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.

 

the extinction of evolutionsist apes

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 02:14 AM
link   
reply to post by theantediluvian
 


scientists long ago knew apes are not related to humans and so never used apes for medical research.
many many diseases in humans are caused by mutation in a gene. it is imperative to correct the problem by studing the proto-gene from ancestral gene (ancester of humans) to corect the problem. I f we decend from apes and our genes come from them then it is imperative to over-extensively study them with no time to waste,and also apply new medications on them to see if they work.
this never happened but mice were the best (99% of mice dna is found in humans, much more than apes estimated recently at only 66% only).
while many genes in humans have similar genes in chimps, the gene in humans do something while the gene in chimp do something else.
actually the most important genes in humans are found in the Mitochondrial DNA (maternal) are from bacteria! , these genes are never found in chimps or primates or even bone animals or pre bone non non vertebrae animals .losing these genes found only in exotic bacteria cause immidiate death to humans since MtDNA (mitochondrial dna /genes are essential for life, compared to genes from autosomal dna that are not essential to life actually removing the whole nuclea with all its dna is not needed for the cell to continue living.
some of these bacteria are only found in deep sea water (deep meaning 3 miles under sea).
these bacteria will immediately die if you got them out of sea and also humans could not possibly dive to 3 miles deep ever in history.
the idea that we inherited the genes from those bacteria is impossible for they have ( the genes) to come through apes through primates through mammals through bony creatures from non boney creatures according to evolution theory. plus how did they become essential for life in humans but not in human ancestors since he bactera.
The evolution can not explain this. creation theory can explain it. it would be god have made a prefabricated genes and dna segments and every time he make a new creation he adds his own patented dna segments /genes/etc just like we do in the computer screen (drawing board for architect).
humans have neen doing genetic modification for thousands of year by breading, genetic transplantations recently (by the thousands called , most of food from the grocery is genetically implanted) however this is not evolution but design by intelligent designers (humans). so intelligent design is existant already for thousands of years. but evolutionist refuse that we humans and other animals are made up by intelligent design, even though the only evolution (evolving to the better) happened only by our intelligent design which made corn crops better to make fuel as a strak example( to our own peril, because if the spores of these modified corn made it to the grown corn designated for food, god help us)

Y chromsome is by definition is going extinct. when it was (improvised by evolution??? or by a designer) it was meant those animals creations would not last.


edit on 7-11-2013 by adnanmuf because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-11-2013 by adnanmuf because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-11-2013 by adnanmuf because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 08:29 AM
link   
reply to post by adnanmuf
 


Not so certain about the ratio of similar DNA you are quoting but the mitochondria are called cytoblasts and are a seperate structure in the cytoplasm (basically a saline solution similar to sea water) of the cell, they produce the energy for the cell and while it is concievable that long ago a protoplasmic soup may have existed that somehow a symbiosis came about and two or more structures co existed long enough to pass from symbiosis to shared existance as a single life form thus forming the first cell, the DNA of the mitochondria is not bacterial in nature, the similarity between a chimp and a human on the genetic level has had a debate going on as to weather the chimpanze should be reclassified as a sub human but despite knowing this I believe we are not apes as per se but a much more ancient origin.
The prolonged exposure to species in an ecology has the following effect.
Virus adapt to use the both hosts and can also cause what is known as viral propegation of DNA between species, to understand this I will explain a virus.

A virus is a strand of DNA or RNA that is surrounded by a protine shell that is made up of special enzymes.
Once a host has exposure to the virus the virus will encounter one of the hosts cells.
The enzymes of it's outer case pass it into the cell through the cell wall and also then help to integrate the virus DNA into the cell nucleus were it hijacks the cell and makes the cell into a virus producing factory, it does this by changing the information of the cell nucleus and making the cell produce more of itself the virus, this continues until the cell litterly pops open and the thousands of viral copys are then released to infect the surrounding cells.

