Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
I've replied here since the nomination got closed. I'd definitely tweak the raw a fair bit on the edit. The white balance seems very biased towards yellow. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations!
An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status
I happened to pop by your website, Micro2marco, and had one minor comment. For the top header, where it says "Photography is a form of hunting where that which is shot, lives forever." I don't think you need the comma after "shot." Very cool website, though. Spencer01:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations!
An image created by you has been promoted to valued picture status
I haven't really shot that many insects. I've been currently concentrating on fungi since Autumn is the best time of year for that and the weather makes birds and insects more difficult. It is too late in the year to easily get damsel and dragonflies. I've taken a few however with different lighting methods:
Thanks for the compliment. I think the apis portrait was a tad soft because I had to boost the brightness a bit (and consequently noise, so I did a noise reduction), the teleconverter would also cause a little softness. Depth of field is very small too. I'd guess that the magnification was over 2:1 though, and I was still a good 150-200mm away. I think you could quite possibly even get away with two sets of tubes rather than a teleconverter. There is a picture of the cardboard and tracing paper softbox here. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll take a look though I think I may have to wait till I get onto a broadband connection to watch it - just had a try but it's taking too long.
BTW, just happened to watch a program on TV last week that had a report on Tanzania. It wasn't particularly glowing - in fact quite the contrary - but just thought I'd mention it to you because, other than stuff in the odd nature documentary, we hear almost nothing about TZ. See here. Not sure what you know about it. --jjron (talk) 15:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
What you say is pretty much in line with the TV program. I don't usually watch this show, it was just sheer chance it came on after another doco I was looking at and that was the first story, but for the record it is a serious current affairs program and not just the sensationalist rubbish that most of them are these days in Western countries. So it did comment on the 'positive' aspects that you mention as well and how outraged most Tanzanians are by the practise. BTW, as an introduction they also commented on how poor the country is in general and showed an overcrowded classroom with the students actually keen to learn whatever they could to try to help improve their situation, which I found quite heartening and impressive as we see too many youths in rich western countries actively resisting any education. --jjron (talk) 06:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that is an ironic truth in most places I guess - people don't appreciate how good they've got things. Here, where even the poor people are pretty rich on a global scale, private schools are in general considered the source of most high achievers, with too many of the poorer people not caring that much as they can still be relatively comfortable or at least survive OK even without taking advantage of a good education (with many notable exceptions of course). Let me know if you hear further developments re the other story. Cheers, --jjron (talk) 07:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
You have brought us beautiful images of the flora and fauna of parts of the world systematically under-represented on Misplaced Pages. Please carry on! deBivort07:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations!
An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status
Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.
Talkback
Hello, Muhammad Mahdi Karim. You have new messages at Wadester16's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hey Muhammad. What software do you use for your panorama stitching? I'm interested in going through panoramic photography, but my software from Canon isn't the best. Thanks, ZooFari21:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey Muhammad. Thanks for your recommendation for pano software. Since you are a macro photographer, I bet you focus stack. What software do you use? The focus stacking article offers software but don't know what to choose. Any recommendations? Thanks, ZooFari04:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. I haven't spent the time to ID it because of looming exams. It is cold and windy here so the remaining insects stay fairly still. If they are more mobile I use a softbox on a home made bracket. At full power the umbrella will work fine from about 1-1.5 meters away at f8-11, iso 400. The light isn't as soft at longer distances, but is quite useful for chasing around ants or feeding bees. So depending on the situation I will either throw the umbrella on a light stand and hand hold or put the camera on a tripod and handhold the umbrella. I find the tripod useful for stabilisation at higher magnifications (1.9x with tubes, ~2.5 with teleconverter as well). The best method, if possible, is to get someone to hold the umbrella for you. File:Eusthenia sp.jpg is an example of this. I use this method for fungi in particular, it avoids having to carry a light stand for hours in the bush.
I could write a step by step guide but it is all very simple:
http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/03/lighting-101.html has a lot more information, but many of the techniques there are aimed at photographing people, and some of the more creative lighting options aren't really so good for an encyclopaedia. I'd eventually like another flash or two, but I don't have much priority on buying equipment at the moment. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
On a somewhat related note, when you put your name in the FPC, can you use your full username, rather than pipe to your page? Makes it quicker when giving you this message. Thank you. :-) wadester1602:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations!
An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status
Damërung_Ξ_. -- 20:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC) -- has given you a Pandan Cake! PandanCakes promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cake, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!
Nice contributions to the featured picture candidates!
