Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

iSilurian

Unregistered
  • Content Count

    1,486
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Thanks
    iSilurian got a reaction from iCenozoic in The Theory Of Evolution   
    I guess, ill make this here. My previous topic on morals condones the theory of evolution, and im sure there are many people here who would automatically reject my concepts just because i use evolution within the topic.
    Also before i continue, if anyone here wants to argue against me, or try to refute my statements, i will only accept scientific published peer reviewed research.. Ths means no random youtube videos, no random websites designed by highschool students etc.
    basic
    So i would like to present a few things about the theory of evolution that, i imagine people may not be familiar with, just to put some ideas out there. If anyone would like to associate their concepts in faith with it, that would fine as well.
    The basic theory of evolution, im sure most people have a general understanding of. It is defined by mutations within our DNA, which are manipulated by natural selection, and evolution occurs in communities.
    One mght ask how people have come to the conclusion that this theory is true. Well, mutations within DNA are observable, so it is well established that living things do genetically change, and genetics manipulate the proteins that define our morphology (things like bone structure). And so it is known that beings will physically change over time, albeit very very slowly. Beyond that, the concept of natural selection is just survival of the fittest, and the fittest organisms proceed to the next generation of living things.
    Just a few examples:
    CCR5 mutation which promotes HIV resistance in humans
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8751444
    LDL receptor protein mutation, and increased bone density in swedish families
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12015390
    Nylonase phrame shift mutation
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6585807
    Mutations within the Italian wall lizard which have brought about morphological changes
    Vervust. B., Grbac. I., Damme. R., Differences in morphology, performance and behaviour between recently diverged populations of Podarcis sicula mirror differences in predation pressure, Nov 2007, Oikos, v. 116, p 1343-1352
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    a little more in depth
    A little more in depth, there are concepts regarding the fossil record. I personally do work quite a bit with the fossil record, and i will say, there is in fact a succession of fossils in the earth over time. What i mean by this is, in the past (450 million years ago), in ancient strata, all you will find are fish bones. then around 400 mya you find fish with legs and other sorts of amphibians. then around 300 mya you find reptiles, lizards and snakes etc. 200 mya you find large reptiles like dinosaurs and you find...reptiles with mammal traits. then around 150 mya you find mammals with reptile traits and you find reptiles with bird traits. then under 100 mya you find things like full mammals and full birds, and all living things prior.
    And so, a succession of animals can be seen to change over time in the fossils.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    complex summation
    Ok so, the things i have mentioned before are simple basics, most people are familiar with them, but the actual real reason scientists support the theory of evolution more extensively comes from things that i will mention below.
    Now, the fossil record, if you track morphological changes in the fossil record, you can create something called a phylogenetic tree. This is basically your standard scientific tree of life. The way its made is, ~ If an organism contains trait X go to step five. If an organism does not contain trait X go to step 2.
    Its kind of like an organised way of programing a tv :P, its the same method. I hope that makes sense.
    So, basically, the trees that are made from studies like the fossil record, match the trees made from things like genetics, and comparative anatomy of living things, and ecologic studies etc etc. And so, it is known that there is factually a direct relationship between the fossil succession, and the genetics within all DNA based organisms.
    More specifically, on the genetic phylogenetic tree, the tree is made in the same way that other trees are made, but its like... If the sequence AAB exists proceed to step five, if the sequence AAC exists, proceed to step 2. The tree is defined by differences created by mutations within the organism. With this said, its understood that, things arent simply similar in DNA just because theyve been created to look similar. Things are similar in DNA because genetically, the mutations and alterations of DNA have proceeded identically with the mutations of the fossil record and have created a tree that defines the traits that living things hold.
    I hope this makes sense, im not exactly a professor, if anyone doesnt understand or has questions, feel free to ask.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    a little more advanced
    The summation of studies and their relative phylogenetic trees is proof that there is a relationship between the fossil record and anatomy of living things and DNA. and how each has transitioned overtime, but just for a little more icing on the top, id like to talk a bit about enndogenous retroviruses.
    Endogenous retroviruses are essentially, viruses that insert ultimately have their genetic makeup inserted into our DNA. When living things are attacked by these viruses, the genes that contain the DNA of the viruses, depending on what cells they attack within living things, can be passed on to our children. and our children pass it to their children etc etc, just like all DNA is passed on to our progeny. Ok so, now, if you think about, a family tree. That of a kin of people. distant cousins and second cousins and third cousins and second aunts and uncles etc etc, all will be on small distant branches of a family tree. Whereas parents, first brothers and sisters, will be on primary branches.
    With that understanding, lets say i am attacked by an ERV. ok so now, my children will have the ERV signature within them. Now lets say one of my children are attacked by an ERV. now my grandchildren will have the ERV signiture of me, and my childrens ERV within them. so my grandchildren will have 2 signature, and my children will have 1 signature. and so on and so on. They add up over the generations.
    Now, with this said, we can determine the relatedness of living things based on the number of ERV signatures they have within them. For example, i can tell my grandchildren are closer related to eachother than they are to me, because they have more ERVs.
    This is a really really simple way of describing this, but it makes sense and its proven.
    Now, how does this relate to evolution? Well, ERVs are found in living things, including humans and chimps and all sorts of mammals etc etc. So what does it mean? It means we share a common ancestor.
    And not only that, the phylogenetic tree made from ERV traces, directly matches phylogenetic trees made in comparative anatomy, and the fossil record and ecologic studies etc.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16830071
    ok so, this is rough start, obviously there is a lot more to say, but this i think is a good ice breaker for discussion.
  2. Like
    iSilurian got a reaction from PureExistence1 in Adam And Eve   
    Alright, so i mentioned before that i would make this topic in my last topic on the Theory of Evolution.