Now oddly but predictably a virus can be infected by it's host with the host DNA changing the virus and an altered virus can go through the entire sequence passed to another specied but stop as the integration stage, now that means the virus then passes the host DNA of one specied into the cell nucleus of another species and this causes what is known a convergent DNA so two completely different species, mankind and Pigs have shared physical structures, similare tissue types and are easily infected by the same virus' but was it always like this or were they victims of Genetic convergence through viral propegation of host DNA between species and for that matter how long have humans lived alongside monkeys and apes.


There are a number of arguments about the Y chromosone but is seems it has gone from some 1400 plus genes down to about 59 genes so by conjecture it is weakening or is it, perhaps it is actually merely shedding useless material and will remain but I believe we are not apes as you say.
edit on 7-11-2013 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by LABTECH767
 


your info about mitochondria are extremely old. from the sixties.
the mitochondrial dna discovered recently is the true dna not the nucleos dna the autosomal. autosomal is worthless it is junk dna that mostly cause diseases if they got mutated.
the mitochondrial dna comes only from mothers.
98 percent of human dna is junk dna inactive dna that came from viruses 50 percent and the rest from bacteria and other animals.
this goes true for the rest of animals.
as for the active dna , some of it active but essential for life found in mother maternal mitochondrial dna and some active for nothing, producing protein that do nothing end up being used as generic blocks of dna like bricks for building, and most of it break down to just be reassembled by the active dna for nothing all over again.
the active genes in nucleos if not mutated usually do nothing. if mutated cause disease.
this info i present to you is the latest cutting edge what we know about dna and genes.

mitochondria used to be thought for energy, but that was in the sixties , more functions have been added to mitochondia since the sixties.

one of the things they never tell you is that 10% of human dna is from the tse tse fly (only in humans this phenomena is) meaning all humans came from a common ancestor lived in tsetse fly area in central africa. this been known for 30 years and that is why they insistwd humans came from africa, even before they found out about str and snp of genetic genealogy which just proved the out of africa since all human haplogroups descend from the B haplogroup (black man) in uganda where the tsetse fly exist. tsetse fly cannot immigrate!
any white male is having the mutation of the white race but also the mutations of b, same thing for chinese eskimo, arabs, iranians etc they are japanese tibeteans they are all b too.
the human genetic tree is like branches that sprang from earlier branches, the first two branches (the main trunk) branched from one man who gave two branches, the main trunk B and the small branch a, a and b are excelusively african never existed out of africa untill last century by airflights.
the african branches a b and e. e made it out of africa several thousands years ago (the people who built the pyramids -current somalians) the ancient greek like herculis was e.
, between a b and e there is c and d, who came out of africa before e was made. they took epic journey all the way to japan and china.
another man F landed on india , he was and branched out from E and also by sea settled in India from him all the majority of the world come from him (dravidiansn H, aryans j2(afganistanians, iranians and kurds J2, arabs J1(sinbad who traveling from india to trade with africans stuck in socotra island for thousands of year untill landing in yemen and starting the semites J1 (arabs, arameans, akkadians,etc), celts and bosnians I(the true europpeans), and finally K the australian aboriginies who branched in to eskimos/native americans Q ,europeansR(east europeans R1a, west europpeans R1b). and chinese/indonisians o.
the k were the darkest people on earth, because they refused to wear cloth. they ended up having a mutation that caused all melatin of the skin to go away, so they became the red race , they also lost melatin of the eye developing blue eyes, and lost the melatin of hair developing blond hair) it is on those people the deluge (Noah flood happened, causing their Atlantic contintinent to submerge under water (remnant of that continent are australia, vanunu papua, easter island, so the remnant of them went to the no-man land in north of china where they discovered the caucasian mummies of china, and started moving west (go west) on wheels (carts) the gypsies of the ancient times turks (from trek road people tocharinas, in the marsh swampy lands of central asia (the aftermath of the flood hence no-man land). Noah was red faced blue eyes red haired person. they conquered europe in 400 AD from the celts (black irish and latin roman black eyed black haired men, and took their women, which changed their color from red to white).
then they in the europpean expansin around 1500 AD took over many lands (all americas, wiping the original native americans of c and Q haplogroups) and south africa, australia, and got back their original homeland siberia) culminating in taking over the four corners of the earth.
edit on 7-11-2013 by adnanmuf because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by adnanmuf
 


