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.

 

Evolution, It's only a theory

page: 66
65
<< 63  64  65    67  68  69 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 12:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


You don't research much at all do you - en.wikipedia.org...


The original sequence of species believed to have evolved into the horse was based on fossils discovered in North America in the 1870s by paleontologist Othniel Charles Marsh. The sequence, from Hyracotherium (popularly called Eohippus) to the modern horse (Equus), was popularized by Thomas Huxley and became one of the most widely-known examples of a clear evolutionary progression. The horse's evolutionary lineage became a common feature of biology textbooks, and the sequence of transitional fossils was assembled by the American Museum of Natural History into an exhibit which emphasized the gradual, "straight-line" evolution of the horse.

Since then, as the number of equid fossils has increased, the actual evolutionary progression from Hyracotherium to Equus has been discovered to be much more complex and multi-branched than was initially supposed. The straight, direct progression from the former to the latter has been replaced by a more elaborate model with numerous branches in different directions, of which the modern horse is only one of many. It was first recognized by George Gaylord Simpson in 1951 that the modern horse was not the "goal" of the entire lineage of equids, it is simply the only genus of the many horse lineages that has happened to survive.

Detailed fossil information on the rate and distribution of new equid species has also revealed that the progression between species was not as smooth and consistent as was once believed. Although some transitions, such as that of Dinohippus to Equus, were indeed gradual progressions, a number of others, such as that of Epihippus to Mesohippus, were relatively abrupt and sudden in geologic time, taking place over only a few million years.

Both anagenesis (gradual change in an entire population's gene frequency) and cladogenesis (a population "splitting" into two distinct evolutionary branches) occurred, and many species coexisted with "ancestor" species at various times. The change in equids' traits was also not always a "straight line" from Hyracotherium to Equus: some traits reversed themselves at various points in the evolution of new equid species, such as size and the presence of facial fossae, and it is only in retrospect that certain evolutionary trends can be recognized.




posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 12:47 AM
link   
Evolution: 1)A THEORY;that has not been proved as a LAW,
2) Has been "evolving "itself for over a hundred years ( WITH NO MORE PROOF THAN IT ORIGINALLY HAD),
3) Is adored by Academically employed individuals (IT GIVES THEM SOMETHING TO HARP ON ABOUT)- and allows some to forge a career from it concepts
4) Has been debunked (in a Hominid sense). Throughout sites within Jericho, the remains of Homo Sapiens have been exhumed underneath from the remains of Neanderthals. In some cases, there have even been the occurrence of Neanderthal/sapiens/neanderthals!
This of course shows that sapiens Co-existed with Sapiens.

It shows that Humans did not simply evolve from one type of Hominid into another; the lack of fossil records/ or indeed fossil records at all does not demonstrate that humans evolved from other hominids and indeed Monkeys!!!

I am more comfortable with the idea that Hominid DNA was at some point spliced with extraterrestrial DNA; giving rise to Homo SapiensSapiens! I suppose the pro-darwinists would rationalize this as a type of evolution;(just not one that he proposed).
Darwin must have indeed had some pull in his day, for his crap to be reverberated into the now!'



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by andre18
Man, this going to be so fun. Let me educate


Yeah,, well if you're going to "school me" andre, try doing it with something I don't already know so you can quit googling as you teach for me to learn as you go.

I learned this stuff when you were in diapers most likely


Although his work didn't gain much ground because there was no obvious mechanism by which a type of animal could change into another. Lamarck suggested that maybe animals changed because they felt the need to change. It didn't sound very scientific and because there wasn't any evidence to support it at the time the idea didn't go very far.

So what Darwin did was show a plausible mechanism by which these changes could happen. And of course Alfred Wallace who came up with the same idea and published it jointly - best known for independently proposing a theory of natural selection which prompted Charles Darwin to publish his own theory.


And they have been trying to prove what "could have happened" ever since. They have never done it so what they have done is bring up a generation of kids being taught evolution is a scientific fact and anyone who doesn't believe it is a retarded religious person and have found no shortage of Christianitys most awkward buffoons to characterize and perpetuate that idea. The plausible mechanism continues to be debunked nevertheless with much time and resources being wasted on it and our Nations ratings in academics falling further behind as a result of this so called science.



This is human evolution - , Australopithecus Afarensis, Australopithecus Robustus, Homo Habilis, Homo Erectus. These pre-humans are stages of our evolution - they are real fossils and are accepted so by the world, but guess what - they're all fake and it's all a conspiracy.




