura of the Sword". It was 'revealed' next to last (113) in the Quran.

As for which verse: how about all of them?
 
Muslim said:
LOl, Mohamed never said any of this non of this is in the Qu'ran, the hadeeth are based on hearsay and should not be taken literally. Anything in the hadeeth that contradicts the Qu'ran should not be taken literally. These hadeeth contradict the Qu'ran as the Qu'ran states that if you kill one person then that is like killing the whole of humanity and if you save one innocent that is like the saving of all of humanity.

The Quran says "murder". The killing of apostates is not regarded as murder, now is it? - except by the apostates themselves. And are you now denouncing al-Buhkari, regarded as utterly canonical and verifiable by almost every scholar of islam? You would be among the first.

our religion is based upon an overriding emphasis on the sanctity of every human life. the imperative to save a human life overrides almost every other law. This principle is clearly stated in the Quran: “Whoever kills a soul—without right or justification—it is as if he has killed the whole of humanity” (5:32).

I agree that killing apostates is unjustified. Does islam? Apparently not.

"Truly those who believe and those who are Jews, and the Christians and the Sabeans -- those who believe in God and the last day and do righteous deeds, they shall have their reward from their Lord and no fear shall be upon them, nor shall they sorrow. " (Quran, 2:62; see also 5:69).

Yes - "those who believe and are...". As in: Christians who reject the divinity of Christ (which, if you don't know, is kind of central to Christianity), and Jews who haven't "strayed", which basically means those that think Mohammed was a certifiable nutbar rather than a prophet. What about those latter individuals, then? What does the Quran dictate for them? Sura 5 does indeed contain the answer, seemingly. So does Sura 9.

As the Quran says, “God loves the just.” (5:42). Expanding upon this, the Prophet Muhammad said to his companions: “Shall I inform you of an act better than fasting, alms and prayers? Makingpeace between one another: enmity and malice tear up heavenly rewards by their roots.”

And where does it say:

"A better act than fasting, alms and prayer is to make peace between the believer and the nonbeliever! O Mohammed, verily you will not rest until there are two - no, three! - religions in the Arabian Peninsula! What the hell - invite the Hindus, too! For Allah is Just, Equal, Egalitarian."

Sura 2, 5, 7 and 9 (and others) do indeed specify what should and will become of the unbelievers; that is, those who reject Mohammed and his message. And their lot is not that of peace, lest it be the peace of the grave, or of dhimmitude.

So non of your arguments have an basis, and are not widely accepted by Muslims, there is no such thing in the Qu'ran which says kill innocents.

On the contrary, it seems abundantly true from your posts that there is. Your personal opinion, I'm sure, is far more tolerant; providing no one believes in evolution, anyway.
 
leopold99 said:
why is creationism and/or IDism bullshit?
Where to begin?

First of all, science has a very specific method that is followed. If what you're doing dosen't follow that method, it's not science. So "creation science" which presupposes the answer (that we were created by god), works backward from there, and ignores or distorts contradictory findings, is not science.

ID fails for the same reasons.
 
me said:
The real question about the scorpions glowing under UV would be rather more pertinent to the thread topic, don't you think?

The mechanics of it are quite basic and can easily be answered by crushing the exoskeleton, examining its bits, and determining which molecule (or molecules) in the exoskeleton glow under UV light.

But, the real question is not HOW but rather WHY.
What benefit does the scorpion gain from having this particular property? Does it gain any? Is it merely a random thing that is neither beneficial nor detrimental? Is it selected for? Is it an adaptive trait or is it exapted?

I have this hunch that perhaps scorpions can see farther into the ultraviolet than we can and thus this particular adaptation (if adaptation it is) makes fellow scorpions stand out.

Unfortunately, I'd also think that this makes the scorpions the targets of other creaturs that also share the ability to see farther into the UV spectrum.

Perhaps the benefits outweigh the detriments? They must for the trait to persist as it has.
Also, the scorpion is not exactly defenseless so perhaps is not too overly worried about being spotted by most animals?

The question then becomes what are the predators of scorpions and what frequencies of radiation do they perceive visually? Are they able to perceive the glowing of the scorpion shell?

I'd think the main predator would be birds.
And I doubt they do see far into the UV.

So.
Hmm.
Why?
So many possible avenues of exploration.

But, it is important to seperate the why and the how. How is easy. Why is more abstract.

Interestingly enough, there's an article in the July Scientific American that covers the vision of birds and invalidates my little hypothesis up there.

It turns out that birds do see into the UV spectrum. Between 300 and 400 nanometers, to be precise.

It's actually rather interesting.
It appears that vertebrates first developed 4 types of cones in their retinas.
conegraph7km.jpg

(The thing about oil droplets is another matter altogether. It seems that mammals have also lost oil droplets on top of the cones which further enhance color vision. The dashed lines is what it would be without the oil droplets.)

Mammals lost 2 of the cones sometime in their evolution. Most likely when they were mostly small nocturnal animals in the age of dinosaurs. No use for color vision at night.
This is why most mammals today only have 2 cones and where the urban myth about dogs being color blind and all that comes from.
Interesting? Very. To me anyway.

Anyway.
Primates eventually switched to a diurnal cycle and began feeding on fruits and whatever and luckily developed a doubling of one of their cone genes which then mutated to a slightly different pigment.
conegraph22gf.jpg


The two pigments are rather close together and this explains the tendency of humans towards difficulty in discriminating between greens and reds in color blindness...
And more importantly, the duplicated gene is on the X chromosome which explains the tendency towards color blindness being more prevalent among males who have only one X chromosome... (Although. To me, this immediately brings up questions of X chromosome inactivation in females. They have two x's. Yes. But only one functioning X. So I'm not entirely sure why they have less color blindness. I, most likely, am under mistaken assumptions about X inactivation.)
Anyway.
Interesting? Very. To me anyway.

All of this is directly on topic, of course.
Evidence of evolution before our very eyes!
Ha!


Anyway.
Back to the birds and scorpions.
The question now becomes what wavelength do the scorpion shells flouresce?

And. Keep in mind that another prime predator of scorpions are small mammals.
Mammals who are not only completely blind to UV, but suffering from a limited color pallete altogether because of their pathetic 2 cone vision proces.....

Interesting?
 
Back
Top