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.
I have yet to see even close to evidence to refute the impossibility for evolution to explain the advanced information and complexity of the molecular machinery which would have no function without any part... What has been presented contrary to any belief or faith in having done so... Is rather delusional... what's more it's evident that the programming is inherent in the simplest of cells and would have had to have always been so for said cells to ever even been able to begin the entire process of evolution by ever surviving long enough to ever begin to do so... After all is it not evolutionists who always proclaim... "It's takes a very very long time"
In biology, a species is the basic unit of biological classification and a taxonomic rank. A species is often defined as the largest group of organisms in which two individuals can produce fertile offspring, typically by sexual reproduction. While this definition is often adequate, when looked at more closely it is problematic. For example, with hybridisation, in a species complex of hundreds of similar microspecies, or in a ring species, the boundaries between closely related species become unclear. Other ways of defining species include similarity of DNA, morphology or ecological niche.
originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: peter vlar
I have yet to see you say you are wrong...
So I guess I just don't believe you...
You are not as smart as you believe...
I'm not scared of being wrong...
And please don't be sorry for me... I disrespect patronization...
originally posted by: cooperton
originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: cooperton
Nor would I Want to do that, only to have my conclusions blindly dismissed anyway. You guys don't believe someone who was risen from the dead, so you're not going to believe some random guy on the internet.
Hold your horses here .......
If you want to play mean, I will too.
1. your argument is non sequitur.
2. The reason I do not believe in your guy risen from the dead is because in the year 325 CE a group of political and religious hacks came together to pull the stunt of all time: to institute state religion based on a prescribed set of books that would support a predefined set of beliefs.
3. All other books that did not conform the predetermined narrative were destroyed and the people adhering to those were persecuted and many were killed.
4.this leaves the point that I'd rather believe a random guy on the internet.
5. As far as I am concerned, your ideas have not blindly been dismissed. They have been thoroughly debunked. Playing the victim card here does you no good. Simply admit you have been bu ll sh i tt ing
As I said: non sequitur. I highly recommend you to do a major in logic.
originally posted by: 5StarOracle
If evolution is all that human beings would be the apex of evolution...
Why can't we fly?
Why can't we breath underwater?
Why can't we see in the dark?
Why do we die? Why do turtles and parrots have greater longevity?
Why can't apes speak?
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: 5StarOracle
Creation and evolution are portrayed as polar opposites..
By whom?
originally posted by: Phantom423
read that paper plz
"All vertebrate and invertebrate animals have an innate immune system, but adaptive immunity is a uniquely vertebrate feature3. Underlying adaptive immunity are variable, clonally distributed lymphocyte receptors that are products of rearranging genes."
"Such systems have evolved independently in jawed and jawless vertebrates. Almost all extant vertebrates are jawed and have variable B- and T-cell receptors built from immunoglobulin-like domains. In jawless vertebrates -- the lampreys and hagfish -- lymphocytes resembling B cells and T cells have variable receptors constructed from leucine-rich repeats"
More prone to convergent evolution are the variable receptors of natural killer (NK) cells, lymphocytes that contribute to both innate and adaptive immunity, and also, in placental mammals, to reproduction5, 6. Whereas the convergence of B- and T-cell receptors is seen only between species that diverged >500 million years ago, convergence of variable NK-cell receptors is apparent among placental mammals that diverged 55-65 million years ago
During development, NK cells are ‘educated’ by self-MHC class I molecules to monitor other cells for the quality and quantity of their MHC class I expression
The variable NK-cell receptors of mouse and human, the species most studied by immunologists, are products of convergent evolution. Whereas immunoglobulin-like domains form the MHC class I-binding site of human killer-cell immunoglobulin-like receptors (KIRs), the binding site of mouse Ly49 receptors is a different type of domain, which resembles that found in calcium-dependent lectins13. Emphasizing their independent evolution, KIRs and Ly49 receptors bind non-overlapping sites on the surface of MHC class I molecules9 (Figure 1A). Exploratory phylogenetic comparisons have identified a few other species that use Ly49 receptors (rat and horse) or KIRs (simian primates [G] and cattle) as variable NK cell receptors10. No species is known to diversify both KIRs and Ly49 receptors, but several species diversify neither, preserving KIR and Ly49 as conserved, single-copy gene
These genes arose by duplication of an ancestral KIR gene in a non-placental mammal ~140 million years ago
That independent evolution of four families of variable NK cell receptors has been revealed by study of 4,000 extant species of placental mammal indicates that this phenomenon might have occurred many times during their 132 million-year history
Implicit to the generation of a new family of variable NK cell receptors is that an older family collapsed
originally posted by: Barcs
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: 5StarOracle
Creation and evolution are portrayed as polar opposites..
By whom?
Exactly. It's strictly the creationists that claim evolution and creation are opposites, hence why they fight it tooth and nail. They don't argue gravity, germ theory or anything else. It's strictly evolution because it conflicts with a particular bible story. No other reason.
originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton
It's not an assumption if it's in the experimental data. And it's there.
These genes arose by duplication of an ancestral KIR gene in a non-placental mammal ~140 million years ago
When you can do that let us know. In the meantime, your response is just verbal garbage.
originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton
If you don't have any experimental data to refute it, an intelligent person would accept what's written. If a person doesn't accept what's written (and we've said this a thousand times) that person has to present the data that proves the published work is wrong.
These genes arose by duplication of an ancestral KIR gene in a non-placental mammal ~140 million years ago