Getting to the Bottom of Evolution

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
As far as what I am talking about. Some 4 Billion years ago or so...the original SINGLE CELLED ORGANISM which is responsible for ALL Life on Planet Earth...was infected by a Virus. The Single Celled Organisms that survived this Viral Infection...which were most likely those organisms which were in a state close to Mitosis at the time of infection...went on to evolve and carried with them the Genetic Encoding of the original Viral Infection.

All LIFE on Earth shares this Genetic Viral Encoding of this Original Viral Infection. Split Infinity

What is this 'Genetic Encoding of the original Viral Infection'?

reply to post by rhinoceros

Every time a living thing gets a Viral Infection...which is the process of a Virus to fool a living organisms cell or cells into believing that the Virus is food. The living cell then takes in the Virus at which point the Virus REPROGRAMS the Genetic Encoding of the living cell and uses the cells raw material as well as any food the cell may take in as a means to Replicate.

A Virus will then Replicate itself to the point that the cellular wall BURSTS thus allowing the transmission of the Virus to other cells. The cells that are infected in the process of Mitosis will survive to an extent with those New Cells that are created by Mitosis existing with a Genome that has been Modified by the Viral Infection.

All Life on Earth has MANY DIFFERENT VIRAL ENCODING but all life on Earth also has one SPECIFIC VIRAL ENCODING in all Genomes that is THE SAME. This is 100% PROOF POSITIVE that all life came from a Single Celled Organism. Split Infinity

reply to post by addygrace


Well I think what evolutionists will tell you is that all of the species that have evolved with these said changes that have led up to the anuses that we have now, have all died out, which is why there is no proof.

I can't stand evolution its not even a theory.

It's not predictable, it's not recreatable, it's not identifiable.
It's bases on hypothesis that aren't even theories. The only thing even remotely close to it that has been witnessed is speciation. But that has only been seen in some aquatic life, some bacteria and some viruses. It's a far cry from saying we share a common ancestor with apes.

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by rhinoceros

 

Every time a living thing gets a Viral Infection...which is the process of a Virus to fool a living organisms cell or cells into believing that the Virus is food.

No, it's not.

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
The living cell then takes in the Virus at which point the Virus REPROGRAMS the Genetic Encoding of the living cell and uses the cells raw material as well as any food the cell may take in as a means to Replicate.

There is no such thing as the "Genetic Encoding of the living cell". In the context of molecular biology, the term 'encode' is used in only one specific context, i.e. each codon of a gene encodes a specific amino acid or a gene encodes a protein.

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
A Virus will then Replicate itself to the point that the cellular wall BURSTS thus allowing the transmission of the Virus to other cells. The cells that are infected in the process of Mitosis will survive to an extent with those New Cells that are created by Mitosis existing with a Genome that has been Modified by the Viral Infection.

First of all, not all cells have 'walls'. Second, not all viruses cause this bursting thing. Third, this is not connected to mitosis in any way.

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
All Life on Earth has MANY DIFFERENT VIRAL ENCODING but all life on Earth also has one SPECIFIC VIRAL ENCODING in all Genomes that is THE SAME. This is 100% PROOF POSITIVE that all life came from a Single Celled Organism. Split Infinity

So what you're trying to argue is that a specific integrated viral genome (provirus) has been discovered from all studied genomes? Okay, so what is it? What's the provirus human, E. coli and H. salinarum genomes share? Further still, what's the mechanism that maintained this provirus in all the genomes?

p.s. Stop talking from your ass. There's plenty of evidence for common origins, no need to make up lies..

reply to post by rhinoceros

When a Virus infects a Cell it becomes a part of that cell thus the Cell and all life on Earth has Multitudes of Viral DNA within it's own DNA.

The process of Mitosis and a cell that has been infected can split and survive before the Virus completely kills the cell. The new cells splitting before a Virus can completely use the cells material to multiply survive but still have the DNA of the Virus.