    post #38
    "As seen in this discussion, we can take implications drawn from one field of evolutionary study such as...paleontology, and we can effectively make accurate predictions in other independent fields using the theory such as comparative anatomy and genetics.
    For example, using the theory of evolution, i should be able to predict the anatomical and genetic makeup of Adam, i should be able to tell roughly where Adam and Eve were located on earth and when they were located on earth based on mutation rates and and the analysis of Adam and Eves descendants. I should be able to determine what strata in the earth, their fossils, if they have them, would be located, and the strata in which all of their descendants are located. And, if i am not able to find these things, then the heory of evolution is in trouble.
    We can figure these things out with every other living thing, and if evolution is indeed true in the case of Adam and Eve, we should be able to apply the theory to them too.
    But what happens when we attempt to draw conclusions on scripture, using the combined efforts of the various independent studies? What do we find, what do we determine from it, and what does it really mean?
    to be continued... "
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    So, we have questions such as " what where and when" are Adam and Eve? (with respect to the Theory of Evolution)
    What were Adam and Eve?
    "Indeed, the example of Jesus to Allah is like that of Adam. He created Him from dust; then He said to him, "Be," and he was." Quran 3:59
    "Abu Musa narrated that Muhammad said: "Allah created Adam from a handful of dust taken from different lands, so the children of Adam have been created according to the composition of the land. Therefore from mankind we have white, red, black and yellow ones; we have good and evil, ease and sorrow, and what comes in between them." (i know hes sunni, but it is what it is)~ Wiki
    He is the first Male that has the morphology that we do, he is the first modern human also with the ability to think, as we do.
    So now, applying Evolution. We know that evolution occurs in communities, yes indeviduals do mutate and alter morphology, but evolution itself only occurs by definition with communities of organisms which allow for the variation in their genes. With this said, Adam and Eve most reasonably would have existed in a community with other hominids (which did exist according to the fact that their fossils are still all over the place). If Adam and Eve were the only beings of their specific species, genetically, inbreeding would kill them off.
    About inbreeding, all living things, depend upon genetic variation in order to survive. To demonstrate this, lets say for example, when the europeans invaded the aztec empire. great disease spread among the aztecs and killed many of them. Why? because the infection was able to attack people so long as they didnt have a particular mutation or variation within their immunity to protect them from that infection. The Europeans had the variation necessary for immunity, so they carried the diseased into the genepool of the aztect who didnt carry the immunity within their genes.
    So if Adam and Eve inbreed, if there were no genetic variation, it would ruin their immunity and they and all their children would be whiped out like any other being (aztects, mayans, cheetahs, europeans and the black plague etc etc).
    Ok, so what were Adam and Eve? We know they were modern humans, that lived around communities of other hominids, and they contained genetic variation. On top of that, we have previous concepts from the prior topic. Things like endogenous retroviruses, and phylogenetic trees that tell us what Adam was. Genetically, this being was not necessarily any sort of super human. He was most likely not a giant because there are no giant fossils of any living hominid including humans.
    So Adam and Eve, just as we do today, if theyre truly our ancestors, most reasonably must have had genetic variation within their genes. So rationally, what we have are, the first advanced modern humans.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Where were Adam and Eve?
    For this, id recommend everyone check this documentary out.

    Essentially, DNA relatedness can can tell us the relatedness of all people on Earth. All males on earth share a specific piece of DNA in our Y chromosomes, thus allowing for development of phylogenetic trees. Phylogenetic trees created using modern human Y chromosomes show that peoples relatedness stems from other societies located in North East African societies. Also in the fossil record, ancient hominid fossils can be found in the same areas in which the related societies are found (also in North East Africa).
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    And the last question of "When" did Adam and Eve live?
    Basically, in humans, we mutate at set rates. So if we have a phylogenetic tree, and sequenced human DNA, depending on the variation between humans, we can determine how many generations of mutations the societies have undergone.
    Based on mutation rates, it can be said that a common ancestor of all living men, can be found to have existed roughly 60 thousand years ago. Which also correlates to the fossil record again. Which is perfect because it is recent enough that nobody needs to associate Adam with any sort of primitive ape. Likewise its early enough in time that he predates modern societies of humans.
    Everything fits together like a nicely designed puzzle.
    Aside from Adam, which the documentary above talks about, Eve can be tracked through mitochondrial DNA much like Adam can be tracked through the Y Chromosome. There is another documentary on "Mitochondrial Eve" i can bring up if anyone is interested.
  3. Like
    iSilurian got a reaction from hasanhh in Transitional Fossils   
    Haha. Well...If you look at DNA based organisms, even humans, yes i know its hard to believe humans have DNA :P, but even humans mutate. Our DNA, sequences proteins and proteins build our morphology. So if DNA mutates, then the proteins it sequences, change, then we subsequently, physically change.
    And we have evolved from the most and to the most, intellectually superior animals on the planet, so i personally am proud of that lol. Indeed, i am very proud to be a human, no matter what our origins.
    And if anything, understanding our origins makes it an even greater history. The past that we have overcome is absolutely amazing, and nobody should be ashamed of how far we've come, nor the amazing feats we have surpassed, because no other living thing we know of, has come as far as we have. in certain aspects*
  4. Like
    iSilurian got a reaction from hasanhh in Transitional Fossils   
    Yea, i guess i will go ahead and ill make a blurb about transitional fossils.
    Basically, in geology, what we have are a handful of principals and practices that allow us to date the ages of rocks. Once we have the ages of rocks, we are able to determine the ages of bones within them.
    What we find throughout time are a succession of fossils. Now, this doesnt mean that in the early earth animals were less "complex" or anything like that. It just means, for the most part, they were suitable for their particular environment at a particular time in history.
    So, if you go back in time, life starts out, of course as small microbes and things like that, then progresses its way up to very odd organisms. Once the major morphological features of the cambrian explosion are in existence, what we find are fossils that transition over time.
    The order they transition is...well it is coherent and makes sense. Essentially we start out with fish (Ordovician), then we get amphibians (Late Devonian), then reptiles (carboniferous), then you get mammals and birds springing out from reptiles in the early to mid Mesozoic (Jurassic and Triassic).
    If you think about what an amphibian is, when i hear amphibian i think of frogs. Animals that breathe air but live in water, or certain types of fish that breathe both air and water.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5puuyKvX0o8
    Which, if you think about earth history, fish came first (water) (450 million years ago) , then amphibians (water+land) (400 million years ago), then reptiles (land) (300 million years ago). It intuitively makes sense. And there are a plethora of amphibian fossils that hold the traits of fish and amphibians.
    Everyone take notice of the timescale here too, it took a good 150 million years before we get land animals from non land animals. Its a significantly long time.
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html#amph1
    What we find are these, animals that will have fins and scales like fish, but they will have neck bones and wrist bones like reptiles, enabling them to turn their necks to look around or twist their bodies to turn as if they were on land. What fish has neck bones which allow it to turn to look around? What fish has wrist bones and muscles that allow it to lift its body with its fins? They're transitionals. Adapted for their environments.

