Originally posted by robertfenix
Anyone want to add in the simple amazing fact that a single cell of a living organizim, be it human, animal or plant. Contains the complete instruction set to "build" the entire organizim. Yet when the cells divide only certain ones become cells of one type while other cells become another type. Yet every single cell holds the entire instruction set to build the entire "thing". Now you scientific types please explain to me the process that allows the cells to change into the required cell type. By what method does this happen?

Genes can be switched on and off through chemical groups on the histones (proteins which the DNA is bent around) which can making reading the DNA easier or more difficult. These groups can be changed by enzymes which react to the chemicals that are given off by other cells in the organism. Adding methyl groups to the cytosine nucleotide can also switch off a gene. Again the cell has enzymes that can do this and those enzymes react to the environment of the cell.

True creationizm would have to envolve taking an egg (single cell) from one animal type and by manipulating the protiens cause that egg to spawn an offspring that is seperate from the original genus of the donor egg. Ie taking a human egg and my switching the protiens and fertilizing it you get say a snake or a dog. Then you would have a scientific argument that any and all creatures could have evolved from one source, thus giving creadence to the Evolution Theory.

I once read about a long-running experiment where a scientist kept E. Coli bacteria under extreme conditions for tens of thousands of generations and followed their adaption. After about a decade now one of the colonies has actually splitted up into two different kind of bacteria, living in symbiosis.

But the kicker is that you must be able to prove that you can initiate life by having the right mix of chemicals and conditions, thus creating the right "chains" to exist to form the basis of a DNA structure to form.

Evolution and abiogenesis are two completely different subjects. One of the postulates of evolution is at some time there was one organism from which all other organisms evolved. Evolution doesn't say anything about how that organism got there.

Ok to all the pro evolutionist, maybe you should do "YOUR" homwrk because Genome science is blowing away the evolutionary theory, time in Genom.com, they have a good explanation.

imo, it's useless to discuss anything!

because no one can prove it!

Originally posted by infovacume
Ok to all the pro evolutionist, maybe you should do "YOUR" homwrk because Genome science is blowing away the evolutionary theory, time in Genom.com, they have a good explanation.

Genom.com says:

Test Page

This page is used to test the proper operation of the Apache Web server after it has been installed. If you can read this page, it means that the Apache Web server installed at this site is working properly.

Could you explain the theory or could you provide a link?

Originally posted by infovacume
Ok to all the pro evolutionist, maybe you should do "YOUR" homwrk because Genome science is blowing away the evolutionary theory, time in Genom.com, they have a good explanation.

Yes indeed.
The theories and experiments show how organisms change depending on their environment, but that does not have anything to do with organisms turning into completely different organisms.

I explained that I was not talking about moths changing color and such, but about evolution as an explanation for the life we have on earth today.

In reviewing all the evidence we have currently on evolution, I feel that its explanatory power falls short for the origin of life and great variation of species that have existed throughout time. Some of the problems evolution faces are its inability to demonstrate how living organisms began at all, how the components of the living cell are irreducibly complex and how the design evident in those organisms argues for a designer. As we look at each of these dilemmas, we can see how evolution fails as an explanatory model.

You really aren't reading other peoples posts at all are you Jakko? Perhaps you should start to do, lest you appear foolish.

EDIT: Well, even worse than that it seems, you are actually just copy/pasting points from elsewhere.

[Edited on 2-5-2004 by Kano]

Originally posted by Jakko
I explained that I was not talking about moths changing color and such, but about evolution as an explanation for the life we have on earth today.

In reviewing all the evidence we have currently on evolution, I feel that its explanatory power falls short for the origin of life and great variation of species that have existed throughout time. Some of the problems evolution faces are its inability to demonstrate how living organisms began at all, how the components of the living cell are irreducibly complex and how the design evident in those organisms argues for a designer. As we look at each of these dilemmas, we can see how evolution fails as an explanatory model.

Evolution is not abiogenesis. If abiogenesis is wrong, evolution can still be right. If evolution is wrong, abiogenesis can still be right. They can also both be wrong or both be right. Evolution assumes there is already an organism. It says nothing about how the first organism got there, that's abiogenesis' subject.

Choose what you don't believe! Evolution has a lot of evidence supporting it, so I suggest being critical of abiogenesis.

I no lets turn the argument around find prove of what u believe
let me guess-
a book
a feeling
someone shouting damnation ova and ova again in the most paranoid building in the world
ure cell mate in the insane asylum
enough said

Originally posted by Shenroon
I no lets turn the argument around find prove of what u believe
let me guess-
a book
a feeling
someone shouting damnation ova and ova again in the most paranoid building in the world
ure cell mate in the insane asylum
enough said

This thread was over a year old.
If you do not have anything better to add than just that, you might as well shut up to begin with.

Hey I'm just putting my opinion on the bible and stuff like that which have got so much to disprove them but noone ever accepts it even if we found 'the ultimate proof'(yes I know it doesnt exist but I'm speaking metaphorically) Then you still wouldnt belive me would you, but I'm expected to follow the bible like some dumbminded sheep.