Nature published a report as well as Scientific American about how all Genomes that were mapped were shown to have one type of Viral DNA within their Genome that were the same. Split Infinity

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by rhinoceros

 

When a Virus infects a Cell it becomes a part of that cell thus the Cell and all life on Earth has Multitudes of Viral DNA within it's own DNA.

After a virus manages to gain access into a cell, it is inside the cell. Yes. However, in no way is the viral DNA at this point within the cells DNA. Only some specific viruses integrate their DNA into the host DNA.

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
The process of Mitosis and a cell that has been infected can split and survive before the Virus completely kills the cell. The new cells splitting before a Virus can completely use the cells material to multiply survive but still have the DNA of the Virus.

I'd argue that very few cells continue all the way through with mitosis if they happen to be infected by a virus. This would of course depend on the type of the cell, and on the type of the virus, as well as at what point of mitosis the cell happened to be in. However, in your simple example, the virus somehow magically stops doing its thing if the cells goes through with mitosis. Why?

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
Nature published a report as well as Scientific American about how all Genomes that were mapped were shown to have one type of Viral DNA within their Genome that were the same. Split Infinity

No they have not. Feel free to prove otherwise and cite the said articles..

The anus is part of the basic cycle of life. Take energy in, send waste out. It's been like that since we were single celled organisms. Even the single cells would need to take in energy from the environment and dispose the waste. They were just extremely simple at one point and became more complex with multicellular organisms. Pretty much every creature has an anus. Asking why the anus is not identical in all species is just like asking why the eye is different, or the hands are different, or the method of walking is different. They have different genetics that have evolved in different environments. It's that simple, really.

Originally posted by addygrace
Getting to the bottom of evolution
The link above, is an article that deals with the evolution of orifices, such as the mouth and anus. I heard about the article while listening to a podcast by Hugh Ross and Fazale Rana.
Here is the link
What Ross and Rana talk about is the fact that orifices, specifically the anus, has evolved many different times and in many different organisms. The question they raise is; If in fact these multiple, unrelated evolution events occurred with regards to the anus, then this would seem to be counter to the theory of evolution.
Rana actually explains; random variables are acted upon by selection. Selection is contingent on the environment, other organisms that are in the environment, and climate. It's a sequence of chance events.
Knowing that is the case, how can the anus evolve in different organisms, in different times, and in different sequential selection events?

Is this happening in other areas of biology? If so, can there be some hidden property causing all of these coincidences?

If it can evolve in one part of the world in a specific species...what's stopping it from happening somewhere else too? No one says it has to come from a single source

reply to post by MrXYZ

If it can evolve in one part of the world in a specific species...what's stopping it from happening somewhere else too? No one says it has to come from a single source

There just are no variations on the human race, epic fail!

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

If it can evolve in one part of the world in a specific species...what's stopping it from happening somewhere else too? No one says it has to come from a single source

There just are no variations on the human race, epic fail!

What do you mean "no variations"? Obviously Asians have different traits than Europeans for example...anyone who ever went drinking with an Asian knows that. When I reach my 5th pint he's on the floor while I order the 6th pint

You know tooth, I wish you would spend at least 5min researching stuff before posting uneducated stupid comments like that. You are in essence trying your best at dumbing down this forum.

reply to post by MrXYZ

What do you mean "no variations"? Obviously Asians have different traits than Europeans for example...anyone who ever went drinking with an Asian knows that. When I reach my 5th pint he's on the floor while I order the 6th pint

You know tooth, I wish you would spend at least 5min researching stuff before posting uneducated stupid comments like that. You are in essence trying your best at dumbing down this forum.

And you think those differences aren't human? Either way you slice it we are all human, your wrong. It's not speciation and it's not evolution. It's the tower of babble, read it sometime. Get educated.

reply to post by itsthetooth


Of course humans are the same species. But that doesn't change the FACT that they show differences based on race.

And you're the last person on ATS to tell anyone to get educated. That's like Hitler saying "be kind" to someone

reply to post by MrXYZ

Of course humans are the same species. But that doesn't change the FACT that they show differences based on race.