I think you need to get some better facts, because the ones you have now are.... faulty, to say the least. Amusing though.



posted on Nov, 9 2013 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by AngryCymraeg
 

could you give example, bring one issue , or are you a generalist



posted on Nov, 9 2013 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by adnanmuf
 


Look into the eyes of a chimp, and into the eyes of a human, and tell me they're not very closely related. If you do, you're either very stupid, or an outright liar.



posted on Nov, 9 2013 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by adnanmuf
 




the extinction of evolutionsist apes


In my opinion, there is enough evidence that evolution is a fact of life on this planet. The question that is still unanswered is one that will likely remain so for the foreseeable future; how does it apply to humanity?

None of us today were there. We weren't on-site to witness those that fell from the trees and learned to walk upright to then evolve into what we are today. By the same token, we weren't there to witness a creation where Adam and Eve supposedly lived in a garden called, Eden.

What we are left with is a choice between faith and science where neither is complete and we're left to enter the arena and do battle with spears that have no points.

I suspect that somewhere in history, there was an evolutionary process that saw a lesser creature emerge into what we are today. But, whether that process happened by some natural accidental series of events or whether another intelligence set the process into motion... is the truest question we have no answer for. At least, not yet.



posted on Nov, 9 2013 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Monger
 


Honestly don't bother I and others have provided proof we are Great Apes and share a common ancestor but the OP ignores it all and just bleats his own mumbo jumbo which is laughable at best.



posted on Nov, 9 2013 @ 02:49 PM
link   

adnanmuf
reply to post by LABTECH767
 


your info about mitochondria are extremely old. from the sixties.
the mitochondrial dna discovered recently is the true dna not the nucleos dna the autosomal. autosomal is worthless it is junk dna that mostly cause diseases if they got mutated.
the mitochondrial dna comes only from mothers.
98 percent of human dna is junk dna inactive dna that came from viruses 50 percent and the rest from bacteria and other animals.
this goes true for the rest of animals.
as for the active dna , some of it active but essential for life found in mother maternal mitochondrial dna and some active for nothing, producing protein that do nothing end up being used as generic blocks of dna like bricks for building, and most of it break down to just be reassembled by the active dna for nothing all over again.
the active genes in nucleos if not mutated usually do nothing. if mutated cause disease.
this info i present to you is the latest cutting edge what we know about dna and genes.

mitochondria used to be thought for energy, but that was in the sixties , more functions have been added to mitochondia since the sixties.

Wow. Where to start? Your posts are at least as full of inaccuracies as they are of grammatical and spelling errors. First of all, "autosomal" refers to any of our chromosomes aside from the sex-determining (X/Y) chromosomes, or to the genes on these chromosomes (source). The idea that it is "worthless" (or even mostly worthless) is completely absurd. Noncoding DNA is not "junk" - the term "junk DNA" is misleading and has been falling out of favor for some time. Here is just one recent article about non-coding DNA and some of its functions.

I have no idea what you're trying to say about "active DNA [...] producing protein that do nothing end up being used as generic blocks of dna like bricks for nothing." Most of the proteins that make up our bodies and keep us alive are created from "instructions" encoded in the DNA that resides in the nuclei of our cells.

DNA mutations can indeed cause disease. They can also be silent (have no effect) or even beneficial.

Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) contains a small amount of genetic material - a mere 37 genes, a tiny fraction of the (estimated) 20,000-25,000 protein-coding genes contained in the rest of the human genome. Yes, mitochondria are crucial for energy production and are now recognized to have additional functions, and yes, mtDNA is important. However, what you're saying about mtDNA being the "true" DNA, "junk DNA" serving no purpose, etc. is wildly off-base.

