40 Sikh lads defend themselves against Muslim sex predators?

[Zingari]

Because the forward progression of dinosaur to bird happened via mutation and natural selection, the genome changed over time to what it is currently. The probability of the reverse mutations happening to progress back towards dinosaurs is so incredibly low it can be considered impossible.

You are saying that Evolution is definitely a one way ticket then ?

There is no chance of reversal ?

I'll take your word for it , but it goes against my gut feeling

[Carl the Llama]

Because crocodiles are crocodylia, not dinosaurs - both were reptiles but different orders. Similar to how rabbits are lagomorphs, not rodents - but both are mammals.

At the end of the day they're all archosaurs.

I'd assume it's because modern day crocodiles and alligators of every genus are far removed evolutionary speaking from their prehistoric ancestors. Crocodylomorpha would have branched off so far they are too "modern" to be considered "dinosaurs".

What danny. said...

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

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

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

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

Tell me those things don't look almost identical to our modern day versions (size excepting).

I refuse to let an anal technicality rob me of the assertion that we live with dinosaurs.

[Carl the Llama]

You are saying that Evolution is definitely a one way ticket then ?

There is no chance of reversal ?

I'll take your word for it , but it goes against my gut feeling

Actually, some animals have been known to 'reverse evolve' as it were, we just haven't had anything turn back into a dinosaur... yet.

[21st Century Fox]

You are saying that Evolution is definitely a one way ticket then ?

There is no chance of reversal ?

I'll take your word for it , but it goes against my gut feeling

If you think of the millions of years of evolution that lead up to the evolution of birds from dinosaurs, there would have to be an exact reversal of that scenario over millions of years of evolution for a 'regression' to what you'd consider a dinosaur. The probabilities involved in that happening are mind ****ing.

[Zingari]

If you think of the millions of years of evolution that lead up to the evolution of birds from dinosaurs, there would have to be an exact reversal of that scenario over millions of years of evolution for a 'regression' to what you'd consider a dinosaur. The probabilities involved in that happening are mind ****ing.

But the forward evolution is just as mind boggling when you think about it .

Birds were evolving wings for long periods before they could actually provide them with flight .

So what use was a stubby wing that was unable to provide flight ?

Doesn't it imply that the evolution of the wing that could provide flight was pre ordained into the genepool and that the blueprint for this was already available in the gene pool and not the result of a blind environmental lead change ?

[danny.]

But the forward evolution is just as mind boggling when you think about it .

Birds were evolving wings for long periods before they could actually provide them with flight .

So what use was a stubby wing that was unable to provide flight ?

Doesn't it imply that the evolution of the wing that could provide flight was pre ordained into the genepool and that the blueprint for this was already available in the gene pool and not the result of a blind environmental lead change ?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2236373/Birds-evolved-wings-warmth-flight-new-findings-suggest.html

[21st Century Fox]

But the forward evolution is just as mind boggling when you think about it .

Birds were evolving wings for long periods before they could actually provide them with flight .

So what use was a stubby wing that was unable to provide flight ?

Doesn't it imply that the evolution of the wing that could provide flight was pre ordained into the genepool and that the blueprint for this was already available in the gene pool and not the result of a blind environmental lead change ?

It's probably more likely that what we now consider a wing evolved from something that had a different use. Feather's came first as way of insulating certain animals and their eggs, flight could have come as a secondary function from gliding that then became a 'useful' characteristic with a genepool.

What about the wings of birds? In

some dinosaurs

, the scales covering their bodies evolved into hair-like feathers, most likely to insulate warm-blooded bodies or help keep eggs warm.

Those dinosaurs with feathers on their limbs might then have started to exploit the aerodynamic properties offered by feathers, perhaps gliding between trees or running faster along the ground. Fossils show a gradual transition from downy, hair-like feathers into the rigid flight feathers that form the key part of birds' wings.

Another

idea that is gaining favour

is that flapping forelimbs helped the ancestors of birds to

run up steep slopes

or climb trees - a technique many birds still employ today.

Without a time machine it is difficult to prove exactly what early birds or insects used "half a wing" for. But it is now clear that half a wing can have all sorts of uses. Indeed, there are numerous examples of physical structures and behaviours that evolved for one purpose acquiring another one, a process called

exaptation

.

[Babylon]

Birds were evolving wings for long periods before they could actually provide them with flight .

So what use was a stubby wing that was unable to provide flight ?

Balance while running, cooling in hot weather, warmth in cold weather, attracting mates. Look at the uses flightless birds get from their wings without using them for flight.