Anthropologist Richard Leakey has said that 'If someone went to the trouble of collecting together in one room all the fossil remains so far discovered of our ancestors (and their biological relatives) who lived, say, between five and one million years ago, he would need only a couple of large trestle tables on which to spread them out.'1 Most hominid fossils are fragments of jaws and scraps of skulls but, as palaeontologist Stephen J. Gould once said, 'they serve as a basis for endless speculation and elaborate storytelling'.2
Beliefs, expectations, and prejudices inevitably play a role in the interpretation of fossils, as do personal rivalries and the desire for fame. More than one palaeoanthropologist has become famous overnight by announcing sensational and extravagant claims after finding some fragmentary remains of a creature he or she believes to be related to man's origin.

But such claims have a habit of being undermined or invalidated by further research and discoveries. The details of our supposed descent from the apes remain obscure and are the subject of heated debate among evolutionists.

A number of blunders in the interpretation of fossils have been made over the years. In 1922 a tooth was discovered in western Nebraska (USA), which was declared by several scientists to combine the characteristics of the chimpanzee, Pithecanthropus (a postulated apeman), and man. He became popularly known as Nebraska man and was regarded by some as a potential human ancestor. Five years later, it was announced that the tooth actually belonged to a pig.






You Christians have got it….god just magically poofed things into existence……..ya, a more logical process then billions of years developmental progression and change, sigh.


I'm pretty sure if God said he used the exact method of our existence that Darwin explains, You would reject that too merely because of its religious implications however, having said that, I will submit the Bible doesn't explain the details of poofing anything into existence.

So why do you besmirch the Christian with this tactic as if when we say what is in the Bible we must be very stupid because saying God did it isn't science as if we think it is.

The fact is I continue to debunk you everytime you brag about owning someone or educating me. In 1986 Pat Shipman made the following confession:


'we could assert that we have no evidence whatsoever of where Homo arises from and remove all members of the genus Australopithecus from the hominid family. ... I've such a visceral negative reaction to this idea that I suspect I am unable to evaluate it rationally. I was brought up on the notion that Australopithecus is a hominid.'



Fakes??? Where'd you pull that from -


Umm I pulled that from the smithsonian institute and just about any top leading equine expert you might google to find.


The sequence showing the supposed evolution of the horse, which even they admit to be false, is still on display in museums. The horse series charts were the result of distortions of the facts. Every new fossil discovery has revealed the invalidity of these imaginary charts.




In a sense, theosophy agrees with science that humans and apes had a common ancestor - but that common ancestor was man himself, in his earlier, more primitive form. In the remote past - at the end of the third round and at the end of the third root-race of the present round - the human body was apelike in appearance. However, it did not evolve from animal bodies but from astral prototypes. Humans could be called 'fallen angels' rather than risen apes. Our spiritual monad, the 'angel' in us, does not literally descend into matter; it remains on its own plane and works through a series of lower vehicles. When the densest of them, the physical body, was ready, man's latent selfconscious intelligence could begin to be unfolded and expressed. The physical and spiritual lines of evolution meet in the third stream of evolution - the mental. Humanity therefore forms a separate kingdom, poised midway between the animals and the superhuman kingdoms or 'gods'http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/ape3.htm#a2






Originally posted by KRISKALI777
Evolution: 1)A THEORY;that has not been proved as a LAW,
2) Has been "evolving "itself for over a hundred years ( WITH NO MORE PROOF THAN IT ORIGINALLY HAD),
3) Is adored by Academically employed individuals (IT GIVES THEM SOMETHING TO HARP ON ABOUT)- and allows some to forge a career from it concepts
4) Has been debunked (in a Hominid sense). Throughout sites within Jericho, the remains of Homo Sapiens have been exhumed underneath from the remains of Neanderthals. In some cases, there have even been the occurrence of Neanderthal/sapiens/neanderthals!
This of course shows that sapiens Co-existed with Sapiens.

It shows that Humans did not simply evolve from one type of Hominid into another; the lack of fossil records/ or indeed fossil records at all does not demonstrate that humans evolved from other hominids and indeed Monkeys!!!

I am more comfortable with the idea that Hominid DNA was at some point spliced with extraterrestrial DNA; giving rise to Homo SapiensSapiens! I suppose the pro-darwinists would rationalize this as a type of evolution;(just not one that he proposed).
Darwin must have indeed had some pull in his day, for his crap to be reverberated into the now!'


Considering these so called scientists have been claiming we are 98% like chimps before they even unraveled the chimp genome was one of the biggest lines of crap we used to have to swallow. Now they are around 4 times into the chimp and so far we are now only 94% and dropping fast




[edit on 13-4-2009 by Aermacchi]



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 01:13 AM
link   
reply to post by andre18
 



Sir Fred Hoyle a mathematician and astronomer calculated that the probability of one simple enzyme forming by chance is 10 to the power of 20 (one with twenty zeros behind it), to 1. Hence for one cell to form, about 2000 enzymes are needed, which makes the probability of the first self replicating cell forming by random movement of atoms as 10 to the power of 40000 to 1. One bitter critic of Hoyle begrudgingly says that that this figure is 'probably not overly exaggerated'.