Hi Muhammad, I saw your post at Lycaon's Commons talk page about flower IDs. I'm absolutely hopeless at identifying flora, I don't even know where to start. So I only just recently signed up at the UBC Botanical Garden Forums, and both of my posts requesting IDs () were answered within minutes. The forums are not location specific, they appear to encourage worldwide participation, which is unusual for the ID forums I've seen so far. I think you can either upload images directly to the post (maximum size 1200x1200) or link to wherever they might already be uploaded, say Flickr or Commons. Anyway, I hope that's at least a little helpful! Maedin\ 15:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I joined the forum a few days ago and posted a picture of one flower. All I got was a complement about how nice the flower looked. I will give it another try, thanks for letting me know. --Muhammad(talk)16:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Here's a detail from another political cartoon published around that time. Your comment prompted me to stop and think whether I had inadvertently bought into a racial stereotype; perhaps so? After editing this thing at right (which clearly isn't human) I passed over the other thinking "They had to hand tint to get color during this era, and probably didn't have the budget to do that for this project." But you're right about the skin tone and facial features. Especially on the image that's at FPC. Would welcome your thoughts about this, and how to be more clueful in future. Durova05:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Not a very big deal, at least not IMO. I don'tknow what could be done but I think it's ok to nominate such images. If that's how the thinking was, then that's where the EV lies. Good to see you back at FPC--Muhammad(talk)12:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I've just started watching it and it's both fascinating in content and in the photography/videography they've been able to do. Also, I'm curious - what are your beliefs and/or the stance of Islam on the concept of evolution? I had a quick search on Google on the subject and it appeared that the idea of evolution could be embraced as long humans were the exception to the theory? That was just one source though. Anyway, I was just curious about how exactly you saw the natural world and its inhabitants, given your interest in it. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)07:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
The documentary seems very interesting. I haven't seen it yet but will see if I can get a DVD. Regarding Evolution, there are different opinions among different Muslim scholars. As you rightfully mention, there is one unpopular belief that evolution took place with the rest of the organisms but man was created. However, the most popular belief is that everything was created by God as it currently is. Writer Adnan Oktar has explained this belief in his book Evolution Deceit, http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/. The Qur'an mentions in numerous verses that God created man from clay. With reference to the biochemical synthesis via the primordial soup, the Qur'an may be referring to the origin of man or other species. Whatever the case, it is a certain belief by all Muslims that God is the ultimate creator and even if evolution has taken place, it has been possible by the will of God and not merely by chance. IMO, as convincing as the theory initially sounds, there is not enough evidence and the probability of it happening by chance are not feasible. --Muhammad(talk)17:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
We know that Artificial selection works, being regularly performed when breeding animals. It obviously isn't possible to directly observe the evolution of plant and animal species. The time-scales are simply too large. There is of course the fossil record and the physical and DNA relationships between related species. Intermediate species such as the Lungfish (lungs) and the Spotted handfish (limbs) do also still exist. More recently, direct experiments have been performed such as E. coli long-term evolution experiment which give both strong and direct support in my view. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree with NS and although I don't want to disrespect your religion, I do think that if you approach a scientific question with the base assumption that the Qur'an (or any book or belief system for that matter - I'm not singling Islam or religion out) is absolutely right and beyond question, then you will consequently find it difficult to believe any theory that disputes it. There is also the old argument that goes something like this: No matter how complex and unfeasible the scientific theories that attempt to explain life and the universe are, and no matter how little scientific proof there might be of it, the question of the origin of God is always more complex and unfeasible, and there is even less scientific proof of the existence of God. IMO, if you are going to use a measure of evidence to determine your belief in theories like evolution, then it is only fair to apply the same standards to all your beliefs including religion. Anyway, you are of course entitled to your beliefs without having to answer to me, but getting back to evolution in isolation, IMO it does seem interesting that virtually all leading biological scientists, except those of devout religious faith, agree that evolution is the by far the best theory to explain the observations we have made of the natural world. You have no obligation to respond to me or Noodle Snacks as I don't want to poison our relationship and I have a lot of respect for you. :-) But if you are willing to discuss it further, I'd like to hear your thoughts. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)07:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
NS, from what I have understood of selection, both artificial and natural, the favourable traits are present in the organisms be it in small numbers. Under pressure, the favoured ones survive to reproduce. So what is happening, is a kind of filtration; traits which were present in small numbers become a majority. If this is considered evolution then I have nothing against this belief.