[Zingari]

http://www.dailymail...gs-suggest.html

Basically they can make any old guff up if the question is too hard to answer

Are they really trying to say that the wing evolved as a cloak against the cold until such point that an animal started to flap it about and it took on a new evolutionary path ?

No I'm not buying that , I believe the wing was always going to be a wing for flight and the blueprint was already in place and it just needed the transitional stages.

This is what I meant earlier about scientists shoe horning any old rubbish into their unshakeable beliefs .

We're all fookin "Kool-Aid Drinkers" to a large extent on this one

[21st Century Fox]

Predeterminism sounds more logical than the evolution of the wing!!??

[Raw Dykes]

Basically they can make any old guff up if the question is too hard to answer

Are they really trying to say that the wing evolved as a cloak against the cold until such point that an animal started to flap it about and it took on a new evolutionary path ?

No I'm not buying that , I believe the wing was always going to be a wing for flight and the blueprint was already in place and it just needed the transitional stages.

This is what I meant earlier about scientists shoe horning any old rubbish into their unshakeable beliefs .

We're all fookin "Kool-Aid Drinkers" to a large extent on this one

What makes you believe this? Why should there be instructions for building a fully-formed wing for flight before any creature has any need for it? Are you trying to shoe-horn a creator into evolution?

[Zingari]

Balance while running, cooling in hot weather, warmth in cold weather, attracting mates. Look at the uses flightless birds get from their wings without using them for flight.

Aren't we told that flightless birds lost the ability to fly due to increased growth ?

So whatever use they put their wings to now , it wasn't their original purpose .

[danny.]

Basically they can make any old guff up if the question is too hard to answer

Are they really trying to say that the wing evolved as a cloak against the cold until such point that an animal started to flap it about and it took on a new evolutionary path ?

No I'm not buying that , I believe the wing was always going to be a wing for flight and the blueprint was already in place and it just needed the transitional stages.

Up to you what you believe, but what evidence do you have for your theory? I'm guessing none.

This is what I meant earlier about scientists shoe horning any old rubbish into their unshakeable beliefs .

We're all fookin "Kool-Aid Drinkers" to a large extent on this one

Bit ironic there?

[Rincewind]

If you think about it flying is mainly gliding and using the air currents. They probaby had to move their feathers to keep up in the air.

The earliest inventers of planes thought flapping wings were needed when straight wings like gliders would have done.

[Zingari]

What makes you believe this? Why should there be instructions for building a fully-formed wing for flight before any creature has any need for it? Are you trying to shoe-horn a creator into evolution?

No I'm atheist and I'm trying to say that I don't know what to believe

Is that illegal ?

I really can't see how so many people can be so sure of such things .

But so many people were so sure in earlier times that it was all the work of gods .

I don't think humans can accept that where some things are concerned , they "just don't know"

Up to you what you believe, but what evidence do you have for your theory? I'm guessing none.

Bit ironic there?

i said earlier i didn't have any evidence . :Dbut it seems that scientists are prepared to manipulate all the evidence to fit in with the theory .

[Manwell Pablo]

I don't know what to say about the first part without repeating myself so have left it out.

As for the women part, I know and have known many Muslim women over the years, including white converts, and all of them are no different from English women. Maybe they are less depressed actually. But apart from that, exactly the same.

I've read a few different translations of the Koran, more than once, and read numerous commentaries, and womens importance to their family and to society as a whole can hardly be stressed more. Those men who treat their wives, sisters, mothers etc. like crap, are not following any religion.

It's a shame what they did to Gadaffi. He was good for the region. A top leader.

Just look at the state of Libya now, and the catastrophe it is in. Gadaffi isn't responsible for that - the scum who decided on destabilizing the region are. We can clearly now see what a good job the man was doing. He had many of the terrorist pricks locked up, and kept the others under control. We let them loose! Mental!

Not sure about that. Can't remember one major war, for example, in the past 100 years that was fought because of religion.

Can easily point you to hundreds of millions of early and unnatural deaths because of other reasons though.

Edit : Got to go out. Already running late after popping in here. Prob be back at about ayf 11.

EDIT: Sorry I thought that said 1000! Although depending on what you class as big I'd still say your wrong. We're fighting a religious war right now!

[Babylon]

Aren't we told that flightless birds lost the ability to fly due to increased growth ?

So whatever use they put their wings to now , it wasn't their original purpose .

How do you know it wasn't the original purpose?

You use your hand for wanking, it doesn't mean that's it sole purpose.

[Zingari]

How do you know it wasn't the original purpose?