It has been said that this is as likely as a cyclone going through a junkyard and producing a fully functional jumbo jet.

People do say that if you allow enough time, anything can happen. However, at best we have about 4.6 billion years to work with. If Sir Fred Hoyle's calculated probability was for a cell to form in say the next second then the probability of a cell forming in 4.6 billion years is still about 10 to the power of 39982 to 1. If it was for a microsecond, the probability would be 10 to the power of 39976 to 1. If it was for a picosecond, the probability would be 10 to the power of 39970 to 1.

There are approximately 10 to the power of 80 atoms in this universe.

It is also claimed that life came from another planet. Nobel Prize winner Francis Crick recognised the problem of the extremely low probability that life could come from non-life on earth. He concluded that the earth was not old enough, and postulated that life may have come from another planet. Hence in order for us then to have a 1000 to 1 chance of life forming by itself, (and lets assume that an asteroid will definitely take the life to earth) there would need to be roughly 10 to the power of 38970 planets out there (fairly close to us) capable of supporting life.

But are Fred Hoyles calculation's correct? It would be dangerous just to assume that his calculations were. A more recent claim details that biogenesis (the formation of life from non-life) is not reliant on the random movement of atoms, but is a natural process, just as hydrogen and oxygen atoms naturally attract to form water. But, if this is the case, what are the chances of the 'Big Bang' producing the atoms that would behave in such a fashion that they would naturally form amino acids and proteins, which in turn would naturally come together to form life?


You would have a better chance of dying and coming back to life than a single cell coming together out of random chance. My grandma in a wheelchair would have a better chance of winning the Indy 500! I could go on...



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 01:16 AM
link   
Yeah, scientists
. I work with Doctors and Academics everyday in my workplace. Some of these people are particularly bright (although this ilk seems to have a majority lacking in social skills; so does this show real intelligence?), most, sadly; are as thick as pig faeces - its wonderful what careers can be made by having a rich Mummy & Daddy!
These types delight in pontificating their views to those of us mere mortals that dont hold their qualification; therefore, in their eyes; we are not capable or worthy to debate on such topics that are of a scientific nature.
Unless I know the individual that puts forth the idea, I cannot personally, give my faith to how well it was researched by the individual originally. but thats just my opinion!



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 01:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by andre18
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


You don't research much at all do you - en.wikipedia.org...


The original sequence of species believed to have evolved into the horse was based on fossils discovered in North America in the 1870s by paleontologist Othniel Charles Marsh. The sequence, from Hyracotherium (popularly called Eohippus) to the modern horse (Equus), was popularized by Thomas Huxley and became one of the most widely-known examples of a clear evolutionary progression. The horse's evolutionary lineage became a common feature of biology textbooks, and the sequence of transitional fossils was assembled by the American Museum of Natural History into an exhibit which emphasized the gradual, "straight-line" evolution of the horse.

Since then, as the number of equid fossils has increased, the actual evolutionary progression from Hyracotherium to Equus has been discovered to be much more complex and multi-branched than was initially supposed. The straight, direct progression from the former to the latter has been replaced by a more elaborate model with numerous branches in different directions, of which the modern horse is only one of many. It was first recognized by George Gaylord Simpson in 1951 that the modern horse was not the "goal" of the entire lineage of equids, it is simply the only genus of the many horse lineages that has happened to survive.

Detailed fossil information on the rate and distribution of new equid species has also revealed that the progression between species was not as smooth and consistent as was once believed. Although some transitions, such as that of Dinohippus to Equus, were indeed gradual progressions, a number of others, such as that of Epihippus to Mesohippus, were relatively abrupt and sudden in geologic time, taking place over only a few million years.

Both anagenesis (gradual change in an entire population's gene frequency) and cladogenesis (a population "splitting" into two distinct evolutionary branches) occurred, and many species coexisted with "ancestor" species at various times. The change in equids' traits was also not always a "straight line" from Hyracotherium to Equus: some traits reversed themselves at various points in the evolution of new equid species, such as size and the presence of facial fossae, and it is only in retrospect that certain evolutionary trends can be recognized.


as a matter of fact I have and so did all these people
www.abovetopsecret.com...
who would have edited your wikie "stuff" if they boteherd to think it was worthy of serious review by serious people



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 02:53 AM
link   
We had Javaman = Fraud

LOL?

en.wikipedia.org...


Dubois' find was not a complete specimen, but consisted of a skullcap, a femur, and a few teeth. There is some dissent as to whether all these bones represent the same species. A second, more complete specimen was later discovered in the village of Sangiran, Central Java Island (near the coast of Aisa), 18 km to the north of Solo. This find, a skullcap of similar size to that found by Dubois, was discovered by Berlin-born paleontologist GHR von Koenigswald in 1936. Many more finds have subsequently been made at the Sangiran site although official reports remain critical of the site's "poor" presentation and interpretation.

