The guy needs a few lessons in speech writing and delivery. Its all wishy washy stuff at the moment.

Is your definition different to Darwin's? If so, please explain how. Darwin's Theory of Evolution - The Premise Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor: the birds and the bananas, the fishes and the flowers -- all related. Darwin's general theory presumes the development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) "descent with modification". That is, complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time. In a nutshell, as random genetic mutations occur within an organism's genetic code, the beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid survival -- a process known as "natural selection." These beneficial mutations are passed on to the next generation. Over time, beneficial mutations accumulate and the result is an entirely different organism (not just a variation of the original, but an entirely different creature). Darwin's Theory of Evolution - Natural Selection While Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a relatively young archetype, the evolutionary worldview itself is as old as antiquity. Ancient Greek philosophers such as Anaximander postulated the development of life from non-life and the evolutionary descent of man from animal. Charles Darwin simply brought something new to the old philosophy -- a plausible mechanism called "natural selection." Natural selection acts to preserve and accumulate minor advantageous genetic mutations. Suppose a member of a species developed a functional advantage (it grew wings and learned to fly). Its offspring would inherit that advantage and pass it on to their offspring. The inferior (disadvantaged) members of the same species would gradually die out, leaving only the superior (advantaged) members of the species. Natural selection is the preservation of a functional advantage that enables a species to compete better in the wild. Natural selection is the naturalistic equivalent to domestic breeding. Over the centuries, human breeders have produced dramatic changes in domestic animal populations by selecting individuals to breed. Breeders eliminate undesirable traits gradually over time. Similarly, natural selection eliminates inferior species gradually over time. Darwin's Theory of Evolution - Slowly But Surely... Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a slow gradual process. Darwin wrote, "…Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps." [1] Thus, Darwin conceded that, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." [2] Such a complex organ would be known as an "irreducibly complex system". An irreducibly complex system is one composed of multiple parts, all of which are necessary for the system to function. If even one part is missing, the entire system will fail to function. Every individual part is integral. [3] Thus, such a system could not have evolved slowly, piece by piece. The common mousetrap is an everyday non-biological example of irreducible complexity. It is composed of five basic parts: a catch (to hold the bait), a powerful spring, a thin rod called "the hammer," a holding bar to secure the hammer in place, and a platform to mount the trap. If any one of these parts is missing, the mechanism will not work. Each individual part is integral. The mousetrap is irreducibly complex. [4] Darwin's Theory of Evolution - A Theory In Crisis Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a theory in crisis in light of the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty years. We now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level. Specified complexity pervades the microscopic biological world. Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world." [5] And we don't need a microscope to observe irreducible complexity. The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity, though they were not recognized as such in Darwin's day. Nevertheless, Darwin confessed, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." [6 "allaboutscience"

Maxaa dhacay bal? Some one briefly fill me in. Are we still course for a withdrawal and cease fire ir have things gone pair shaped? Warka ii diiba Feen al walad Castro?

Sophist, apart from building/toursim investments was there much else? The place (Morroco) is in dire need of infrastrructure & local development.

Originally posted by NGONGE: Will you remember to change things in January? Do you have to choose tactics and change the team on a weekly basis? BORING. There is money involved mate. I'll be checking on my progress,,,

I'm signing up for the Guardian Fantasy Football League (2 weeks to go). Might win some money.

Its sweltering over here but hey tis the weekend,,,ma la hayaa reer SOLow?