But please, feel free to prove that you're not just making this all up. Biologists and geneticists around the world will want to know that they're completely wrong in their understanding of how DNA works. If you can back up your claims with actual science, I foresee a Nobel Prize in your future.



posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 05:14 AM
link   
reply to post by opopanax
 

that is what I am trying to eneter into your brain. that mutation can causes disease but does not cause evolution (evolution means a situation better than before)

evolution says that a mutation from time to time brings the species to a better situation. that was not noticed not even one time.
and the bad mutation in an individual beats the good mutation in another individual of the same species every time unless in lab situation (intelligent design where humans are the intelligent designer). good and bad mutation is hypothetical depends on the favored outcome expected by humans!

hence random mutation ( which is also orderly meaning obeys the laws of nature ) brings the species worse than before.

I said all dna (coding or non coding in autosomal chromosomes is worthless, since when removing the nuclea with all the dna in it from the cell , the cell stays alive.

only the dna in the cell (outside the nuclea aka the maternal dna (mitochondrial) is essential. if you remove it the cell dies. genes in mitochondrial can compensate for useful gene in autosomal dna.

the old notion that the nuclea is the central command of the cell (just because it is in the center giving the notion of centrality is just imaginary or infered by faulty deduction. Rather the nuclea is just a trap (like the basketball basket, to trap alien dna and tricking it from going to the true dna in the mitocjhondrea or anywhere else.
since foreign dna is programmed to keep crossing membranes, when it crosses the cell membrane it still finds another membrane (nuclea membrane)
which crosses it and find its jackpot where it can transpose in the dna hence it got affixed forever there, and can not do harm any more after it becomes neutralized after the end of the disease that it might cause.

it is believed the y chromsome the smallest of all nuclea dna since it corrrects mutations in itself, might also correct mutations in other autosomal chromosomes.
there is no species evolve from other species. just all species have many prefabricated dna sections being used around , but these sections do different functions for every species (like the sections between humans and chimps) and sections found in humans and bacteria but are not found in chimps (did not get inherited from chimp to humans) yet they are still essential in humans while not necessary essential in bacteria, where they do different functions in bacteria.
the creation theory means the intelligent designer matriculate these dna sections in every species differently, where the complete product creation of a species is just like designer board.

seeing the comparision diagram in the first post shows clearly they did not evolve from each other according to miosis mechanism.

it is probably there is another strand of dna in the chromsome that scientists dont account for even though the original hypothesis of the dna discoverers suggested 3 strands not two.
a boy from britain is found to have four strands suggestion the original is 3 strands.







edit on 10-11-2013 by adnanmuf because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-11-2013 by adnanmuf because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-11-2013 by adnanmuf because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 10:40 AM
link   

adnanmuf
reply to post by opopanax
 

that is what I am trying to eneter into your brain. that mutation can causes disease but does not cause evolution (evolution means a situation better than before)

evolution says that a mutation from time to time brings the species to a better situation. that was not noticed not even one time.
and the bad mutation in an individual beats the good mutation in another individual of the same species every time unless in lab situation (intelligent design where humans are the intelligent designer). good and bad mutation is hypothetical depends on the favored outcome expected by humans!

hence random mutation ( which is also orderly meaning obeys the laws of nature ) brings the species worse than before.

Evolution does not mean "a situation better than before." One acceptable definition in terms of biology is "the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations" (source). It is not "goal-directed." It simply occurs as organisms inherit traits from their parents and then pass on traits to their own offspring.

Beneficial mutations are less common than neutral or harmful mutations but they absolutely exist. Here is just one example. I'm not sure what you mean that "good and bad mutation is hypothetical." Do you mean that it is subjective? A "good" mutation, from the perspective of a biologist, would be one that increases the fitness (ability to survive and reproduce) of an organism.

Random mutations + selection pressure -> evolution. Evolution -> biodiversity.