Until older human remains were discovered in the Great Rift Valley in Kenya, Dubois' and Koenigswald's discoveries were the oldest hominid remains ever found. Some scientists of the day suggested Dubois' Java Man as a potential intermediate form between modern humans and the common ancestor we share with the other great apes. The current consensus of anthropologists is that the direct ancestors of modern humans were African populations of Homo erectus (possibly Homo ergaster), rather than the Asian populations exemplified by Java Man and Peking Man.

As with many notable hominid fossil finds, some creationists have attempted to downplay the evolutionary significance of Java Man by arguing the specimen should be considered either fully human or fully ape. An example of the former argument is the claim that Java Man is "a true member of the Human family"


Colorado man = Fraud

This is from a creationist website so even Christians are against you on this one.

creation.com...


So, without definite information on who exactly made the original claims, Southwest Colorado Man does not make a compelling candidate as an apologetics evidence for creationists. Only if it was a qualified scientist who made the original claims would it constitute a good anti-evolution evidence.


Lucy = Fallacy

darwinwasright.homestead.com...


None of the experts believe “Lucy” was a chimpanzee. All the experts agree that australopiths lie between humans and modern apes, or that they were simply basal human forms.

“Lucy” wasn’t assembled from bones found miles apart; those were different individuals who each bore their own independent evidence of strict bipedality. And the total number of hominin fossils will no longer fit on a pool table either; now you’ll need a whole pool!


Cromagnan = fallacy

Cro-Magnon wasn’t a different species; they were just the first of our own species known in Europe.

en.wikipedia.org...


Cro-Magnon is one of the main types of Homo sapiens of the European Upper Paleolithic, used for fossil specimens dated approximately 40,000 to 10,000 years ago. It is named after the cave of Crô-Magnon in southwest France, where the first specimen was found. The term falls outside the usual naming conventions for early humans and is used in a general sense to describe the oldest modern people in Europe.


neanderthal man = fraud

darwinwasright.homestead.com...


the Neanderthals weren’t “just an old man with arthritis” either. We’ve found hundreds of Neanderthal men, women, and children, and even their DNA, which has provided proof that they were not part of our species!




Coelcanth = un-evolved after 30 million years

I’ve already discussed this, Coelcanth could have existed millions of years ago and still be alive today because it was in an environment where it had a secure and comfortable ecological niche and didn't need to evolve much.

Micro Raptor, = extinct bird

en.wikipedia.org...


Microraptor is a genus of small, dromaeosaurid dinosaur. About two dozen well-preserved fossil specimens have been recovered from Liaoning, China. They date from the early Cretaceous Jiufotang Formation (Barremian stage), 120-110 million years ago.Like Archaeopteryx, Microraptor provides important evidence about the evolutionary relationship between birds and dinosaurs.


[edit on 13-4-2009 by andre18]



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 04:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Aermacchi
 



Even if it did prove God did it, do you really think anyone of you would admit it.


Um yes, because there’d be proof. That’s what science is all about – if you have the scientific evidence needed to claim something exists and you can prove it well enough for it to become a scientific theory then it does exist. It’s not like the evidence for god has been swept under the rug, if there was a way to prove god’s existence we would have found it.

It’s like this – I have an idea that god exists, now if I want to test my idea I have to go through scientific scrutiny to see whether or not it can be real. Through all the testing done it becomes conclusive that magic does not exist. So the idea that god exists becomes disproven as do other ideas that get put up to scientific scrutiny when they don’t stand up to the tests – the idea of god gets no special treatment – god was debunked a long time ago.

God can never be scientifically proven because he’s supernatural – magic – not real. If the supernatural is scientifically observable then guess what, it’s not supernatural anymore is it, it’s natural, it’s scientific. Logical fallacy.

(God can’t be natural because then he’s bound by limitations because he’s not supernatural - he can’t do magic – he’s not all powerful and all knowing)


We believe if we had an equal part at the table of science, we could not only do that, but we would be able to humiliate the evolutonary scientists having the academic bureucrats wondering why they didn't do that sooner.


And why don’t you already have an equal part at the table of science?


The fact is andre, you have NO evidence to support molecules to man evolution, NONE, NOTTA, ZILCH, ZIPPO and you never will because it is a lie.


So……umm question….what do you call transitional fossils if not proof that life evolves? The devils handy work? Lol I mean even though we don’t have every single fossil for every single creature that ever lived, that doesn’t or shouldn’t mean evolution is wrong because of the very fact that there are transitional fossils in the first place….

Where do you think the transitions came from if not from previous stages of life??? If we found only two or three transitions of say a horse ever, that would still be evidence that the horse have evolved over time and would contradict animals being poofed into existence all at the same time – all 6000 years ago.