Ya but that doesn't prove evolution, thats just an assumption of association.

And you're the last person on ATS to tell anyone to get educated. That's like Hitler saying "be kind" to someone

Some of the lies you spout off with tells me your not as educated as you try to pass yourself off as being.

reply to post by itsthetooth


I never claimed I know everything...but at least I make an effort at researching a bit before making nonsense claims that are super reasy to debunk. And at least my arguments aren't based on made up words and complete nonsense from ebook sellers like Pye

reply to post by MrXYZ

I never claimed I know everything...but at least I make an effort at researching a bit before making nonsense claims that are super reasy to debunk. And at least my arguments aren't based on made up words and complete nonsense from ebook sellers like Pye

Well if that were true you should have been able to debunk the whole idea of intervention, provided it can be debunked which I don't think it can. Your just jealous that you haven't observed anything cutting edge thats needed a title. Evolution is just a title, if anything is a made up word that would have to be evolution. Target food is observed, it's a strong theory unlike evolution which is still trying to dig up fossils for proof .

I like how you call Pye a clown, yet you have never presented anything that debunks any of his work. I guess in your mind if you say something is debunked, then its debunked.

reply to post by itsthetooth


You can't debunk something that has ZERO evidence behind it...just like you can't debunk unicorns with 100% certainty. What you can do though is (rightfully) claim that intervention is nothing but a hypothesis with zero evidence behind it...

The same goes for all religions btw. None of them has objective evidence to support all their claims...and that includes your alien-bible religion

reply to post by MrXYZ

You can't debunk something that has ZERO evidence behind it...just like you can't debunk unicorns with 100% certainty. What you can do though is (rightfully) claim that intervention is nothing but a hypothesis with zero evidence behind it...

The same goes for all religions btw. None of them has objective evidence to support all their claims...and that includes your alien-bible religion

What you mean to say is that "YOU" can't debunk it, either because you don't know how, or because it's not possible period. I'm guessing the last one.

Intervention is a prevailing thoery based on the fact that its supported by religious documents and non religious documents. The problem is that you choose to dismiss such documents because they don't fit your bat crazy religion.

reply to post by itsthetooth


Let's turn this around, shall we?

I hereby claim that purple turtle fairies farted the universe into existence...and no, I won't present any objective evidence to prove that claim (just like Pye never presented any objective evidence).

Now I challenge you to debunk my claim. Show us FACTS and OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE that my fantasy claim isn't true.

You can't do that because I never presented any evidence you could debunk...I simply made an empty claim, like Pye...or you when you invented a word and assigned a random definition to it

Originally posted by addygrace

The people I mentioned in my OP are not credible? Why? They are both scientists. Fazale Rana has a PhD in Chemistry with an emphasis on Biochemistry.

So luciddream on ATS tells me a PhD in Chemistry is not credible for explaining science.

See, this is essentially an appeal to authority. A PhD in chemistry does not entitle you to having informed opinions on evolutionary biology. They are very distinct areas of science and knowing about one does not mean you will have a clue about the other.

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
Evolution no longer remains a THEORY. It is fact. ...

Sorry, a minor point of contention. Your use of the word theory here is where a lot of dissenting opinions of evolution derive from. 'It's just a theory' and similar arguments show only that the person making them has no understanding of how the term theory is used in science. Typically, the words seems to get conflated with that of, 'hypothesis,' which is rather a different thing. Gravity, for the record, is also a theory.

reply to post by hypervalentiodine


Also add to your list that scientists making empty claims by stating a PERSONAL OPINION isn't the same as them presenting a well backed up scientific theory

To give an example: Einstein could claim that god exists...but that would be a general personal (!!) statement of belief that isn't backed up by objective evidence. On the other hand, his theory of relativity is backed up by objective evidence, and therefore credible. BIG difference!

Of course a lot of creationists simply ignore this and continue to use argumentative fallacies like the argument from authority