That is it in a nutshell. The only thing missing is the occasional Mutations which introduce new traits (either beneficial, no effect or detrimental). It is important to point out that Abiogenesis and Evolution are separate issues. So you could be quite happy with evolution and reject Abiogensis. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Diliff, you raise a interesting question about the origin of God. For believers, there is one unanswerable question of a superpower always existing. But evolutionists have to account for how the species originated, and they put forward theories and there is little evidence to prove it. Let's imagine that question is answered, then how did the universe come into existence? How did the Big bang occur? How did something come out of nothing? If matter can neither be created nor destroyed, how was it first created? Re the evidence for existence of God, one has to look at their surrounding. Looking at the beauty, magnificence and details of this, I can not believe it could have come merely by chance. I strongly recommended you and NS to read the book Evolution Deceit, as many of my viewpoints are based on it. --Muhammad(talk)10:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm no astrophysicist and NS is obviously more capable of answering the specifics given he studies physics, but I do have an amateur interest in it and from what I've understood, we understand most of the laws of physics as they exist in our observable universe (okay, so we don't have a unified theory yet, but our existing 'laws of physics' do accurately reflect our observations). However, and this is a big however, scientists believe that these laws break down in the moments of the big bang and given we can't directly observe it, we cannot derive any equations or laws that reflect an observation, so basically we cannot know how it started, what caused it, etc from our current understanding. I do think it is a very big leap of faith to assume that the answer must be God simply because we do not know the answer, though. Just as we don't believe in Goblins because we are yet to see any scientific evidence that they exist, so it should be for all things that we cannot observe. The question of where matter/mass came from is circular and is no more valid than the question of where God came from. Neither can be logically explained by God. If I get a chance I will read The Evolution Deceit, but I have to admit that given it is written from an Islamic religious point of view (even if the subject is scientific), I may find it hard to believe that the author is not biased towards his preconceived beliefs, whereas I think that evolutionary biologists are scientists first and generally not biased towards religious beliefs. When someone believes strongly, it is my opinion that they can potentially be blinded to the truth. Anyway, I will reserve judgement until I've read the book. :-) And again, please understand that my arguments are logical and intellectual in nature, and not intended to be an attack on you or your beliefs directly. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)14:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
It is a fundamental belief of a Muslim that the Quran is the word of God and the absolute truth. The Quran contains many scientific beliefs which have only been realized in the last century. IMO, if the Quran was right then, why should it be wrong about creation? FWIW, I don't know of any scientific facts that the Quran denies. If you get time, check out Quran and Bible in light of science. --Muhammad(talk)10:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Science simply attempts to find the best theory to explain experimental evidence, it doesn't prove anything. Mathematics on the other hand does rely on rigorous proof. I'm not sure on the Muslim position of the "Old Testament", but it does implicitly state that Pi is 3. I think that if you axiomatically consider the Quran to be the word of God, then literalism will lead to contradiction with observation. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't know specifically which scientific beliefs in the Quran have only just been realised in the last century (perhaps you could mention some so that I can have a look at the details), but it could be that the Qur'an mentions a theory' that existed many hundreds of years ago but was only demonstrated in the last century. The muslim empire was certainly a leader in science while Europe was suffering in the Dark Ages, so I would expect that this could be the case. Even if it is true that the Qur'an mentions things that were not known at the time, it doesn't mean the Qur'an must be right about everything. That's unsound deductive reasoning. Following from NS, if you only accept invalidation of the science of the Qur'an based on absolute scientific proof (which doesn't really exist in science as NS said), but then claim that recent scientific evidence supports the Qur'an and therefore the Qur'an must be correct, then you're applying different and unfair standards. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)14:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Re the scientific discoveries, the Quran states in 51:48, "And the heaven We built with Our own powers and indeed We go on expanding it" referring to the fact that the universe is expanding, a discovery first made by Edwin Hubble in the 1920s. Another example 21:31, "Do not the unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were a closed-up mass, then We split them asunder? And We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?" A reference to the Big Bang, and that every living thing has a majority of water. Also, 24:35, ""Blessed is He who made constellations in the sky and placed there in a lamp, and a moon giving light." 25:61" clearly differentiating between the stars which give out light and the moon which only reflects it. There are tens (if not hundreds) of more verses such as these which give scientific facts centuries before they were discovered by scientists using modern equipment. if you are interested in these, I ca compile them for you. --Muhammad(talk)08:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
None of these are particularly specific or scientific though, could be interpreted in many different ways, and if taken literally are sometimes factually incorrect based on our current knowledge. For example, 21:31 says that the universe was split into pieces, but technically it is believed that the Big Bang involved fusion of elementary particles to form atoms in the first moments, not fission (splitting). And it probably could be demonstrated even in the times that the Qur'an was written that living things contained a lot of water by heating the body of an animal up to evaporate the liquid in a sealed chamber, and then condensing it into a different cooler chamber. I don't know specifically if this knowledge existed at the time, but it certainly could have given the simplicity of the experiment. But again, if you take it literally, it says all living things were made from water, insinuating that we are 100% water, not just a majority. Besides, doesn't the Qur'an also say that God made man from clay? Scientifically this is not true obviously, so the two claims seem to contradict each other when taken literally. Also, 24:35 doesn't seem to suggest that the moon reflects light as you claim it does. It just says it 'gives' light. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)09:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I have had a read through the PDF you linked to. With all due respect to the author, a degree in Arts and Philosophy does not give the expertise or understanding to claim authority with science related issues. I don't claim to have strong biology knowledge, but Yahya's interpretation of in particular of Relativity is muddled at best and leaves me doubtful of his words in other areas. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Chapters 1-2 don't really attempt to refute or deny anything, just to associate evolutionists with racists, Nazis and communists. This is indifferent to associating Islam with fundamentalists, extremists or terrorists and constitutes propaganda more than actual argument. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
When I read the book a few years ago, I found the associating of Nazism with Evolution biased as well so no arguments there.