    Ok, moving on.
    So now we have these land critters who like the water.
    Then you get these amphibian to reptile transitions. Animals that have traits of reptiles and amphibians. Which isnt unreasonable. Think about the last time you have went to a zoo or aquarium. Whats the difference between a salamander and a lizard? A snake and an eel?
    These guys arent too much different, morphologically.
    The way, taxonomy in paleontology works is, essentially what you will have is an animal like a fish. And someone will say, ok a fish will be anything with fins, without certain neckbones that has X type of jaw and Y types of organs. And a reptile will be any animal that has Z type of Jaw, W types of neck bones, V types of backbones and skull bones etc.
    so, what we use are these "cladistics" to determine what we call an animal. Its like when you program your tv. If X then proceed to step 2, if Y then proceed to step 5. Does it have fins? yes, ok proceed to step two. step two, ok does it have these types of wrist bones? No, ok therefore it is a fish. or therefore it is an amphibian etc. I hope this makes sense, im not the best at explaining.
    http://tolweb.org/Terrestrial_Vertebrates/14952

    So, as we go throughout time, we then find these part "mammal like - reptiles" (more reptile than mammal), then later on these reptile like mammals (more mammal than reptile).
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html
    If you look at the link above, you just have this massive number of fossils that are somewhere in between. And this is just a small collection of information. The actual number of these fossils goes up into the hundreds. There are so many, and a lot of them have so many mammal traits and reptile traits, that people arent even sure whether we should be calling them mammal or reptile, because theyre morphologically, both mammals and reptiles. Theyre in between, theyre transitionals.
    http://tolweb.org/Synapsida/14845
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synapsid
    http://tolweb.org/Diapsida/14866
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diapsid
    And the same goes for the transition from reptiles to birds. Remember earlier, i mentioned how reptiles split into mammals and birds.
    And we start finding fossils like these.
    Is it a bird? Well it has sharp teeth and huge claws like a reptile. It has the skull shape of a reptiles, thats strange. And yet it has massive feathery wings. It has hollowed out bones just like modern day birds. So what is it? Again. Reptiles (carboniferous, 300 million years ago), Birds (Late Jurassic, 150 million years ago), ok and whats in between? We get fossils like this guy.
    http://tolweb.org/Archosauromorpha/14916
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils#Dinosaurs_to_birds
    And, we go on and on.
    In todays time we have modern forms of birds and mammals (us).
    And you can see the same thing with human evolution as well. A few million years ago, you have these small hominids with small brain capacities and, their neck bones dont allow them to look forward when standing upright, and their hipbones are made as if they should be walking on 4 legs, and they have these stumpy tails and massive canine teeth and...
    It really becomes very detailed cladistics. Thats what it all comes down to.
    http://tolweb.org/Mammalia/15040
    And if anyone is actually playing around with the taxonomy website above, take notice of how many organisms have gone extinct as well.
    Anyway, this has been a rough overview of some transitional fossil info. Someone made a comment about something in another thread, so i felt i may as well make a post.
    If anyone has any questions, feel free to ask.

  5. Like
    iSilurian got a reaction from PureExistence1 in The Age Of The Earth   
    nope. Im...this is actually kind of ironic because of Jawz last post. Im actually more of an environmental geology kind of guy, not really a teacher geologist kind of guy.
    Now, if anyone is following the discussion between Jawsofdeth and i in the thinkers discourse. He has given up on attacking the age of the earth, and has changed the subject to things like the origins of the universe.
    So by demonstrating that scientists do not know something extremely complex like, where the big bang came from, he is trying to take credibility away from our words on something far more simple like the age of the earth.
    Its like saying, because a scientists cant perform a PhD calculus based physics problem, he thinks if we cant do that, automatically we cant do something far simpler like locating Saudi Arabia on a map.
    He isnt actually posting any real argument toward our science, and everyone should notice that.

    /page__pid__2308505#entry2308505



    There ya go. I want real people to stand up. If you have a problem with this science, then bring real arguments against it. Not just your opinion. And if all you have is your opinion, and youre going up against the scientific concensus' opinion, then obviously there is an issue. This is the challange that Islam and other religions often face. You have these conservatives like zakir naik and huran yahya who speak without actually knowing the science. Its time for people to step up to the plate.
  6. Like
    iSilurian got a reaction from PureExistence1 in The K-t Extinction   
    Yea, just out of interest, i figured id make a quick blurb about the K-T extinction. More commonly known as the bolide impact that wiped out the dinosaurs.
    Basically, some scientists...their names arent important, theyre old people :P, they came across this layer of rock in the earth. In the geologic record, its a layer that is about 65 million years old. It seperates the Cretaceous (K) from your tertiary (T). Cretaceous and Tertiary are...geologic names assigned to rocks of particular ages.
    If you examine fossils within the earth, what you will find are a vast variety of fossils, all sorts of dinosaurs and mammals and sea critters and such. But right above that rock layer, above the K-T boundary, all life (not all but a large percentage) just kind of disappears.
    http://en.wikipedia....80%93T_boundary

    See, if you see the green color, you have the cretaceous. Tertiary isn't labeled on this particular diagram, but i liked this one because it had nice pictures :P. U can also see the Silurian there in purple in between 400-450 million years ago, for those of you who have taken notice of my account name.
    Anyway...the boundary between the Cretaceous and the Paleogene/Cenozoic/Tertiary, the boundary consists of a rare earth known as iridium. And, the K-T layer can be found in various locations around the world.

    Iridium, is a prominent element found in meteorites. So, people began to wonder, well, is this global layer of iridium the result of a meteorite impact?
    So scientists ran around to see what else they could learn about the K-T rocks, what they found were things like...heavily burned soils. And melted rock fragments. With use of physics, it can be seen that something with immense energy essentially turned rocks instantaneously into molten rock. And that molten rock cools off in very recognizable ways. It shears and gets stretched and...yea. Its called shocked quartz.

    So, now we have scientists with a handful of evidence. Then later on, in todays time and more recently, a handful of meteorite craters have been discovered that actually are roughly of the same age (65 mya) as the iridium layer (chuxulub crater). Right. So this is why you have people saying that dinosaurs were wiped out by an asteroid or asteroids.
    http://en.wikipedia....hicxulub_Crater