If all random mutation was "orderly" and resulted in species being "worse [off] than before," we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.

adnanmuf
I said all dna (coding or non coding in autosomal chromosomes is worthless, since when removing the nuclea with all the dna in it from the cell , the cell stays alive.

only the dna in the cell (outside the nuclea aka the maternal dna (mitochondrial) is essential. if you remove it the cell dies. genes in mitochondrial can compensate for useful gene in autosomal dna.

the old notion that the nuclea is the central command of the cell (just because it is in the center giving the notion of centrality is just imaginary or infered by faulty deduction. Rather the nuclea is just a trap (like the basketball basket, to trap alien dna and tricking it from going to the true dna in the mitocjhondrea or anywhere else.
since foreign dna is programmed to keep crossing membranes, when it crosses the cell membrane it still finds another membrane (nuclea membrane)
which crosses it and find its jackpot where it can transpose in the dna hence it got affixed forever there, and can not do harm any more after it becomes neutralized after the end of the disease that it might cause.

[Citations needed]
The nucleus is not necessarily in the physical "center" of the cell but it absolutely contains the bulk of the cell's genetic material (the instructions necessary for the organism's survival), even if you discount all non-coding regions as "junk" (which is inaccurate). As I previously mentioned, mitochondrial DNA (which I strongly recommend you read up on - here is one good source of info) contains the code for a mere 37 genes. These genes encode 13 proteins, 22 tRNAs, and 2 rRNAs. Do you think humans would be even remotely human with just 13 proteins? I encourage you to run this idea past any qualified biologist and see how they react...

adnanmuf
it is believed the y chromsome the smallest of all nuclea dna since it corrrects mutations in itself, might also correct mutations in other autosomal chromosomes.

Who is this believed by - just you? The Y chromosome can recombine with itself, using duplicates of its genes as templates to correct mutations. Are you claiming that the Y chromosome has copies of genes from the autosomal chromosomes and recombines with these chromosomes (only in males, since, of course, females lack a Y chromosome)? You might want to read this article to brush up on how these mechanisms work. Pairs of homologous autosomal chromosomes recombine with each other during meiosis. The Y chromosome is not homologous to any of the autosomal chromosomes and does not recombine with them.

adnanmuf
there is no species evolve from other species. just all species have many prefabricated dna sections being used around , but these sections do different functions for every species (like the sections between humans and chimps) and sections found in humans and bacteria but are not found in chimps (did not get inherited from chimp to humans) yet they are still essential in humans while not necessary essential in bacteria, where they do different functions in bacteria.
the creation theory means the intelligent designer matriculate these dna sections in every species differently, where the complete product creation of a species is just like designer board.

seeing the comparision diagram in the first post shows clearly they did not evolve from each other according to miosis mechanism.

Of course humans did not evolve from chimpanzees. This is one of those "straw man" claims that's put forward by creationists who don't understand evolution. Evidence points to humans sharing a common ancestor with chimps and bonobos, and, farther back, with gorillas, and, even farther back, with orangutans. This page has a good explanation and a diagram of what we understand to be the human evolutionary family tree.

adnanmuf
it is probably there is another strand of dna in the chromsome that scientists dont account for even though the original hypothesis of the dna discoverers suggested 3 strands not two.
a boy from britain is found to have four strands suggestion the original is 3 strands.

Many decades ago, Linus Pauling suggested a triple-helical structure for our DNA. This page has a good summary of why and how he was in error.

I believe you're referring to Alfie Clamp, a severely-disabled British boy who was found to have an extra strand of material on his seventh chromosome. He is an anomaly, and he doesn't have an entire triple-stranded genome, let alone a quadruple-stranded one.

