- 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? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! See yall later.
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.
Have you started from the beginning? Have you read ALL of it up to now? Have you? The abundant evidence is very well presented.
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.
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.
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. We accept the distribution, character, temporal relationships and comparative morphology as substantive evidence for evolution. Nothing gets proved in science. Ever. Certain religions reject scientific conclusions on faith, offering no evidence based alternative. Intelligent Design does the same thing. 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.)
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
Better check your history books, especially your own religions history. Are you getting personal now?
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 ( I knew I would regret that; Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! No more jokes. )
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?
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. I agree that killing apostates is unjustified. Does islam? Apparently not. 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. 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. 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.
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.
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. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! (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. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! 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?