    On top of that, on the other side of the world, the Deccan Traps, which are these...massive basalt beds, basically show us that extreme vulcanism at roughly the same time as the K-T impact and all the evidence that followed.
    So, here is a brief overview for those who may be interested in what some geologists spend their time doing. And it also holds a lot of implications to religious thought, for those who enjoy contemplating these things.
    Oh, and one more thing, once the dinosaurs were not gobbling up our ancestors, it finally allowed mammals to proliferate around the world, and to become the dominant world rulers that we are today.
    So, it means a lot if you think about it.
    Thats my 2 second overview, i hope everyone enjoys and feel free to ask questions if you have any.
  7. Like
    iSilurian got a reaction from PureExistence1 in Transitional Fossils   
    Haha. Well...If you look at DNA based organisms, even humans, yes i know its hard to believe humans have DNA :P, but even humans mutate. Our DNA, sequences proteins and proteins build our morphology. So if DNA mutates, then the proteins it sequences, change, then we subsequently, physically change.
    And we have evolved from the most and to the most, intellectually superior animals on the planet, so i personally am proud of that lol. Indeed, i am very proud to be a human, no matter what our origins.
    And if anything, understanding our origins makes it an even greater history. The past that we have overcome is absolutely amazing, and nobody should be ashamed of how far we've come, nor the amazing feats we have surpassed, because no other living thing we know of, has come as far as we have. in certain aspects*
  8. Like
    iSilurian got a reaction from PureExistence1 in Transitional Fossils   
    Yea, i guess i will go ahead and ill make a blurb about transitional fossils.
    Basically, in geology, what we have are a handful of principals and practices that allow us to date the ages of rocks. Once we have the ages of rocks, we are able to determine the ages of bones within them.
    What we find throughout time are a succession of fossils. Now, this doesnt mean that in the early earth animals were less "complex" or anything like that. It just means, for the most part, they were suitable for their particular environment at a particular time in history.
    So, if you go back in time, life starts out, of course as small microbes and things like that, then progresses its way up to very odd organisms. Once the major morphological features of the cambrian explosion are in existence, what we find are fossils that transition over time.
    The order they transition is...well it is coherent and makes sense. Essentially we start out with fish (Ordovician), then we get amphibians (Late Devonian), then reptiles (carboniferous), then you get mammals and birds springing out from reptiles in the early to mid Mesozoic (Jurassic and Triassic).
    If you think about what an amphibian is, when i hear amphibian i think of frogs. Animals that breathe air but live in water, or certain types of fish that breathe both air and water.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5puuyKvX0o8
    Which, if you think about earth history, fish came first (water) (450 million years ago) , then amphibians (water+land) (400 million years ago), then reptiles (land) (300 million years ago). It intuitively makes sense. And there are a plethora of amphibian fossils that hold the traits of fish and amphibians.
    Everyone take notice of the timescale here too, it took a good 150 million years before we get land animals from non land animals. Its a significantly long time.
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html#amph1
    What we find are these, animals that will have fins and scales like fish, but they will have neck bones and wrist bones like reptiles, enabling them to turn their necks to look around or twist their bodies to turn as if they were on land. What fish has neck bones which allow it to turn to look around? What fish has wrist bones and muscles that allow it to lift its body with its fins? They're transitionals. Adapted for their environments.

    Ok, moving on.
    So now we have these land critters who like the water.
    Then you get these amphibian to reptile transitions. Animals that have traits of reptiles and amphibians. Which isnt unreasonable. Think about the last time you have went to a zoo or aquarium. Whats the difference between a salamander and a lizard? A snake and an eel?
    These guys arent too much different, morphologically.
    The way, taxonomy in paleontology works is, essentially what you will have is an animal like a fish. And someone will say, ok a fish will be anything with fins, without certain neckbones that has X type of jaw and Y types of organs. And a reptile will be any animal that has Z type of Jaw, W types of neck bones, V types of backbones and skull bones etc.
    so, what we use are these "cladistics" to determine what we call an animal. Its like when you program your tv. If X then proceed to step 2, if Y then proceed to step 5. Does it have fins? yes, ok proceed to step two. step two, ok does it have these types of wrist bones? No, ok therefore it is a fish. or therefore it is an amphibian etc. I hope this makes sense, im not the best at explaining.
    http://tolweb.org/Terrestrial_Vertebrates/14952

    So, as we go throughout time, we then find these part "mammal like - reptiles" (more reptile than mammal), then later on these reptile like mammals (more mammal than reptile).
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html
    If you look at the link above, you just have this massive number of fossils that are somewhere in between. And this is just a small collection of information. The actual number of these fossils goes up into the hundreds. There are so many, and a lot of them have so many mammal traits and reptile traits, that people arent even sure whether we should be calling them mammal or reptile, because theyre morphologically, both mammals and reptiles. Theyre in between, theyre transitionals.
    http://tolweb.org/Synapsida/14845
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synapsid
    http://tolweb.org/Diapsida/14866
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diapsid
    And the same goes for the transition from reptiles to birds. Remember earlier, i mentioned how reptiles split into mammals and birds.
    And we start finding fossils like these.
    Is it a bird? Well it has sharp teeth and huge claws like a reptile. It has the skull shape of a reptiles, thats strange. And yet it has massive feathery wings. It has hollowed out bones just like modern day birds. So what is it? Again. Reptiles (carboniferous, 300 million years ago), Birds (Late Jurassic, 150 million years ago), ok and whats in between? We get fossils like this guy.
    http://tolweb.org/Archosauromorpha/14916
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils#Dinosaurs_to_birds
    And, we go on and on.
    In todays time we have modern forms of birds and mammals (us).
    And you can see the same thing with human evolution as well. A few million years ago, you have these small hominids with small brain capacities and, their neck bones dont allow them to look forward when standing upright, and their hipbones are made as if they should be walking on 4 legs, and they have these stumpy tails and massive canine teeth and...
    It really becomes very detailed cladistics. Thats what it all comes down to.
    http://tolweb.org/Mammalia/15040
    And if anyone is actually playing around with the taxonomy website above, take notice of how many organisms have gone extinct as well.
    Anyway, this has been a rough overview of some transitional fossil info. Someone made a comment about something in another thread, so i felt i may as well make a post.
    If anyone has any questions, feel free to ask.

  9. Like
    iSilurian got a reaction from Abu Nur in Transitional Fossils   
    Yea, i guess i will go ahead and ill make a blurb about transitional fossils.
    Basically, in geology, what we have are a handful of principals and practices that allow us to date the ages of rocks. Once we have the ages of rocks, we are able to determine the ages of bones within them.
    What we find throughout time are a succession of fossils. Now, this doesnt mean that in the early earth animals were less "complex" or anything like that. It just means, for the most part, they were suitable for their particular environment at a particular time in history.
    So, if you go back in time, life starts out, of course as small microbes and things like that, then progresses its way up to very odd organisms. Once the major morphological features of the cambrian explosion are in existence, what we find are fossils that transition over time.
    The order they transition is...well it is coherent and makes sense. Essentially we start out with fish (Ordovician), then we get amphibians (Late Devonian), then reptiles (carboniferous), then you get mammals and birds springing out from reptiles in the early to mid Mesozoic (Jurassic and Triassic).
    If you think about what an amphibian is, when i hear amphibian i think of frogs. Animals that breathe air but live in water, or certain types of fish that breathe both air and water.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5puuyKvX0o8
    Which, if you think about earth history, fish came first (water) (450 million years ago) , then amphibians (water+land) (400 million years ago), then reptiles (land) (300 million years ago). It intuitively makes sense. And there are a plethora of amphibian fossils that hold the traits of fish and amphibians.
    Everyone take notice of the timescale here too, it took a good 150 million years before we get land animals from non land animals. Its a significantly long time.
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html#amph1
    What we find are these, animals that will have fins and scales like fish, but they will have neck bones and wrist bones like reptiles, enabling them to turn their necks to look around or twist their bodies to turn as if they were on land. What fish has neck bones which allow it to turn to look around? What fish has wrist bones and muscles that allow it to lift its body with its fins? They're transitionals. Adapted for their environments.