As in your previous posts, there are so many errors here it's hard to know where to start. This thread is in Skunk Works and I don't get the sense you're open to learning, so I know I shouldn't waste my time correcting these errors, but it's quite painful for me to see someone propagating such misinformation.



posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by opopanax
 


your example of beneficial dna is like putting the carriage in front of the horse.
since hiv was an intelligent design by humans adding it to the polio vaccine when hiv was harvested along with polio from chimps.
the mutation that protects europeans was the base for creating the hiv to eradicate non europeans by using polio vaccine laced with hiv virus. the us refused to accept that vaccine in 60's causing epidemic of polio but saving the country from hiv on a wide scale like what happened to the african peoples who innocently took the vaccine( being the target for hiv introduction not the target to save them from polio)
hence your example does not fit, since the mutation that arose in europeans in ancient times was not supposed to protect something that was not supposed to happen in nature (outside of intelligent design ), but actually was dna damage from the plague.
in nature there are no vaccinations. vaccinations are also intelligent design.
, hence you still have to come up with an example of beneficial mutation.

subjective good is when different strains of mutations happens in the lab where one starin is the good outcome humans desire(hence good)
it is again intelligent design, since in nature the bad outcome eats the good outcome for breakfast.

humans knew about mutations thousands of years ago (not Darwin) when they did breeding of dogs and cats etc.
the good outcomes when the breed have short legs (or what ever) which the designer (humans) wanted from their closed lab breeding (intelligent design)

Mr Darwin once said when you discover the mutations of what he is talking about (evolution) will prove him right. now that we discovered the pot of mutations (dna, not known to darwin) mutations prove him wrong. ( but he really meant is that when you discover mutation mechanism you would then know that I lied and made you chimps to make my friends in the secret societies ride on for 150 years)

your claim that evolution is not about better outcome you are being apologetic.
same with your apologetic claim about chimp and human y chromosome being from a common ancestor. since the common ancestor y chromosome would have to be closer to one of the y chromosomes chimp or human, where the other chromosome would have to show how it diverged from the other.
the yellow section on the forearm of the long arm of chimp's Y could not possibly make it to the center of the y chromosome of humans, neither vise versa is possible.
the center of the chromosome is fixated by the centromere, the crossover intersections etc happens furthewr away from centromere.

www.medizin.uni-freiburg.de...

in this all apes comparision, you see the two black rings are all distal in apes but close to centromsere in humans only.!
also the heterochromatine is lost in chimp, but exist in humans and gorillas, yet again lost in all other apes.
since all other chimps are oldest, then all apes keep loosing the heterochromation section ( from the hypothetical common ancestor) , but humans and gorillas retain it, yet chimps and its other branch loose it???
how did those apes keep knowing they don't need the heterochromatin (something we know from intelligent of humans). what was intelligent in the other apes, ? themselves, their dna or is it god who designed them?

the evolution says that some mutations happen in time to give the species more power and adaptation.
from the Adam till now, we know many mutations happened in just 100 000 years, all cause diseases.
or caused by disease that end up causing new disease.
malta fever cause dna damage on humans that cause them susiptable to Familial mideterranean fever armenian disease.

we know now hundreds of these mutations and their appoximate age and even if they happened first on a man or a woman and where in the world they happened..

it seems the only evolution that is comprehendably needed to save a species is to reverse all mutations as possible as to revamp the original master copy of dna to any given species (this can only happen by intelligent design!!)

if humans in 100 k years developed so so many new bad mutations, then think about the fox who been around for millions of years accumulating disease mutations.

The Y chromosome is the only chromsoome that repair it self.
it can possibly repair other chromosomes. since y chromsome is it self made up from bits of all autosomal chromsoomes hypothised that it being originally an old X chromosome, but then haw did the old x chromsome got a collection of bits from all chromsomes at the same time? in ancient past (hypothetically according to crazy barin-fossilized evolutionists)

universe-review.ca...

the fact that all autosomal chromsome make a big pile around the y chromsome as if to protect from alien dna, making the alien dna transpose itself on any worthless autosomal chromsome but not the y.

yet even better than the y repairer theory.
why not god the designer in creation can revamp the dna in a species by reintroducing the dna master copy again and again to the species.