[edit on 13-4-2009 by andre18]



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 05:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by KRISKALI777
Yeah, scientists
. I work with Doctors and Academics everyday in my workplace. Some of these people are particularly bright (although this ilk seems to have a majority lacking in social skills; so does this show real intelligence?), most, sadly; are as thick as pig faeces - its wonderful what careers can be made by having a rich Mummy & Daddy!
These types delight in pontificating their views to those of us mere mortals that dont hold their qualification; therefore, in their eyes; we are not capable or worthy to debate on such topics that are of a scientific nature.
Unless I know the individual that puts forth the idea, I cannot personally, give my faith to how well it was researched by the individual originally. but thats just my opinion!


Do you use electricity? Do you personally know Thomas Alva Edison? Do you ever fly? Do you personally know the Wright Brothers? I'm thinking "No" and "No" to both. (If your really are old enough to have known all three personally, my apologies and a major jaw-drop moment ensues.)

What you just said was "If I don't want to believe it, I won't." Try rejecting the theories of aerodynamics in flight sometime.



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by andre18
 


Look aaandre, There is NO way Possible for evolution to have worked DNA is all you have to understand and that crap about euracacytes

and your cavemen are ALL phoney for the same reason neanderthal is guy. The DNA doesn't fit the Model of the designer.



Neanderthal DNA "Almost" Identical to "Modern" Human's ..(Oops!)...


A short time ago (November, 2006,) South African scientists reported finding a supposedly 360 million year old fossil lamphrey. The problem for evolutionary theory is; the fossil lamprey is virtually identical to "present day" lampreys. Just in case some of those pesky creationists were around to ask embarrasing questions, the scientists noted that though the fossil had surprisingly not evolved much, it appeared that the lampreys had "gotten slightly longer"!

What kind of scientist would make such an assumption based on one specimen? An evolutionary scientist who needs to show something for 360 million years of work, that's who.

That brings us to the subject of this article, "Neanderthal Man". The more we learn about Neanderthal, the less primitive he becomes. Recent scientific articles have admitted that modern man and Neanderthal met, interacted and even interbred. Another recent article suggests that Europeans could be 5% Neanderthal

On the other hand, many ruling paradigm scientists are still insisting that Neaderthals couldn't speak and that there certainly was no interbreeding. So, what would happen when scientists were able to isolate Neanderthal DNA, as they have recently actually done with material found in a Croation cave?

Neanderthal DNA is 99.9% identical to "human" DNA! Blockbuster! All over the news, right? 99.9% identical is certainly startling, all right but it's not 100% identical, seemingly preserving something for evolutionary scientists to hang their hats on. Like saying it looks like lamphreys got slightly longer over 360 million years.

What they don't give you is the following fact as quoted from a lecture by Eric Lanser, Ph D; (easily verified elsewhere) "Any two humans on earth are 99.9 percent identical in their DNA sequences".

This kind of puts the data on Neanderthal DNA in a whole new light; their DNA differs from ours exactly as our differs from each other! Neanderthal is/was exactly as different from you as your next door neighbor is, only he/she is not typically depicted hunched over wearing animal skins and carrying a spear.

Given the fact that DNA sequencing shows that "modern humans" and Neanderthal are "identical", the article below really makes no sense, continuing the fiction that the populations remained separate and that we (modern humans) won (in evolutionary terms) and that they lost. Turns out that we're a little shorter, maybe.

www.questia.com...'s%20a%20Lot%20of%20the%20Neanderthal%20Man%20in%20Every%20One%20of%20Us


Andre do your homework and QUIT showing me stuff that has been DEBUNKED Already!

Darwin is DEAD and so is his asinine idiotic impossible theory. The supernatural signs and wonders talked about in the last days of the Book of revelation, those things man willnever understand looking for them in the wrong places.

In other words Aaaandre, if you look for things having no design this is what you will find coming out of Science

DUMB EXPLANATIONS
DUMB HOAX'S

DUMB THEORY

DUMB Science!



The reason is why intelligent design scientists keep coming up with the good stuff is because they think like a designer looking to reverse engineer DNA rather than ignoring it's God created supernatural properties, they FIND THEM and Evolutionists keep blathering and making up story's

Question Aaaandre,,

What theory best explains this mysterious “impossible” phenomenon? The evolution of some type of unknown ability in DNA through Darwinian processes, or the deliberate design-in of this special ability? Go ahead take a guess.

What if this ability is necessary for DNA to fulfill its function?

How then could it have functioned in that presumed, time expanse prior to “evolution” of these abilities? Of course, we say special creation is the best answer for the origin of this phenomenon.


DNA has been found to have a bizarre ability to put itself together, even at a distance, when according to known science it shouldn't be able to. Explanation: None, at least not yet.

Scientists are reporting evidence that contrary to our current beliefs about what is possible, intact double-stranded DNA has the "amazing" ability to recognize similarities in other DNA strands from a distance.

