It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: cooperton
So DNA was a given? Ok we'll give you that, but only based on faith. So, how did it replicate without transcription, translation, and regulation (all 3 are required to make the proteins that replicate DNA)
originally posted by: flyingfish
a reply to: peter vlar
Oh, how the hypocrisy and projection burns! Check out this post and to add to the lie, four members "knee jerked" and gave it stars.
I have seen nothing proven, just more sensationalism and knee jerk reactions from those who need their respective faiths shored up by these reports. Its not the first study and wont be the last, they might even prove something one day, who knows One thing proven is that some will grasp at straws.
Enjoy your life Barcs, I doesnt bother me
originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: peter vlar
What???
Do you know how a debate works?
First, you haven't responded or refuted any evidence presented. Not in the OP or any other post in this thread. You just complained about Sanford writing a book after he retired. That's the sum of your posts so far on this thread. Others have managed to try and debate the mountains of evidence presented in this thread but the sum of your knowledge or lack thereof is complaining about a Scientist writing a book after retirement.
There's no need to move the goal post with you because you haven't debated anything. You make these vacuous statements that are meaningless as it pertains to the evidence presented in this thread.
Just look at all your post. They're devoid of any meaning or any debate. Your knowledge is non existent in this area because you haven't said one thing as it pertains to the information presented in this thread.
So you have 2 extremes
FIRST EXTREME
Krazyshot tries to answer questions by posting links to 40 page PDF's and then saying go fish.
SECOND EXTREME
peter vlar says there's no evidence presented on this thread and he provides nothing but complaints about a Scientist writing a book after retirement
Which is it?
Did Krazyshot try to answer non existing evidence or did peter vlar recognize that he couldn't debate or refute any of these things so he gave us a bunch of nonsense?
Both show they have no answers to these questions.
The research team lead by Georgia Tech Professor of Biology John McDonald has verified that while the DNA sequence of genes between humans and chimpanzees is nearly identical, there are large genomic "gaps" in areas adjacent to genes that can affect the extent to which genes are "turned on" and "turned off." The research shows that these genomic "gaps" between the two species are predominantly due to the insertion or deletion (INDEL) of viral-like sequences called retrotransposons that are known to comprise about half of the genomes of both species. The findings are reported in the most recent issue of the online, open-access journal Mobile DNA.
"These genetic gaps have primarily been caused by the activity of retroviral-like transposable element sequences," said McDonald. "Transposable elements were once considered 'junk DNA' with little or no function. Now it appears that they may be one of the major reasons why we are so different from chimpanzees."
originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: peter vlar
What???
Do you know how a debate works?
First, you haven't responded or refuted any evidence presented. Not in the OP or any other post in this thread. You just complained about Sanford writing a book after he retired. That's the sum of your posts so far on this thread. Others have managed to try and debate the mountains of evidence presented in this thread but the sum of your knowledge or lack thereof is complaining about a Scientist writing a book after retirement.
There's no need to move the goal post with you because you haven't debated anything. You make these vacuous statements that are meaningless as it pertains to the evidence presented in this thread.
Just look at all your post. They're devoid of any meaning or any debate. Your knowledge is non existent in this area because you haven't said one thing as it pertains to the information presented in this thread.
So you have 2 extremes
FIRST EXTREME
Krazyshot tries to answer questions by posting links to 40 page PDF's and then saying go fish.
SECOND EXTREME
peter vlar says there's no evidence presented on this thread and he provides nothing but complaints about a Scientist writing a book after retirement
Which is it?
Did Krazyshot try to answer non existing evidence or did peter vlar recognize that he couldn't debate or refute any of these things so he gave us a bunch of nonsense?
Both show they have no answers to these questions.
originally posted by: lawman27
My brother is a geneticist and is working on designer viruses. But, if only God can create life, he must be a god. That's going to be great when he next visits-all I accomplished this year was a promotion at work.
originally posted by: Barcs
Yes, DNA is a given in evolution, just like life existing. They are prerequisites, not part of the evolutionary process. This is something the religious extremists on here have a lot of trouble grasping for some reason. They just don't understand the difference between evolution and the origin of life, 2 vastly different concepts.
originally posted by: cooperton
None of your articles give an explanation involving a simultaneous evolution of all of the 4 required mechanisms (reproduction, translation, transcription, and regulation). The articles you presented are filibusters at best. They cannot explain the blatant impossibility of evolving all 4 of these major requirements for a sustainable living organism.
originally posted by: whereislogic
Don't forget the folding of proteins, it's "crucial" for the function of proteins (and the cell membrane with all the mechanisms for protection from the environment whith various mechanisms letting in the exact right material of different shapes and sizes and keeping out what's not wanted or even damaging to the cell, repair and maintenance systems and machinery, cause an organism isn't going to survive long without those either, no survival and you can forget about passing on anything to evolve, and a whole bunch of other requirements for a reproducing living organism that even gets the chance to mutate and pass on its genes). See quote regarding "crucial" below:
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Stooping to childish ad hominem insults...
originally posted by: jsm318
Without evolution, please offer an explanation for the presence of mitochondria and chloroplasts in algae and plants.
Why are their genomes nearly identical to alpha-proteobacteria (mitochondria) and cyanobacteria (chloroplasts)? Why are the proteins involved in respiration and photosynthesis in these organelles homologous to their bacterial counterparts? Why do chloroplasts divide the same (binary fission) as bacteria and contain many unique cyanobacterial specific division factors that are found in no other bacteria or eukaryotes? Why do mitochondria and chloroplasts possess bacterial-specific cytoskeletal elements (FtsZ, Min proteins, FtsH, FtsI, etc...)? Why do chloroplasts contain bacterial ribosomes and not eukaryotic? Why are their membranes chemically more similar to bacteria instead of eukaryotes? Photosynthetic plants and algae would not be here today without the ancient event whereby a heterotrophic eukaryotic organism engulfed and retained a photosynthetic cyanobacterium. This is evolution, supported with an overwhelming amount of data.
originally posted by: jsm318
Photosynthetic plants and algae would not be here today without the ancient event whereby a heterotrophic eukaryotic organism engulfed and retained a photosynthetic cyanobacterium. This is evolution, supported with an overwhelming amount of data.