Chapter 3 essentially talks about natural selection and mutation. It accepts natural selection as a mechanism which removes the unfit. The argument comes as to if natural selection can produce fitter individuals. The book talks about mutations, but makes the claim that all mutations are harmful, which is demonstrably false (see the E. coli growing on citrate). It also incorrectly claims that new information cannot be added to DNA (see File:Types-of-mutation.png). Noodle snacks (talk) 03:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Moving on to Chapter 4. Here the book claims that no intermediate species have yet been uncovered. This is simply not true. What about Acanthostega or Cynodont for example? What about currently living intermediate forms? Why is it that most species in the fossil record are not present today? Why do many species that appear today not appear in the fossil record? Noodle snacks (talk) 03:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Chapter 19 discusses time, and among other things, Special relativity. The chapter defines time as the "comparison made between some illusions stored in the brain" and states that "time is a concept entirely contingent on the perceiver". See Time#Definitions_and_standards for how physicists have defined the second (and hence time). Einstein never stated that the passage of time is subjective. The time between two events is dependant on the relative speeds of the two observers. In a given frame of reference time always passes at the same rate. If two observers are moving at different speeds then the time between two events will vary. This is counter-intuitive, but not subjective. The relationship between the time intervals is given by the formula at Time_dilation#Overview. Special relativity has many other fascinating consequences and outstanding experimental support. You and I experience time (as physicists define it), at more or less the same rate, since we are moving at similar velocities. You might note that unless the relative velocity between observers is large, then and so they will experience time at more or less the same rate. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I have to admit that I had many of the same observations as NS. I had a quick read through the book last night. The idea that all genetic mutations are harmful (he gives the example of a fly exposed to radiation, which is a very different and extreme cause of mutations, usually only slight mutations occur in nature) and that racists and nazis were associated with Darwinism so therefore Darwinism is evil is very silly and misleading. It seems NS may have read it more thoroughly but I found quite a bit of propaganda and incorrect assumptions about how evolution is purported to work.
I'll give you a couple of specific examples. The book says (page 31): "Billions of "chance events" had to take place together for just one eye in a living thing to form. Here too the blind process known as coincidence entered the equation: It first opened two holes of the requisite size and in the best possible place in the skull, and then cells that happened by chance to find themselves in those places coincidentally began to construct the eye." This is not at all what evolutionary biologists suggest happened at all. For one thing, eyes exist in so many different locations and in different forms that the assumption that two eyes formed in two eye sockets in a skull seems to only respond to the idea of eyes in advanced animals like us. Biologists suggest that eyes probably originally formed in animals simply as light sensitive cells on the surface of the body and could only detect basic light/dark. A mutation could occur which produced multiple light sensitive cells that were more effective than one. Another mutation could be a concave dimple around in these light sensitive cells which would allow them to detect light from different angles, giving the organism a better chance of detecting a predator or alternatively it could become convex and allow the animal to see the same way most insects see. This process could continue to occur in tiny improvements. As long as each improvement gave the animal a slightly better chance of survival and reproduction, then the change would stay. This is how evolution is suggested to work, not just a spontaneous eye appearing in a socket of an animal. I'm not suggesting it wouldn't take hundreds of millions of years and a lot of tiny mutations to reach this level of complexity, but hundreds of millions of years is exactly what evolution had. The key to understanding evolution in my opinion is to understand the vast amount of time involved (almost inconceivable to humans) and the vast number of animals simultaneously living/mutating in subtle ways. The products of these improvements would be passed down and spread throughout the population over time.