Johnny, are you seriously suggesting that there is no major link between Atheism and the evolution theory and Darwinism? Does Atheism have a set of written guidelines whereby it states there is no link? Or is this simply your version. We can go down that road if you wish though. Aha! You want me to read and actually try and comprehend the evolution theory JB? Is this Johnny asking someone to go and do a bit of background reading on a subject in order to understand it??? Surely not! Lets be honest here, I have asked you on numerous occasions to substantiate your theory on how humans came to being. You said you would counter any arguments against it as well. All you’ve done so far is hop, skip and jump! JB: “I'm not going to comment or answer selectively chosen paragraphs or questions that wildly accuse Evolution or the Evolutionary theory of something that it neither says or stands for, like your earlier comment of "Can a body that works perfectly with all it’s intricacies, heart pumping blood, brain functioning, feeling pain and pleasure, taste, touch, smell, reproduction, muscle growth, food/water disposal, sweat, shivers etc etc be explained away as mere coincidence?", as there is no evolutionary theory that claims just that” If we were to go back to your first answer on how humans were created, we see that your answer was along the lines of evolution being the only plausible answer. This to me (and any other person who clearly understands the English language) means that you believe humans came into being through evolution. Subsequently, one can not be blamed for taking this answer of yours and wringing it around your neck! But you seam to have employed a different tact now. Now it’s a case of the evolution theory merely being ‘neutral’ in how man was formed. Suffice to say that you’re, yet again, running around in circles. JB: “What happened to depicting Atheism and it's fallacies? A: becouse you thought it was based on Evolution and found out that it's not?! B: becouse your creationistic myth is no self explanatory enough to wipe it out?! C: becouse you're doubting the validity of the creation myth and are in search of a better alternative ?” Atheists do not believe that there is a creator, but believe in Darwin’s evolution theory even though that theory has been proven wrong. This, my friend, is where the cookie crumbles so to speak. You have already stated (after some double speak) that the evolution theory is ‘neutral’ when it comes to how we came to being but now you’re advocating for an alternative?? Is the alternative ‘I don’t know’? Or is it whatever the wind brings today? You see JB, one can only put up with such contradictory tones for so long. Your stance changes with each post and you’re mindset has been on the periphery for a tad too long. Nevertheless, I am prepared to do away with all that was said previously on one condition. YOU need to state, very clearly and unambiguously, what YOU think is how we humans came into being. Is that possible JB? If you wish to define evolution then please go ahead. At least we will set the wheels in motion to a more constructive discussion. Either that or we get an arbitrator.

Originally posted by Ms DD: you got excited cos it was raining..Nothing else fazed you guys? You must have been ilbaxiin lol It was Guy Fawkes night and having come from unstable country, all the fireworks was quite unsettling. My dad went somewhere for the evening and by the time he returned, we were underneath the tables and beds. We thought civil war broke in London as well. We thought, how bad luck can we get. LooL. Do you want to hear about Guy Falkes night, a bunch of kids with plenty of fireworks and the local merfish who always had it's door open? Good old days We just didn't know what to expect. Stayed an old man's house (Allah yarxamu) and watched cartoons until we all fell asleep. Started school a month later and learnt some English. The biggest issue we had was with the cold weather and living in a house with no heating for the first six months! It used to snow back then and we had fun :cool: Ibti, where did you go then?

I remember when I got off the plane at heathrow, i was so scared of the escalator and later on the underground. never trusted anything that was moving underneath the ground. LooL We landed in the middle of August and went on the coach heading north. It rained and we all got excited . 22 years next month :eek:

Originally posted by NGONGE: ^ Beenta jooji. I was clad in a Lacoste Jeans, Lacoste shirt and jumper. My shoes were Addidas . I looked a right fool. (I have photos to prove it warya) Getting into the Scouse spirit I see Did you do some research before you left?

The good old north of England. No better place on a nice day :cool:

Faheema, go to Bosnia/Croatia (Split). Ibti has only left London once. Ngonge landed in London wearing his khamiis emaaraati!

^^Cultural capital of Europe and all that Faheeman >>> Valencia/Savilla :cool:

Originally posted by -Lily-: Faheema, I was going to suggest Greece, the Barbados of Europe but it's run over by British tourists this time of year and you don't want to feel like you're in Liverpool . Made my day that Ibti, go for a run dear!