    Ok, moving on.
    So now we have these land critters who like the water.
    Then you get these amphibian to reptile transitions. Animals that have traits of reptiles and amphibians. Which isnt unreasonable. Think about the last time you have went to a zoo or aquarium. Whats the difference between a salamander and a lizard? A snake and an eel?
    These guys arent too much different, morphologically.
    The way, taxonomy in paleontology works is, essentially what you will have is an animal like a fish. And someone will say, ok a fish will be anything with fins, without certain neckbones that has X type of jaw and Y types of organs. And a reptile will be any animal that has Z type of Jaw, W types of neck bones, V types of backbones and skull bones etc.
    so, what we use are these "cladistics" to determine what we call an animal. Its like when you program your tv. If X then proceed to step 2, if Y then proceed to step 5. Does it have fins? yes, ok proceed to step two. step two, ok does it have these types of wrist bones? No, ok therefore it is a fish. or therefore it is an amphibian etc. I hope this makes sense, im not the best at explaining.
    http://tolweb.org/Terrestrial_Vertebrates/14952

    So, as we go throughout time, we then find these part "mammal like - reptiles" (more reptile than mammal), then later on these reptile like mammals (more mammal than reptile).
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html
    If you look at the link above, you just have this massive number of fossils that are somewhere in between. And this is just a small collection of information. The actual number of these fossils goes up into the hundreds. There are so many, and a lot of them have so many mammal traits and reptile traits, that people arent even sure whether we should be calling them mammal or reptile, because theyre morphologically, both mammals and reptiles. Theyre in between, theyre transitionals.
    http://tolweb.org/Synapsida/14845
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synapsid
    http://tolweb.org/Diapsida/14866
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diapsid
    And the same goes for the transition from reptiles to birds. Remember earlier, i mentioned how reptiles split into mammals and birds.
    And we start finding fossils like these.
    Is it a bird? Well it has sharp teeth and huge claws like a reptile. It has the skull shape of a reptiles, thats strange. And yet it has massive feathery wings. It has hollowed out bones just like modern day birds. So what is it? Again. Reptiles (carboniferous, 300 million years ago), Birds (Late Jurassic, 150 million years ago), ok and whats in between? We get fossils like this guy.
    http://tolweb.org/Archosauromorpha/14916
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils#Dinosaurs_to_birds
    And, we go on and on.
    In todays time we have modern forms of birds and mammals (us).
    And you can see the same thing with human evolution as well. A few million years ago, you have these small hominids with small brain capacities and, their neck bones dont allow them to look forward when standing upright, and their hipbones are made as if they should be walking on 4 legs, and they have these stumpy tails and massive canine teeth and...
    It really becomes very detailed cladistics. Thats what it all comes down to.
    http://tolweb.org/Mammalia/15040
    And if anyone is actually playing around with the taxonomy website above, take notice of how many organisms have gone extinct as well.
    Anyway, this has been a rough overview of some transitional fossil info. Someone made a comment about something in another thread, so i felt i may as well make a post.
    If anyone has any questions, feel free to ask.