Somehow they are able to identify one another, and the tiny bits of genetic material tend to congregate with similar DNA. The recognition of similar sequences in DNA's chemical subunits, occurs in a way unrecognized by science.

There is no known reason why the DNA is able to combine the way it does, and from a current theoretical standpoint this feat should be chemically impossible.

Even so, the research published in ACS' Journal of Physical Chemistry B, shows very clearly that homology recognition between sequences of several hundred nucleotides occurs without physical contact or presence of proteins.

Double helixes of DNA can recognize matching molecules from a distance and then gather together, all seemingly without help from any other molecules or chemical signals.

In the study, scientists observed the behavior of fluorescently tagged DNA strands placed in water that contained no proteins or other material that could interfere with the experiment.

Strands with identical nucleotide sequences were about twice as likely to gather together as DNA strands with different sequences.


No one knows how individual DNA strands could possibly be communicating in this way, yet somehow they do. The "telepathic" effect is a source of wonder and amazement for scientists.

"Amazingly, the forces responsible for the sequence recognition can reach across more than one nanometer of water separating the surfaces of the nearest neighbor DNA," said the authors Geoff S. Baldwin, Sergey Leikin, John M. Seddon, and Alexei A. Kornyshev and colleagues.

This recognition effect may help increase the accuracy and efficiency of the homologous recombination of genes, which is a process responsible for DNA repair, evolution, and genetic diversity.

The new findings may also shed light on ways to avoid recombination errors, which are factors in cancer, aging, and other health issues.


Gee Aaaandre how could this be? Well ask yourself what holds the atom together? what is gravity? Sure can test it measure it but we STILL don't know what it is but lets not say God does it yet ok, THAT would be UNSCIENTIFIC!

So what about this!



Genetic 'telepathy'? A bizarre new property of DNA

Scientists are reporting evidence that intact, double-stranded DNA has the "amazing" ability to recognize similarities in other DNA strands from a distance. And then like friends with similar interests, the bits of genetic material hangout or congregate together.

The recognition - of similar sequences in DNA's chemical subunits - occurs in a way once regarded as impossible, the researchers suggest in a study scheduled for the Jan. 31 issue of ACS' Journal of Physical Chemistry B.

Geoff S. Baldwin, Sergey Leikin, John M. Seddon, and Alexei A. Kornyshev and colleagues say the homology recognition between sequences of several hundred nucleotides occurs without physical contact or presence of proteins, factors once regarded as essential for the phenomenon.

This recognition may help increase the accuracy and efficiency of the homologous recombination of genes - a process responsible for DNA repair, evolution, and genetic diversity. The new findings thus may shed light on ways to avoid recombination errors, which underpin cancer, aging, and other health problems.

In the study, scientists observed the behavior of fluorescently tagged DNA strands placed in water that contained no proteins or other material that could interfere with the experiment. Strands with identical nucleotide sequences were about twice as likely to gather together as DNA strands with different sequences.

"Amazingly, the forces responsible for the sequence recognition can reach across more than one nanometer of water separating the surfaces of the nearest neighbor DNA," said the authors.



Famous Atheist Dawkins Snidely Chides Creationists About Imperfect "Junk DNA".


Your Guru's Got it WRONG AGAIN Aaandre!
Because they keep looking for Dumb information stuff made by a DUMB theory!

Looks like Dembski was right in 1988 when he said:


Doubters Like Dawkins Would Prove to be As Wrong About "Non_Coding DNA As They Were About Everything Else

But design is not a science stopper. Indeed, design can foster inquiry where traditional evolutionary approaches obstruct it. Consider the term "junk DNA."

Implicit in this term is the view that because the genome of an organism has been cobbled together through along, undirected evolutionary process, the genome is a patchwork of which only limited portions are essential to the organism. Thus on an evolutionary view we expect a lot of useless DNA.

If, on the other hand, organisms are designed, we expect DNA, as much as possible, to exhibit function. And indeed, the most recent findings suggest that designating DNA as "junk" merely cloaks our current lack of knowledge about function.



For instance, in a recent issue of the Journal of Theoretical Biology, John Bodnar describes how "non-coding DNA in eukaryotic genomes encodes a language which programs organismal growth and development."

Design encourages scientists to look for function where evolution discourages it. Subsequent ID theorists repeated this ID prediction that functionality would be found in agenic or "Junk" DNA. So it looks like Dawkins was wrong.

AWE = (

If the Darwinists are so wrong, where are they wrong? What is the fundamental mistake they are making? It has to do with where they are looking,

They are looking for smart stuff to come from dumb stuff and what you get is DUMB SCIENCE Aaandre

Now Smart Science on the otherhand looks for Smart stuff because they know a Smart thing made it and they keep making a mockery of Darwinists because NOW we know

MUTATIONS COULD HAVE NEVER BEEN THE MECHANISM!
Now if you remember, Natural Selection was already debunked to have been the ONLY mechanism and THAT's why they added mutation.