Gold – check Oil - check Diamonds – check Zinc – check Tin – check Iron Ore – check Ivory – check Fish – check And now this,,,, Solar power from Saharan sun could provide Europe's electricity, says EU A concentrating solar power (CSP) plant in Spain that uses panels to refl ect light on to a central tower to produce electricity. Similar plants are proposed for north Africa. Photograph: AP A tiny rectangle superimposed on the vast expanse of the Sahara captures the seductive appeal of the audacious plan to cut Europe's carbon emissions by harnessing the fierce power of the desert sun. Dwarfed by any of the north African nations, it represents an area slightly smaller than Wales but scientists claimed yesterday it could one day generate enough solar energy to supply all of Europe with clean electricity. Speaking at the Euroscience Open Forum in Barcelona, Arnulf Jaeger-Walden of the European commission's Institute for Energy, said it would require the capture of just 0.3% of the light falling on the Sahara and Middle East deserts to meet all of Europe's energy needs. The scientists are calling for the creation of a series of huge solar farms - producing electricity either through photovoltaic cells, or by concentrating the sun's heat to boil water and drive turbines - as part of a plan to share Europe's renewable energy resources across the continent. A new supergrid, transmitting electricity along high voltage direct current cables would allow countries such as the UK and Denmark ultimately to export wind energy at times of surplus supply, as well as import from other green sources such as geothermal power in Iceland. Energy losses on DC lines are far lower than on the traditional AC ones, which make transmission of energy over long distances uneconomic. The grid proposal, which has won political support from both Nicholas Sarkozy and Gordon Brown, answers the perennial criticism that renewable power will never be economic because the weather is not sufficiently predictable. Its supporters argue that even if the wind is not blowing hard enough in the North Sea, it will be blowing somewhere else in Europe, or the sun will be shining on a solar farm somewhere. Scientists argue that harnessing the Sahara would be particularly effective because the sunlight in this area is more intense: solar photovoltaic (PV) panels in northern Africa could generate up to three times the electricity compared with similar panels in northern Europe. Much of the cost would come in developing the public grid networks of connecting countries in the southern Mediterranean, which do not currently have the spare capacity to carry the electricity that the north African solar farms could generate. Even if high voltage cables between North Africa and Italy would be built or the existing cable between Morocco and Spain would be used, the infrastructure of the transfer countries such as Italy and Spain or Greece or Turkey also needs a major re-structuring, according to Jaeger-Walden. Southern Mediterranean countries including Portugal and Spain have already invested heavily in solar energy and Algeria has begun work on a vast combined solar and natural gas plant which will begin producing energy in 2010. Algeria aims to export 6,000 megawatts of solar-generated power to Europe by 2020. Scientists working on the project admit that it would take many years and huge investment to generate enough solar energy from north Africa to power Europe but envisage that by 2050 it could produce 100 GW, more than the combined electricity output from all sources in the UK, with an investment of around €450bn. Doug Parr, Greenpeace UK's chief scientist, welcomed the proposals: "Assuming it's cost-effective, a largescale renewable energy grid is just the kind of innovation we need if we're going to beat climate change." Jaeger-Walden also believes that scaling up solar PV by having large solar farms could help bring its cost down for consumers. "The biggest PV system at the moment is installed in Leipzig and the price of the installation is €3.25 per watt," he said. "If we could realise that in the Mediterranean, for example in southern Italy, this would correspond to electricity prices in the range of 15 cents per kWh, something below what the average consumer is paying." The vision for the renewable energy grid comes as the commission's joint research centre (JRC) published its strategic energy technology plan, highlighting solar PV as one of eight technologies that need to be championed for the short- to medium-term future. "It recognises something extraordinary - if we don't put together resources and findings across Europe and we let go the several sectors of energy, we will never reach these targets," said Giovanni de Santi, director of the JRC, also speaking in Barcelona. The JRC plan includes fuel cells and hydrogen, clean coal, second generation biofuels, nuclear fusion, wind, nuclear fission and smart grids. De Santi said it was designed to help Europe to meet its commitments to reduce overall energy consumption by 20% by 2020, while reducing CO² emissions by 20% in the same time and increasing to 20% the proportion of energy generated from renewable sources. Backstory High voltage direct current (HVDC) transmission lines are seen as the most efficient way to move electricity over long distances without incurring the losses experienced in alternating current (AC) power lines. HVDC cables can carry more power for the same thickness of cable compared with AC lines but are only suited to long distance transmission as they require expensive devices to convert the electricity, usually generated as AC, into DC. Modern HVDC cables can keep energy losses down to around 3% per 1,000km. HVDC can also be used to transfer electricity between different countries that might use AC at differing frequencies. HVDC cables can also be used to synchronise AC produced by renewable energy sources. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/23/solarpower.windpower

JB salad lama tusu. Wixiisu waa 'bariis iyo hilibka keen, geedaha lalama cuno qadada'e'

You know what we do on a Thurs lunch time? We go down to the local mall and grab a very unhealthy meal from the top 3 (Mcdonal's, BK and Kismaayo Fried Chicken). If you want people to stop eating there then you need to focus on the health issues. Not that anyone in this region will hear ya.