actually mutation is a mistake by definition, and happens more under stress, mutation rate increases in people who drink, eat pork, little hygiene, contact with dead bodies, being sick and sickly.

how becoming sick makes a better person, knowing sickness comes from a mutation and causes susiptablity to a totally different disease/s.

mutations (hence evolution) are a downward spiral ending with death.




edit on 10-11-2013 by adnanmuf because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-11-2013 by adnanmuf because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by adnanmuf
 


Congratulations. Your post is long and detailed and built of woo. Total and utter honk.



posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by AngryCymraeg
 


obviously you know better but you are not telling because it is a secret knowldge shared by only the enlightened from an ancient source Hermes before the invention of the wheel. hermes was sooo enlightened but could not invent the wheel!!!!
ha ha ha

beat it
edit on 10-11-2013 by adnanmuf because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 04:26 PM
link   

adnanmuf
reply to post by AngryCymraeg
 


obviously you know better but you are not telling because it is a secret knowldge shared by only the enlightened from an ancient source Hermes before the invention of the wheel. hermes was sooo enlightened but could not invent the wheel!!!!
ha ha ha

beat it
edit on 10-11-2013 by adnanmuf because: (no reason given)


.....Ok. I'll bite. Why are you claiming that a mythical Greek god told me that this is a load of honk?



posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by adnanmuf
 

Well, I tried. I'm not going to spend any more time picking apart your arguments because you seem content to live in your own alternate reality where up is down and down is up. If you want to learn more about how DNA and genetics actually work in the real world, this is a very good resource.



posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by opopanax
 


your solo example was wrong as all your arguments i responded to one by one.

and nothing I brought is from my aunt house, it is all in the medical literature
with a little googling you ll find i was right
edit on 10-11-2013 by adnanmuf because: (no reason given)

alfie clamp has 4 strands rather than three quadriple helix, leading scientist to believe that humans have 3 strands the current belief just like the original theory of the discoverers
edit on 10-11-2013 by adnanmuf because: (no reason given)

www.cam.ac.uk... cambridge university dna is 4 strands
edit on 10-11-2013 by adnanmuf because: (no reason given)


deduction logic of the evolutionists goes like this:
if a person takes a chair from your room and goes to the other room, and comes back to your room, you deduce that there is at least one chair in the other room.
that is not true, since he might had a secret door in the other room where he put the chair. the best science is to actually go to the other room and see how many chairs there are in the other room(dna evidence)
edit on 10-11-2013 by adnanmuf because: (no reason given)


a gene is discovered when a mutation is seen in a strand of dna when a disease is existant (incorrect pre-hormone of peptide of ten blocks for example).
the gene is not necesarily is producing the correct pre-hormone of 10 blocks, because the gene is several thousands of blocks, deducing the gene producing the correct pre-hormone is like the dedution of the chair in the room. there are more than 34 genes in Mt mitochondrial dna. when you remove the genes of the chromosomes autosomal the dormant original gene in mt goes into action.

all strands of dna are found every where in every chromosome or dna, you cant tell the original one ( the original one has to be just 10 blocks long if the prehormone a short peptide , the ten blocks could be dispersed too. nobody swa how the prehormone or coenzyme coming from the gene area.

edit on 10-11-2013 by adnanmuf because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by AngryCymraeg
 


you know how secret societies (of whom evolutionists are members) keep bragging they were privilaged of getting secret knowledge(gnosis) from ancient time refering to Hermes of egypt from before the time of whelles . if such person/entity had the only true knowledge that there is no god, how come they did not reveal the invention of the wheel for example.
obviously those evolutionist dont admit they were decieved by who ever gave them the perfect knowlege (the immuniated one satan) for he did not help humanity through the illuminated ones the evolutionists by revealing the invention of the wheel, or writing (credited to enoch a prophet of god through revelation)
you dont want to respond in detail because they told you so in the secret knowlege people that my ideas are wrong. because you are i-d-i-o



posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 10:26 PM
link   

adnanmuf
reply to post by opopanax
 


your solo example was wrong as all your arguments i responded to one by one.