  10. Like
    iSilurian got a reaction from ~ThePond~ in Did We Go To The Moon?   
    considering that there are international space stations, and there are robots on mars which are in part built by americans. Something like walking on the moon sounds like a walk in the park for a nation that has the consumption of a hoard of hungry hippos.
  11. Like
    iSilurian got a reaction from hasanhh in Did We Go To The Moon?   
    considering that there are international space stations, and there are robots on mars which are in part built by americans. Something like walking on the moon sounds like a walk in the park for a nation that has the consumption of a hoard of hungry hippos.
  12. Like
    iSilurian got a reaction from Al-Hassan in The Theory Of Evolution   
    I guess, ill make this here. My previous topic on morals condones the theory of evolution, and im sure there are many people here who would automatically reject my concepts just because i use evolution within the topic.
    Also before i continue, if anyone here wants to argue against me, or try to refute my statements, i will only accept scientific published peer reviewed research.. Ths means no random youtube videos, no random websites designed by highschool students etc.
    basic
    So i would like to present a few things about the theory of evolution that, i imagine people may not be familiar with, just to put some ideas out there. If anyone would like to associate their concepts in faith with it, that would fine as well.
    The basic theory of evolution, im sure most people have a general understanding of. It is defined by mutations within our DNA, which are manipulated by natural selection, and evolution occurs in communities.
    One mght ask how people have come to the conclusion that this theory is true. Well, mutations within DNA are observable, so it is well established that living things do genetically change, and genetics manipulate the proteins that define our morphology (things like bone structure). And so it is known that beings will physically change over time, albeit very very slowly. Beyond that, the concept of natural selection is just survival of the fittest, and the fittest organisms proceed to the next generation of living things.
    Just a few examples:
    CCR5 mutation which promotes HIV resistance in humans
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8751444
    LDL receptor protein mutation, and increased bone density in swedish families
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12015390
    Nylonase phrame shift mutation
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6585807
    Mutations within the Italian wall lizard which have brought about morphological changes
    Vervust. B., Grbac. I., Damme. R., Differences in morphology, performance and behaviour between recently diverged populations of Podarcis sicula mirror differences in predation pressure, Nov 2007, Oikos, v. 116, p 1343-1352
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    a little more in depth
    A little more in depth, there are concepts regarding the fossil record. I personally do work quite a bit with the fossil record, and i will say, there is in fact a succession of fossils in the earth over time. What i mean by this is, in the past (450 million years ago), in ancient strata, all you will find are fish bones. then around 400 mya you find fish with legs and other sorts of amphibians. then around 300 mya you find reptiles, lizards and snakes etc. 200 mya you find large reptiles like dinosaurs and you find...reptiles with mammal traits. then around 150 mya you find mammals with reptile traits and you find reptiles with bird traits. then under 100 mya you find things like full mammals and full birds, and all living things prior.
    And so, a succession of animals can be seen to change over time in the fossils.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    complex summation
    Ok so, the things i have mentioned before are simple basics, most people are familiar with them, but the actual real reason scientists support the theory of evolution more extensively comes from things that i will mention below.
    Now, the fossil record, if you track morphological changes in the fossil record, you can create something called a phylogenetic tree. This is basically your standard scientific tree of life. The way its made is, ~ If an organism contains trait X go to step five. If an organism does not contain trait X go to step 2.
    Its kind of like an organised way of programing a tv :P, its the same method. I hope that makes sense.
    So, basically, the trees that are made from studies like the fossil record, match the trees made from things like genetics, and comparative anatomy of living things, and ecologic studies etc etc. And so, it is known that there is factually a direct relationship between the fossil succession, and the genetics within all DNA based organisms.
    More specifically, on the genetic phylogenetic tree, the tree is made in the same way that other trees are made, but its like... If the sequence AAB exists proceed to step five, if the sequence AAC exists, proceed to step 2. The tree is defined by differences created by mutations within the organism. With this said, its understood that, things arent simply similar in DNA just because theyve been created to look similar. Things are similar in DNA because genetically, the mutations and alterations of DNA have proceeded identically with the mutations of the fossil record and have created a tree that defines the traits that living things hold.
    I hope this makes sense, im not exactly a professor, if anyone doesnt understand or has questions, feel free to ask.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    a little more advanced
    The summation of studies and their relative phylogenetic trees is proof that there is a relationship between the fossil record and anatomy of living things and DNA. and how each has transitioned overtime, but just for a little more icing on the top, id like to talk a bit about enndogenous retroviruses.
    Endogenous retroviruses are essentially, viruses that insert ultimately have their genetic makeup inserted into our DNA. When living things are attacked by these viruses, the genes that contain the DNA of the viruses, depending on what cells they attack within living things, can be passed on to our children. and our children pass it to their children etc etc, just like all DNA is passed on to our progeny. Ok so, now, if you think about, a family tree. That of a kin of people. distant cousins and second cousins and third cousins and second aunts and uncles etc etc, all will be on small distant branches of a family tree. Whereas parents, first brothers and sisters, will be on primary branches.
    With that understanding, lets say i am attacked by an ERV. ok so now, my children will have the ERV signature within them. Now lets say one of my children are attacked by an ERV. now my grandchildren will have the ERV signiture of me, and my childrens ERV within them. so my grandchildren will have 2 signature, and my children will have 1 signature. and so on and so on. They add up over the generations.
    Now, with this said, we can determine the relatedness of living things based on the number of ERV signatures they have within them. For example, i can tell my grandchildren are closer related to eachother than they are to me, because they have more ERVs.
    This is a really really simple way of describing this, but it makes sense and its proven.
    Now, how does this relate to evolution? Well, ERVs are found in living things, including humans and chimps and all sorts of mammals etc etc. So what does it mean? It means we share a common ancestor.
    And not only that, the phylogenetic tree made from ERV traces, directly matches phylogenetic trees made in comparative anatomy, and the fossil record and ecologic studies etc.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16830071
    ok so, this is rough start, obviously there is a lot more to say, but this i think is a good ice breaker for discussion.
  13. Like
    iSilurian got a reaction from Hameedeh in How Do You Organize Your Life?   
    Normally if there are...a low number of objectives im trying to accomplish, ill just remember them. But if i have, for example 5 or 6 assignments due at various dates, what ill do is, ill open up a word document or a notepad doc on my computer, and ill sort everything out based on due date, time necessary to accomplish it, free time, importance of each assignment, etc..
  14. Like
    iSilurian got a reaction from iDevonian in Why Can't Muslim Women Marry People Of The Book?   
    Finally, someone with some common sense, +1.
  15. Like
    iSilurian got a reaction from Naruto in The Theory Of Evolution   
    I guess, ill make this here. My previous topic on morals condones the theory of evolution, and im sure there are many people here who would automatically reject my concepts just because i use evolution within the topic.
    Also before i continue, if anyone here wants to argue against me, or try to refute my statements, i will only accept scientific published peer reviewed research.. Ths means no random youtube videos, no random websites designed by highschool students etc.
    basic
    So i would like to present a few things about the theory of evolution that, i imagine people may not be familiar with, just to put some ideas out there. If anyone would like to associate their concepts in faith with it, that would fine as well.
    The basic theory of evolution, im sure most people have a general understanding of. It is defined by mutations within our DNA, which are manipulated by natural selection, and evolution occurs in communities.
    One mght ask how people have come to the conclusion that this theory is true. Well, mutations within DNA are observable, so it is well established that living things do genetically change, and genetics manipulate the proteins that define our morphology (things like bone structure). And so it is known that beings will physically change over time, albeit very very slowly. Beyond that, the concept of natural selection is just survival of the fittest, and the fittest organisms proceed to the next generation of living things.
    Just a few examples:
    CCR5 mutation which promotes HIV resistance in humans
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8751444
    LDL receptor protein mutation, and increased bone density in swedish families
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12015390
    Nylonase phrame shift mutation
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6585807
    Mutations within the Italian wall lizard which have brought about morphological changes
    Vervust. B., Grbac. I., Damme. R., Differences in morphology, performance and behaviour between recently diverged populations of Podarcis sicula mirror differences in predation pressure, Nov 2007, Oikos, v. 116, p 1343-1352
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    a little more in depth
    A little more in depth, there are concepts regarding the fossil record. I personally do work quite a bit with the fossil record, and i will say, there is in fact a succession of fossils in the earth over time. What i mean by this is, in the past (450 million years ago), in ancient strata, all you will find are fish bones. then around 400 mya you find fish with legs and other sorts of amphibians. then around 300 mya you find reptiles, lizards and snakes etc. 200 mya you find large reptiles like dinosaurs and you find...reptiles with mammal traits. then around 150 mya you find mammals with reptile traits and you find reptiles with bird traits. then under 100 mya you find things like full mammals and full birds, and all living things prior.
    And so, a succession of animals can be seen to change over time in the fossils.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    complex summation
    Ok so, the things i have mentioned before are simple basics, most people are familiar with them, but the actual real reason scientists support the theory of evolution more extensively comes from things that i will mention below.
    Now, the fossil record, if you track morphological changes in the fossil record, you can create something called a phylogenetic tree. This is basically your standard scientific tree of life. The way its made is, ~ If an organism contains trait X go to step five. If an organism does not contain trait X go to step 2.
    Its kind of like an organised way of programing a tv :P, its the same method. I hope that makes sense.
    So, basically, the trees that are made from studies like the fossil record, match the trees made from things like genetics, and comparative anatomy of living things, and ecologic studies etc etc. And so, it is known that there is factually a direct relationship between the fossil succession, and the genetics within all DNA based organisms.
    More specifically, on the genetic phylogenetic tree, the tree is made in the same way that other trees are made, but its like... If the sequence AAB exists proceed to step five, if the sequence AAC exists, proceed to step 2. The tree is defined by differences created by mutations within the organism. With this said, its understood that, things arent simply similar in DNA just because theyve been created to look similar. Things are similar in DNA because genetically, the mutations and alterations of DNA have proceeded identically with the mutations of the fossil record and have created a tree that defines the traits that living things hold.
    I hope this makes sense, im not exactly a professor, if anyone doesnt understand or has questions, feel free to ask.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    a little more advanced
    The summation of studies and their relative phylogenetic trees is proof that there is a relationship between the fossil record and anatomy of living things and DNA. and how each has transitioned overtime, but just for a little more icing on the top, id like to talk a bit about enndogenous retroviruses.
    Endogenous retroviruses are essentially, viruses that insert ultimately have their genetic makeup inserted into our DNA. When living things are attacked by these viruses, the genes that contain the DNA of the viruses, depending on what cells they attack within living things, can be passed on to our children. and our children pass it to their children etc etc, just like all DNA is passed on to our progeny. Ok so, now, if you think about, a family tree. That of a kin of people. distant cousins and second cousins and third cousins and second aunts and uncles etc etc, all will be on small distant branches of a family tree. Whereas parents, first brothers and sisters, will be on primary branches.
    With that understanding, lets say i am attacked by an ERV. ok so now, my children will have the ERV signature within them. Now lets say one of my children are attacked by an ERV. now my grandchildren will have the ERV signiture of me, and my childrens ERV within them. so my grandchildren will have 2 signature, and my children will have 1 signature. and so on and so on. They add up over the generations.
    Now, with this said, we can determine the relatedness of living things based on the number of ERV signatures they have within them. For example, i can tell my grandchildren are closer related to eachother than they are to me, because they have more ERVs.
    This is a really really simple way of describing this, but it makes sense and its proven.
    Now, how does this relate to evolution? Well, ERVs are found in living things, including humans and chimps and all sorts of mammals etc etc. So what does it mean? It means we share a common ancestor.
    And not only that, the phylogenetic tree made from ERV traces, directly matches phylogenetic trees made in comparative anatomy, and the fossil record and ecologic studies etc.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16830071
    ok so, this is rough start, obviously there is a lot more to say, but this i think is a good ice breaker for discussion.
  16. Like
    iSilurian got a reaction from Naruto in Transitional Fossils   
    Yea, i guess i will go ahead and ill make a blurb about transitional fossils.
    Basically, in geology, what we have are a handful of principals and practices that allow us to date the ages of rocks. Once we have the ages of rocks, we are able to determine the ages of bones within them.
    What we find throughout time are a succession of fossils. Now, this doesnt mean that in the early earth animals were less "complex" or anything like that. It just means, for the most part, they were suitable for their particular environment at a particular time in history.
    So, if you go back in time, life starts out, of course as small microbes and things like that, then progresses its way up to very odd organisms. Once the major morphological features of the cambrian explosion are in existence, what we find are fossils that transition over time.
    The order they transition is...well it is coherent and makes sense. Essentially we start out with fish (Ordovician), then we get amphibians (Late Devonian), then reptiles (carboniferous), then you get mammals and birds springing out from reptiles in the early to mid Mesozoic (Jurassic and Triassic).
    If you think about what an amphibian is, when i hear amphibian i think of frogs. Animals that breathe air but live in water, or certain types of fish that breathe both air and water.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5puuyKvX0o8
    Which, if you think about earth history, fish came first (water) (450 million years ago) , then amphibians (water+land) (400 million years ago), then reptiles (land) (300 million years ago). It intuitively makes sense. And there are a plethora of amphibian fossils that hold the traits of fish and amphibians.
    Everyone take notice of the timescale here too, it took a good 150 million years before we get land animals from non land animals. Its a significantly long time.
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html#amph1
    What we find are these, animals that will have fins and scales like fish, but they will have neck bones and wrist bones like reptiles, enabling them to turn their necks to look around or twist their bodies to turn as if they were on land. What fish has neck bones which allow it to turn to look around? What fish has wrist bones and muscles that allow it to lift its body with its fins? They're transitionals. Adapted for their environments.