Looks like now they will have to try again Aaaandre!

Awe = (


In a discovery that has flabbergasted geneticists, researchers have shown that plants can overwrite the genetic code they inherit from their parents, and revert to that of their grandparents.

The finding challenges textbook rules of inheritance, which state that children simply receive combinations of the genes carried by their parents. The principle was famously established by Austrian monk Gregor Mendel in his nineteenth-century studies on pea plants.

The study, published this week in Nature1, shows that not all genes are so well behaved. It suggests that plants, and perhaps other organisms including humans, might possess a back-up mechanism that can bypass unhealthy sequences from their parent

s and revert to the healthier genetic code possessed by their grandparents or great-grandparents.

Robert Pruitt and his colleagues at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana, hit upon the discovery when studying a particular strain of the cress plant Arabidopsis, which carries a mutation in both copies of a gene called HOTHEAD. In mutated plants, the petals and other flower parts are abnormally fused together.

Because these plants pass the mutant gene on to their offspring, conventional genetics dictates that they will also have fused flowers. Not so: Pruitt's team has known for some time that around 10% of the offspring have normal flowers.


which is the cell, inside the cell, and specifically at the functioning of DNA. Because the twisting double-helix of DNA contains the instructions for all of life's processes, the assumption has always been that disruptions in the patterns of those instructions are the only logical explanation for how physiological changes at both the micro (small) and macro (large) level must be created and executed.

In other words, changes in DNA (mutations) must be the engine driving all aspects of evolutionary change. Nothing else makes sense.


Sensible or not, however, it is wrong. Why? Because in 1984 a group of British researchers decided to do an experiment utilizing what was then considered to be a universal truth about genes, handed down from Gregor Mendel himself: the idea that genes are sexless.

Mendel had postulated that a gene from either parent, whether plant or animal, was equally useful and effective throughout the lifetime of the individual possessing it. This was taken as gospel until those British researchers tried to create mouse embryos carrying either two copies of "father" genes or two copies of "mother" genes.

According to Mendel's laws of inheritance, both male and female embryos should have developed normally. After all, they had a full complement of genes, and if genes were indeed sexless they had all they needed to gestate and thrive.

The researchers were stunned when all of their carefully crafted embryos were dead within a few days of being transferred to a surrogate mother's womb.

How could it happen? What could have gone so wrong in a scenario that couldn't go wrong? They were completely baffled.


Now can you imagine what this does to Darwins Dimwitted Theory?

Take a guess Aaaandre

C'mon just try


They had ventured into a region of the cell, and of the functioning of DNA, that they hadn't imagined was off-limits. By taking that inadvertent journey they ended up forging an entirely new understanding of Mendelian inheritance, while driving a stake through the already weakened heart of Darwinian evolution




In the world of genetics as it had always been perceived, that was impossible.

Only a localized (sexless) gene should be able to control its own destiny or purpose, not a separate gene from an entirely different parent.

Cooperating genes broke all the rules of physical inheritance that had been written by Gregor Mendel.

Yet imprinted genes do, in fact, disregard Mendel's rules; and by doing so they provide the above mentioned stake that will inevitably be driven through the heart of classic Darwinian evolution.



Now Andre what are the Odds?


So far geneticists have identified about 20 imprinted genes embedded within the 80,000 to 100,000 believed to comprise the entire human genome. New ones are discovered on a regular basis, with many geneticists predicting the final tally will reach hundreds, while others suspect the total might reach into the thousands.


But whether hundreds or thousands, any imprinted genes at all means that classic Darwinism can no longer count on mutations in DNA as a plausible mechanism for fundamental physical change.

For mutations to be acceptable as the engine of Darwinian change, they have to be able to occur in isolation and then, as stated earlier, pass themselves intact to succeeding generations. By definition that means they have to be able to regulate their own functions, both to express and to methylate their genetic processes.

Whenever a trait mutates, whether a longer limb, a stronger muscle, or a more efficient organ, it should pass into the gene pool whole and complete, not half of it being expressed from the male side of a pairing and half from the female side.

Why?

Because both parents would have to mutate in complementary ways at the same time to the same degree...and then they would have to find each other and mate in order to have even a chance to pass the mutation on!


Oooops! Looks like Darwits are going to have to come up with more ways to have all them damn lucky accidents eh Aaaandre!


Our vast array of underlying genetic timing mechanisms, including our imprinted genes, have been handed down intact (unevolved!) since the beginning of our existence as a species. Thus, what is built can be slowly, gradually altered; how it is built cannot.

This obvious fact...this undeniable truth...has the most profound implications: In the carpenter genes of successful organisms, no improvement is possible! And without improvement, via Darwinian change, how could they have evolved? Not just into something from nothing, but into millions of interlocking, tightly sequenced commands that smoothly mesh over extended periods as organisms develop from embryo to birth to sexual maturity? The short answer is, "They can't."