WOW, 7 pages! Welcome back JB

My earlier statemenet. “You seem to be concentrating on how the human body ‘evolves’ rather than how it was created”. Apologies, delete all words after “it” and insert “came into being”. Please answer. JB – “Unfortunately it is common for non-scientists to enter into a discussion about evolution with such a definition in mind.” I have asked for your definition on numerous occasions. Still no answer. JB - “When our brother or people of his stance claim that they don't believe in evolution they cannot be referring to an acceptable scientific definition of evolution because that would be denying something which is easy to demonstrate. It would be like saying that they don't believe in say gravity!” Go ahead and demonstrate. I have seen nothing yet. JB - “the fact of the matter is,once we realize that evolution is simply 'a process that results in heritable changes in a population individually and collectively spread over many generations' it seems a little silly to pretend that this excludes religion. Q.E.D” I have provided you with statements countering the above. You are yet to write back on those. All in all, it is unfortunate. I was actually hoping for something more fruitful than accusations and a merry go round. Suppose I was wrong and JB hasn’t changed. Until you go ahead and have a go at answering my queries this thread is on it dying legs. One can only be patient for so long.

Boycott Macdonald's?? Yeah right!!

You seem to be concentrating on how the human body ‘evolves’ rather than how it was created. Do I detect a reluctance to head into those quarters? Come on JB, I promise to take it easy with you. I see you haven’t answered/commented on what I have quoted to you twice already. Shall I take that as a concession on your part. I hope not as I was looking forward to actually ‘locking horns’ after the initial niceties had been exhausted. Maybe you have more to say or maybe you’re building up your stack before going for the jugular. Which one is it? I hope it’s the latter as this is getting tedious now. Or has the coockie crumbled for you already? Let me know. Again, pardon me for not knowing much about Atheism (I did ask you to spell out for me anything I may have missed), but I based my initial queries on your ‘evolution is the only plausible option left’. To me evolution means humans being the decendents of apes with plenty of Atheists champion Darwin’s cause, are you different? How? [fills remainder of the page with blah blah and a few pics]

[insert paragraphs of references to the ignorance of Atheists in general towards creation and their belief in evolution ‘because there is nothing else left’ in a perceived witty nature] Now that that’s out of the way,,,,,, That was 95% ‘babble’ Johnny. Sadly, for you, this isn’t a thread where you get by with repetitions of what you call ‘pooof’ theory. The gallery can see through all that. But hey we all use a bit of humour when in a tight spot Now, if I’m not mistaken, you stated that you believed evolution to be ‘the only plausible’ explanation to how we came to being. I have challenged this and you’re yet to answer my questions or further explain how evolution created YOU. You have however, back-tracked, side stepped and stayed in the comfortable zone of trying to explain evolution being the same as the ageing process. Sorry to tell you this but that’s wrong! Surely 'evolve' means to ‘develop’ (ie advance). I only wish I could be a spring chicken again but I’m certainly not ‘evolving’! Looks like misconceptions about evolution are are plentiful. Even amongst those who have studied it. For the umpteenth time this thread is calling into question what YOU think is how we came into being. I have no interest in telling you what I believe as this will only prove futile. I was hoping to highlight the fact that you believe in a theory that doesn’t stand up and has been brought into question whilst at the same time shouting off the rooftops at the lack of evidence on creation. That my friend is irrational. Can a body that works perfectly with all it’s intricacies, heart pumping blood, brain functioning, feeling pain and pleasure, taste, touch, smell, reproduction, muscle growth, food/water disposal, sweat, shivers etc etc be explained away as mere coincidence? It evolved from some sort of lesser form? I’m sure my house evolved from the rubble and WALLA; there are walls, floors, doors, windows, tiles and a pool! You see how silly that sounds JB? Now, though your footwork has been impressive, its time to bust a new move and actually try to say something conducive to your argument. JB says: If i'm doing justice to your question , and i hope i'm doing, then you haven't understood evolution. you may wonder why?, the reason is evolution is a slow biological process, parts of it are observable under the life-span of a human-beeing, we observe it daily, but parts of it can only be studied by stydying the history of the fossils. If that's the case, please explain the following: "There is no evidence in the fossil record of one kind of creature becoming another kind. No transitional links or intermediate forms between various kinds of creatures have ever been found." For example, "the evolutionist claims that it took perhaps fifty million years for a fish to evolve into an amphibian. But, again, there are no transitional forms. For example, not a single fossil with part fins...part feet has been found. And this is true between every major plant and animal kind." Ranganathan, B.G. Origins?, Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1988. Page 19 Should I be optimistic about your pending reply?? :confused:

Its very sad and I hope we address this major issue today. Not sure about not being able to go to other areas though.

I can get plenty of stones from where I work (rock & sandstone). Do you want any desert stones? Originally posted by J.a.c.a.y.l.b.a.r.o: Time to make some money i guess ,,,,, kani malaa waa laytul khadarkii la sheegayay ,,, Istaakhfuralla! Have you read this?