    Ok, moving on.
    So now we have these land critters who like the water.
    Then you get these amphibian to reptile transitions. Animals that have traits of reptiles and amphibians. Which isnt unreasonable. Think about the last time you have went to a zoo or aquarium. Whats the difference between a salamander and a lizard? A snake and an eel?
    These guys arent too much different, morphologically.
    The way, taxonomy in paleontology works is, essentially what you will have is an animal like a fish. And someone will say, ok a fish will be anything with fins, without certain neckbones that has X type of jaw and Y types of organs. And a reptile will be any animal that has Z type of Jaw, W types of neck bones, V types of backbones and skull bones etc.
    so, what we use are these "cladistics" to determine what we call an animal. Its like when you program your tv. If X then proceed to step 2, if Y then proceed to step 5. Does it have fins? yes, ok proceed to step two. step two, ok does it have these types of wrist bones? No, ok therefore it is a fish. or therefore it is an amphibian etc. I hope this makes sense, im not the best at explaining.
    http://tolweb.org/Terrestrial_Vertebrates/14952

    So, as we go throughout time, we then find these part "mammal like - reptiles" (more reptile than mammal), then later on these reptile like mammals (more mammal than reptile).
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html
    If you look at the link above, you just have this massive number of fossils that are somewhere in between. And this is just a small collection of information. The actual number of these fossils goes up into the hundreds. There are so many, and a lot of them have so many mammal traits and reptile traits, that people arent even sure whether we should be calling them mammal or reptile, because theyre morphologically, both mammals and reptiles. Theyre in between, theyre transitionals.
    http://tolweb.org/Synapsida/14845
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synapsid
    http://tolweb.org/Diapsida/14866
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diapsid
    And the same goes for the transition from reptiles to birds. Remember earlier, i mentioned how reptiles split into mammals and birds.
    And we start finding fossils like these.
    Is it a bird? Well it has sharp teeth and huge claws like a reptile. It has the skull shape of a reptiles, thats strange. And yet it has massive feathery wings. It has hollowed out bones just like modern day birds. So what is it? Again. Reptiles (carboniferous, 300 million years ago), Birds (Late Jurassic, 150 million years ago), ok and whats in between? We get fossils like this guy.
    http://tolweb.org/Archosauromorpha/14916
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils#Dinosaurs_to_birds
    And, we go on and on.
    In todays time we have modern forms of birds and mammals (us).
    And you can see the same thing with human evolution as well. A few million years ago, you have these small hominids with small brain capacities and, their neck bones dont allow them to look forward when standing upright, and their hipbones are made as if they should be walking on 4 legs, and they have these stumpy tails and massive canine teeth and...
    It really becomes very detailed cladistics. Thats what it all comes down to.
    http://tolweb.org/Mammalia/15040
    And if anyone is actually playing around with the taxonomy website above, take notice of how many organisms have gone extinct as well.
    Anyway, this has been a rough overview of some transitional fossil info. Someone made a comment about something in another thread, so i felt i may as well make a post.
    If anyone has any questions, feel free to ask.