and nothing I brought is from my aunt house, it is all in the medical literature
with a little googling you ll find i was right
edit on 10-11-2013 by adnanmuf because: (no reason given)

alfie clamp has 4 strands rather than three quadriple helix, leading scientist to believe that humans have 3 strands the current belief just like the original theory of the discoverers
edit on 10-11-2013 by adnanmuf because: (no reason given)

www.cam.ac.uk... cambridge university dna is 4 strands
edit on 10-11-2013 by adnanmuf because: (no reason given)


Are you even reading the scant few links you utilize to support your "arguments"? Alfie has 3 and only 3 strands of DNA not 4 as you seem to believe. While quadraplex strands of DNA have been found in vivo, they have only been found in specific strands of DNA that are rich in guanine. I'm sure being an MD I don't need to explain to your eminence what guanine does in cells right? Further into the article you linked it goes on to describe how these quadraplex strands are in cancerous cells and that this is the basis for potentially new treatments of cancer by specifically targeting these quadraplex strands with synthetic molecules. While these cancerous cells were isolated in humans, the quadruple helix you allude to is not a part of our natural genome and is in fact an example of a negative mutation much like Alfie's 3rd strand. While these 2 examples are clearly mutations with a negative affect it still doesn't support your thesis that ALL mutations are negative and harmful. The fact remains that the vast majority of mutations are completely neutral and many others can be termed positive or negative depending on environmental factors.

You like to use the Fox as an example an awful lot so I'll follow suit. An example of a mutation thaty is beneficial in one system that is negative in another would be comparing the Red Fox to the Kit Fox. See, the Red Fox has developed its reddish coat to better blend in with its natural habitats, forrests and farmland whereas the Kit Fox has a coat more suitable to blending into its desert habitat as well as having developed a very different type of ear than any other fox. Do you think the red fox would survive as well in the desert as a Kit Fox or perhaps he would do just ads well in an Arctic environment as the Arctic fox with its much smaller ears and extra layer of fat to help insulate it.



posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by peter vlar
 


you keep saying such things as red fox red tail from being begat by another fox as if you saw it with your own eyes!
you are freaking me out. indeed Darwin cast a spell on you.
you have so much trust in what ever they tell you.
I sure dont like to end up like you.
And scientists have confirmed helix is not always 2 strands, some say it is three , some say four some say 12 strands, here and there in the natural!!!!dna. period. 4 strands cancer could be solved from studying the natural 4 strand dna, that is what they say.

look at a helix and tell me how do you judge it is three or two or 4, you cant tell for sure, you have to stripe the strand all the way through from one end of the chromosome to the other to find out.
www.cam.ac.uk...
Anyway scientists were all wrong about dna double helix since 1950, they keep getting wrong forever.
they deduced it has to be two strands to explain what they wanted to hypothise, not the truth. they wanted an explanatory reality, not the true reality.

what dna cause the red tail of the fox? do they know.
deduction is fallacious.
In the second best university in us in advanced epidemiology course, they told us how they do business in epidemics detection using the highest degrees of logic available to man: induction and deduction, such as the if nobody saw a black swan then you will not see tomorrow a black swan, if humans observed the sun rises from the east always then it will rise tomorrow from the east.
in epidemiology they use deductive methods as a temporary clue until they find the etiology ( of course when they confirm the etiology, it might be just a small part of the whole picture etiology)
they use cox axel in epidemiology to add what ever causative factors of a disease and do statistical analysis, to account for all factors (two known and many unknown yet)

deductive science is not dependable. science by difinition is experimental, where experiments never ends on one topic, experiments keep changing the principles, or laws of nature of 50 years ago and so on.

better that evolution theory is the creation theory which explain every thing clearly, what ever the discrepencies are, simply because god want it so, for reasons unknown to us or we will know some of them only.

edit on 10-11-2013 by adnanmuf because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join