What all this means, of course, is that everything we think we know about how life develops on Earth is flatly wrong. It means all of our "experts" are totally mistaken when they tell us that Darwin's theory of gradual mutations has led to the development of all species of plants and animals on the planet.


Nothing could be further from the truth. Darwinism cannot work now, it has never been able to work, and the time has come for its supporters to stop their intellectual posturing and admit they need to go back to their drawing boards to seek a more plausible explanation for what is surely life's greatest single mystery


Mutation as the mechanism for the process of evolution has already been virtually eliminated this may be the final nail in the coffin. It seems as though contrary to all previous thought, organisms like this plant may have the ability to overcome mutations in their genes and restore their genetic codes back to that of prior generations. In other words, a previously unkown method of error correction exists that overcomes the Medellian processes of inheritance.

Can you imagine how the "evolutionary process" could have "created" a backup mechanism for overcoming genetic mutations Aaaandre??

Can't even do it using the process of mutation? .

Most creationists think that ability comes from the original programmer the one who coded the digital language for all life that required such a telepathic super communicator, master blue print planner and back up archiver and archetect.

The Original master creator of the magnificient three letter Acronym for RNA, and DNA,


would be the one that goes by yet another three letter word,,



GOD



[edit on 13-4-2009 by Aermacchi]



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


"The DNA doesn't fit the Model of the designer. "

Cute. Assume a designer. Then trim off the bits that don't fit.



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 09:39 AM
link   
It is interesting how this debate continues in the political and religious world of rhetoric and semantics...

In the scientific world this debate does not exist.

Evolution VS Creationism

Chemistry VS Alchemy

Physics VS Magic

Zoology VS Pokemon

Observed VS Made up



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus
It is interesting how this debate continues in the political and religious world of rhetoric and semantics...

In the scientific world this debate does not exist.

Evolution VS Creationism

Chemistry VS Alchemy

Physics VS Magic

Zoology VS Pokemon

Observed VS Made up


Really? Thats why Science was found GUILTY by the United States Senate of the very problems is what I call Evolution VS Creationism people like Neil Degrasse Tyson saying he will use his format to Advance his atheism is what I call Evolution VS Creationism



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


"The DNA doesn't fit the Model of the designer. "

Cute. Assume a designer. Then trim off the bits that don't fit.


You should really enlighten us with all you knowledge. You act like you know it all.

Tell us how it is. And please use real facts. You do demand it of others. Now show us yours.



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


Show me a designer. If you can do that you'll be the first. I could show you that something doesn't exist. All I need to do is show you a BuyBull. Nothing intelligent exists in there.



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by spy66
 


Show me a designer. If you can do that you'll be the first. I could show you that something doesn't exist. All I need to do is show you a BuyBull. Nothing intelligent exists in there.


What kind of designer are you talking about. There are many different designers. I dont know what you mean. You got to be specific. You your self state that is very important.

You are taking things out of a sentence and making up Buy Bull as you go along.



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by spy66
 


Show me a designer. If you can do that you'll be the first. I could show you that something doesn't exist. All I need to do is show you a BuyBull. Nothing intelligent exists in there.


What kind of designer are you talking about. There are many different designers. I dont know what you mean. You got to be specific. You your self state that is very important.

You are taking things out of a sentence and making up Buy Bull as you go along.



Gee, what kind of designer would in context for this thread?



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by spy66
 


Show me a designer. If you can do that you'll be the first. I could show you that something doesn't exist. All I need to do is show you a BuyBull. Nothing intelligent exists in there.


What kind of designer are you talking about. There are many different designers. I dont know what you mean. You got to be specific. You your self state that is very important.

You are taking things out of a sentence and making up Buy Bull as you go along.



Gee, what kind of designer would in context for this thread?



I have never talked about a designer so you got to enlighten me. Because you're the one who wants me to show you something.

Tell me what you want to see and i will tell you if i can show you one or not.

By the way would you like it presented with a picture lol. Is that what you would accept as proof ? lol.

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by spy66
I have never talked about a designer so you got to enlighten me. Because you're the one who wants me to show you something.
[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]


"The DNA doesn't fit the Model of the designer. "

That wasn't you, and so what? I'm still wait for a designer.



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla

Originally posted by spy66
I have never talked about a designer so you got to enlighten me. Because you're the one who wants me to show you something.
[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]


"The DNA doesn't fit the Model of the designer. "

That wasn't you, and so what? I'm still wait for a designer.


I have no idea what you are mumbling about now. You re not getting much better at being specific.

If i am guessing you right, because i have to guess now. You will be waiting for a very long time. So you wont be needing your BuyBull theory any time soon lol.




top topics



 
65
<< 63  64  65    67  68  69 >>

log in

join