  17. Like
    iSilurian got a reaction from yellow billed magpie in 28 Issues With Quran   
    objection your honor, speculation.
  18. Like
    iSilurian got a reaction from AlwaysChangingHisUserName in All American Muslim   
    I mean, its about muslims in america because its a hot topic. Who doesnt want to watch a show about muslims in america? i wanna see it and im not even muslim. If the guy coaches football then he coaches football, if the muslimah wants to go to a club then she wants to go to the club. The point is youre getting a perspective from muslims in america, the Islamic side, the non Islamic side, and everything in between. Because realistically this is who people are. And thats pretty cool. We want realism. This isnt Saudi Arabia or Iran, we want America and we want an Islamic perspective.
  19. Like
    iSilurian got a reaction from Aryana in Men Should Have Sex Slaves   
    Well theres a dfference between a slave and a servant. In the context of th discussion, the female kuwait politician is condoning buying and selling russian women. Which is what we call human trafficing and is inhumane.
    That wouldnt be right because youre forcing the people to be your servants. The humane thing would be to teach them how to run a proper economic country so that they could build up and run it themselves. You dont take it over and run it for them outside of their will. You said it yourself they would "rise up against you again", well thats because they probably do not agree with what youre doing. Thus, you must either teach them and justify what youre doing, or you simply let them recover on their own or help them recover on their own by assisting their leaders.
    This isnt ancient greece, and people are not spartans. So many people in todays time complain about occupations and foreign control from the west and jews etc etc. And i agree with the people who say these things, its inhumane for any country to go and just start running another one. Which i would say is why in situations like Iraq, Iraqi people themselves have been erected as leaders.
    But really, there is no need to get into details, basically, its inhumane to control and run other peoples lives without their consent, bottom line. And if you argue against that, then i would say youre jaded. no offense.
    This rule would depend on the subjective nature of the situation.
    The rest of these laws are subjective (4. The master must not give a task too hard for the slave to complete) or those made my bigots (as long as it did not interfere with typical religious life of the Muslims) or are otherwise completely useless rights that every human unarguably has to begin with (food, medicine, housing, and clothing).
    The rest of your post is irrelevant. The people, or more specifically, this women in this article is arguing in favor of human trafficking and ownership of one human under another.
    It doesnt matter how you twist it, we didnt spend the last few hundred years buildiing human rights just so someone can backtrack and support human trafficking. Its obviously wrong and if you cant see that, i dont know what to tell ya.
    And for the last paragraph posted. Slavery couldnt be exploited if it were never created to begin with. There are more humane methods of working with other nations. Human trafficking of their women (and ill just add, only non muslims) is not one of them. This is primitive bigotry from bronze aged ideologies.
    Maybe back in the day when Infallible Imams and Muhammad pbuh who were, humane infallible beings, maybe during their time they could be trusted with slaves. But in todays time, there is no doubt that such an idea is an absurd, inhumane and just an all around bad idea. People are simply too corrupt to be given ownership over other people.
  20. Like
    iSilurian got a reaction from ImAli in What Is Your Religion? Take This Quiz To Find Out   
    I like how people are getting results of judaism hahaha.
  21. Like
    iSilurian got a reaction from lalala123 in Why Are Women Evil?   
    Thats a bit cold lol. I dont think most women are how you have described. But i will tell you why women chase men. Sexual interests and the social interests are hardwired into their genetics. And if you dont get jealous of your man being with another women, then im afraid youre a rare exception. Most human beings care about their loved ones, and arent interested in seeing their loved ones favor another person over themselves. Its only reasonable.
  22. Like
    iSilurian got a reaction from Ismahan007 in Ever Had The Perfect Person Turn You Down?   
    Some wounds will never heal, and will never be forgotten.
    thankfully there are plenty of men and women in the world, so itll be ok.
  23. Like
    iSilurian got a reaction from lalala123 in What Do You Think Brothers?   
    Opinionated and outspoken women are easier to talk to. And initially are easier to be around. They normally get first dibs on men. Women who are shy and quiet are tougher to be around because sometimes theyre hard to talk to, or hard to get to open up. Or because theyre quiet, sometimes you may not notice them when theyre standing next to a girl who is loud.
    Overall though, quiet girls and outspoken girls, both can be good catches, and you should just be yourself. As long as you are yourself, whether youre quiet or outspoken, it doesnt matter. You will find a man (who may be good or bad).
  24. Like
    iSilurian reacted to satyaban in Homosexuality   
    Some got ran over by the 7th century and are tryin to catch up but can't.
    My eye color, hair color and a whole lot more about me is genetic but I didn't know green eyes and light brown hair was a disease. I must be a walking talking disease just like a homosexual.
    The Quran says homoseexuality is haraam but that is for you it means absolutely nothing to a non-Muslim so you must be talking only about and to Muslim homosexuals. God has not revealed anything special to me about homosexuals but it has been revealed how to regard people who discriminate and those who do harm to his creation whether by thought or deed, you can. People would not be who they are if God did not make it so. I am sure you agree God knows best.
  25. Like
    iSilurian reacted to satyaban in If Americans Protest War With Iran   
    There is now an advanced theory. if you analyze youtube, presstv,foxnews, and wikileaks you can learn every dirty secret in the world today.
    But I mistakenly thought this thread was about "If Americans Protest War With Iran". What corporations have to do with this I don't know I didn't read those posts when I saw the word. The many times I was on the streets of Washington, in front of the Whitehouse, and at the gates of Arlington Cemetery I didn't see any corporations carrying a sign or shouting not a one.
    So is this thread about war mongers or those who are not and how the government treats them.
    To get back on topic let's consider the following. Since the 1960s there have been a great many protests large, small, and some with over a million participants. Have some been beaten, yes and the worst of it was in Chicago at the Democratic National Convention in 1968 by the Police not the Federal Government. Plenty have been locked up but never in prisons and never held in secret without a telephone and none were sodomized and only a few were not released the next day. Most important is that death only visited at Kent State and resulted in a congressional investigation not some dog and pony show.
    I will stack this up against any Muslim nation and any other nation as well. I mentioned Muslim nations because this is a Muslim web site and some members delight in attacking the U.S. but we don't brutalize our citizens and hang them in massive numbers every year or gun them down in the street. This is not Syria, Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, or a host of other countries.
×
×
  • Create New...