Agreed that the author may be biased in referring to two eyes only but IMO the argument stands. It does't see like chance to me to expect a series of favorable mutation to come at th right exact moent wen the organism requires it. That's like saying if I throw letters out of a box, they will arrange themselves to form not just words, sentences and chapters but a masterful, piece of literature. --Muhammad(talk)09:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
This is a very popular but incorrect assumption about how evolution works. Your example implies that there was one sequential throwing of letters out of a box with evolution. Evolutionary theory states that an almost infinite number of mutations occurred over an extremely large amount of time to get to our present variety of life. Some were beneficial and some were not. The ones that were not beneficial probably resulted in the animal dying instead of reproducing so this trait would not be passed on. Many other animals of the same species would also experience different mutations at the same time and all of the mutations would combine over time. Imagine a simple organism with a a life cycle of a year. Imagine that there is a stable total of one billion of them on the planet (not unreasonable). 100 million years of evolution would give 100 million generations, and therefore a huge number of organisms produced (100 million generations multiplied by 1 billion organisms per generation). If only a fraction of these experienced mutations in the genes of the parents, and each successive generation had the ability to build on the positive mutations and spread them throughout the population, then it looks a lot less like randomly constructing masterful literature and more like building a house brick by brick. Many houses would of course crumble because they were built on poor foundations (the equivalent of a genetic dead-end), but there would be a vast number of houses being built simultaneously. Over time the design of successful houses would be adopted by other builders (The equivalence of the ability of an organism to breed with other favourably mutated animals) and all the best elements of the house would become standard on all the houses although new designs would continually be built. Anyway, this might not be a perfect analogy but IMO it fits the way evolutionary theory is described better than a single literary masterpiece constructed from scratch as if all the letters had to exist in a specific order to render the final product complete. In evolutionary theory, no animal is ever complete or a masterpiece. Evolution doesn't have a preconceived goal that it aims for. Richard Dawkins described evolution as being blind. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)10:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Here is another: (page 38) "As indicated in the verses cited above, one of the reasons why people cannot see the realities of their existence is a kind of "spell" impeding their reasoning. It is the same "spell" that underlies the world-wide acceptance of the theory of evolution. What we mean by spell is a conditioning acquired by indoctrination. People are exposed to such an intense indoctrination about the correctness of the theory of evolution that they often do not even realise the distortion that exists." The exact same argument could be applied to any belief system that indoctrinates children a very young age where they are too young to question it, including religion. The difference between evolution and religion is that evolution is taught as science and science is constantly being adapted to new observations. Nobody says "this is the way science is and always will be", but the same cannot always be said of religion. If new evidence comes forth that contradicts existing scientific theories, then those theories will be adjusted or even thrown away completely. This is not the case with religion because an existing book provides the framework for the entire belief system. I would take the author's argument and turn it back on himself. At best the argument is simply a statement that people can be biased (true, of course but this is not a revolutionary concept), and at worst it is actually damning of any belief system that cannot be questioned or corrected.
To some extent I agree but science is knowledge accumulated by man. While man is subject to error, God is not. Hence a book of science could be outdated and need an update but a correct divine book is free from errors. --Muhammad(talk)09:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Anyway, I'm sure I could find many many more things that are false, misleading or biased but that is probably enough for now. As I originally suspected, this author tackles evolution with preconceived ideas of Islam and quotes verses from the Qur'an. If he wanted his book to be scientific and subject to the rigors of review, he should have avoided arguments that were backed up by a source that by nature was religious and not scientific IMO. By the way, it is not my opinion that religion is inherently wrong or cannot co-exist with the science of evolution. I am not religious myself, but I am not strictly anti-religion. I understand however that Muslims believe that the Qur'an is the absolute word of God, and therefore if any observation contradicts it, it is the observation which is incorrect and not the Qur'an, and this is an idea that I do find potentially unsettling. Hmm looks like you'll have a lot to read between NS and myself. Sorry about that! :-) Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)07:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I have yet to see any observation, not a theory that contradicts the Quran. FWIW, the Quran does not mention any anti-evolution statements. The reason why many believers reject evolution is because then God would have to be left out. However, a God guided evolution seems possible and all the alarming coincidences could be explained as well. --Muhammad(talk)09:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations!
An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status
About 5mm long, cropped, softbox setup again
Umbrella on stand
Umbrella on stand
Same as previous, you might be interested since this was teleconverter + a set of tubes. The combination seems to eat about two stops of light though!
and so they will experience time at more or less the same rate. 