You use your hand for wanking, it doesn't mean that's it sole purpose.

i'm not so sure i could do it with my sole

[Captain...]

Evolution is a proper head fvck as by believing it/accepting it as fact, is basically accepting we are nothing more than chance and luck, we are not special, nor miracles, we are just an accident, a mutation that thrived through adversity and have developed the ability of abstract thought consciousness of self that no other species has.

That is if you accept that we are purely a result of evolution.

Now some could argue that a higher power guided our evolution, or created evolution to allow us to reach this stage, and it would be impossible to prove them wrong, especially as our actual evolution is pretty fantastic, especially our mental capacity which is so far removed from any other animal that you could understand people having difficulty believing that we are just hairless apes, despite the physical and genetic similarities.

Not being an expert on the subject is there still the issue of the missing link? Are we still yet to discover evidence of a creature that bridges the gap between early humans and apes?

[Guest MattP]

Not being an expert on the subject is there still the issue of the missing link? Are we still yet to discover evidence of a creature that bridges the gap between early humans and apes?

Martin Keown?

[Zingari]

Evolution is a proper head fvck as by believing it/accepting it as fact, is basically accepting we are nothing more than chance and luck, we are not special, nor miracles, we are just an accident, a mutation that thrived through adversity and have developed the ability of abstract thought consciousness of self that no other species has.

That is if you accept that we are purely a result of evolution.

Now some could argue that a higher power guided our evolution, or created evolution to allow us to reach this stage, and it would be impossible to prove them wrong, especially as our actual evolution is pretty fantastic, especially our mental capacity which is so far removed from any other animal that you could understand people having difficulty believing that we are just hairless apes, despite the physical and genetic similarities.

Not being an expert on the subject is there still the issue of the missing link? Are we still yet to discover evidence of a creature that bridges the gap between early humans and apes?

I can't remember his name , but he was a Portuguese defender who we had on loan a few seasons back .

[Babylon]

Evolution is a proper head fvck as by believing it/accepting it as fact, is basically accepting we are nothing more than chance and luck, we are not special, nor miracles, we are just an accident, a mutation that thrived through adversity and have developed the ability of abstract thought consciousness of self that no other species has.

That is if you accept that we are purely a result of evolution.

Now some could argue that a higher power guided our evolution, or created evolution to allow us to reach this stage, and it would be impossible to prove them wrong, especially as our actual evolution is pretty fantastic, especially our mental capacity which is so far removed from any other animal that you could understand people having difficulty believing that we are just hairless apes, despite the physical and genetic similarities.

Not being an expert on the subject is there still the issue of the missing link? Are we still yet to discover evidence of a creature that bridges the gap between early humans and apes?

Is it that much of a head ****?

Look into the night sky. There are billions of galaxies, with trillions of stars and planets. You you accept what's out there and it's not a big leap to believing we are an insignificant spec in the grand scheme of things.

We're an insignificant spec in terms of life on earth, let alone the entirety of space. A lot of stuff can happen in 13.77 billion years, chance has had a large amount of time to play itself out.

[Guest MattP]

Is it that much of a head ****?

Look into the night sky. There are billions of galaxies, with trillions of stars and planets. You you accept what's out there and it's not a big leap to believing we are an insignificant spec in the grand scheme of things.

We're an insignificant spec in terms of life on earth, let alone the entirety of space. A lot of stuff can happen in 13.77 billion years, chance has had a large amount of time to play itself out.

Spot on.

[Rincewind]

I have no problem accepting we are here by chance. Look at all the creatures that are around doing unexpected things. Sea creatures that squirt acid, amonia , ink electricity etc. Land animals that have developed abilities and protection that seem to be taken from science fiction. Plants that can shoot sperm at 100 mph plus. So why is it hard to believe that a few molucles randomly merged to form life then adapted as the earth evolved from a molten mass. I think that is more wonderful a thought than a higher being waving a hansd saying let there be light after he created the earth. An intellegent being would not work in the dark.

[The Doctor]

I have no problem accepting we are here by chance. Look at all the creatures that are around doing unexpected things. Sea creatures that squirt acid, amonia , ink electricity etc. Land animals that have developed abilities and protection that seem to be taken from science fiction. Plants that can shoot sperm at 100 mph plus. So why is it hard to believe that a few molucles randomly merged to form life then adapted as the earth evolved from a molten mass. I think that is more wonderful a thought than a higher being waving a hansd saying let there be light after he created the earth. An intellegent being would not work in the dark.

I think light came first in the creation story. Although I don't get why any intelligent being would try creating light before creating any light sources...