The Primary Axiom or Evolution is just a lie and should be replaced by Intelligent Design

a reply to: peter vlar

I made sure that none of those papers were communications Mind you even communications have to be testable .

a reply to: neoholographic

Apparently I read far more of it than you did because it discusses specifically how a new protein was created that confers beneficial immunities against a specific group of viruses. The new information is the new protein created that confers the immunity. Not only did this occur in Asian Macaques, but it independently developed in New World Owl Monkeys as well. This mutation has not been found in other closely related monkeys and developed two separate times independently.

a reply to: Noinden

To show how horrible your argument is, you now want to turn the thread into a silly debate over things like discussion vs. debate. This is because the links you posted have nothing to do with the thread. You couldn't make an articulate argument so you just posted the links and said Go Fish.

Again, that's just asinine but I want to continue debating the issue of the thread and you obviously don't want to debate it because you can't.

You just post links and say go fish and that's just nonsense. If I started a thread and just posted 3 links without any context or commentary, it would be canceled by the moderators.

I understand why you did this because the links you posted had nothing to do with the thread. So you couldn't form an articulate post supported by the links so you just posted the links and said go fish.

Like IO said, I have been here over 5 years and I rarely if ever see a thread started or posts with just links without any commentary or context.

You can't even post in the Breaking Alternative news section without providing relevent text from the article and commentary.

So please stop this asinine argument and try to debate the issue if you can.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Everyone paying attention? This is how the game of deception and discrediting someone works. You try to get under their skin and try to lure them into calling you a liar (by continuously twisting what they're saying so they feel like they have to defend themselves and the facts/truths/certainties/realities that matter). Then regardless if they actually did, as soon as you spot the keyword "lie" you act all innocent and insulted as if the other person is not being reasonable and patient anymore and throwing wild accusations out there (possibly hoping for someone to make a mental link with a religious extremist or fundamentalist, both terms with negative connotations in the minds of many in society).

And just to remind you, this game is not just about me. It is to obscure what is true and the most crucial matters of reality. He seems particularly concerned with anyone clicking the links I'm sharing and considering the information there seriously. He also wants the attention of your minds on that and not his own behaviour or what I called "accusations".

TerryDon79 is on another level than any other posters in this thread so far as I can tell. He far surpasses anyone's level of argumentation and intelligent capabilities and ability to convince people of his position. I am not being ironic (and I'm still comparing with the other posters in this thread).

His zooming in on my slightly inappropiate usage of the term "cherry-picking" in the 'wrong' context (not sure if I can even call it wrong), allowing him to play the game of picking another dictionary that we both already knew ahead of time would say something similar (the reason why I edited my comment, but he jumped on it quickly to play that game, it's still cherry-picking in a way but mostly ignoring what I said about "the chemical evolution theory of life" and all that background, maybe best not get into details about that cause then I'm playing right into the card he was trying to play initially); is further evidence or are more clues for me regarding what I said above.

You can nicely see how worried some people are about people taking that definition that I shared seriously though. Which is much more honest than the dictionaries he was quoting from (but try to convince people of that one...when they already have a hard time accepting some of the points and comments you're making where you're making plenty of use of the dictionary and it's still not what they want to hear, with all the usual results).

a reply to: whereislogic

It has not been about deception.

To put it plainly, I called you out on using a biased religious website and you called me a liar.

I have discredited the work on that website as it has no bearing on science.

You said I "cried wolf". No. I said the website you were using is biased.

Just because you say something over and over again, doesn't make it true.

a reply to: neoholographic

Given you selectively quote from papers (viz TRIM5-CypA), and don't read the whole thing. You are not to be trusted as a source of appropriate citations. Like I said, you either have a problem, or are being willfully ignorant neighbour. IT is one or the other.

Now don't try an appeal to authority (your own) based on "posting here for over 5 years". Lets do some mathematics : 2016 - 2009 equates to what? Here is a hint. A number larger than 5 I don't see those numbers as meaningful. What I do see as meaningful is the actions of a person.

I will also point out that Breaking News has a specific set of criterion for posting. One of those is to post more than a link.

In this case, when you asked for evidence. I provided it, many times over. Your refusal to see evidence reflects on you, not I.

I will also assume you can't talk to a single paper, as you have not read them. Let alone understand them.

Slan leat

Right guys. I'm out of this thread.

The religious fundamentalists are cherry picking data (as usual), aren't reading cited sources, ignoring data from National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine (notice it says medicine too?), wilfully ignoring anything that proves evolution as the fact it is and arguing about Genesis/abiogenesis when the discussion is evolution.

So there's no point me being here as my mind on abiogenesis/Genesis isn't made up yet.

With that I wish you all the best of happiness and good luck.

a reply to: peter vlar

Show me the new DNA sequence that regulates the expression of TRIM5-CypA. Also show me the DNA sequences that regulated TRIM5 and CypA before convergence.

Herein lies your problem and let me repeat my question.

Where's the evidence that random mutations and natural selection can give a DNA sequence meaning and function that regulates gene expression?

There's no evidence for this. You said:

Apparently I read far more of it than you did because it discusses specifically how a new protein was created that confers beneficial immunities against a specific group of viruses.

Did you read what you posted? It says:

The combination produces a single protein capable of blocking infection by viruses closely related to HIV.

It never said anything was created it said THE COMBINATION PRODUCED. There was no regulatory change or any sequence change in the regulation of expression of TRIM5-CrypA that CREATED a new function.

Random mutation don't bestow meaning or function on a sequence of DNA letters that regulate expression.

Again if you read the whole paper, you would not have made that mistake. Similarly if you understood what types of mutation there are. You would not have made that mistake.

This illustrates the flaw in your arguments. This illustrates why you have capitulated and are now arguing semantics to try and save face. I hate to tell you but your enech is low, and your clu is negative.

a reply to: Noinden

Again, you didn't provide any evidence. You couldn't articulate a response so you posted 3 links and said go fish.

Just imagine if every thread on ATS consisted of just links with no commentary or context LOL.

YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS!

If you can't articulate a response then you should find a forum where people just post links without commentary or context.

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Noinden

Again, you didn't provide any evidence. You couldn't articulate a response so you posted 3 links and said go fish.

Just imagine if every thread on ATS consisted of just links with no commentary or context LOL.

YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS!

If you can't articulate a response then you should find a forum where people just post links without commentary or context.

Research is validated by repetition. If you're so convinced of your position, why isn't there an astounding number of endorsements in the literature?

In fact, when was the last time YOU were in the lab and validated these experiments?
I doubt that you even passed an A level of 101 course in science, much less English comprehension.

You're an armchair wannabe with no education, no comprehension and no clue.

BTW, how about a debate????

a reply to: neoholographic

I have articulated responses, and you asked for proof. I POSTED PROOF in the form of the citations (guess what they are not links). You are using weasel words to excuse your refusal to read the links. As Peter Valar pointed out, the papers are stand alone, and require no context.

So yes I am serious. You "cant be serious" (yet you are) with your refusal to engage. I thus conclude with the theory that you are being willfully ignorant, and will not look at any evidence being supplied. This reflects on you not I.

Again your enech and clu are worthless.

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Noinden

Again, you didn't provide any evidence. You couldn't articulate a response so you posted 3 links and said go fish.

Just imagine if every thread on ATS consisted of just links with no commentary or context LOL.

YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS!

If you can't articulate a response then you should find a forum where people just post links without commentary or context.

Of course, another alternative would be to put YOU in the lab and let YOU design the experiments which disprove your nonsense. It could be arranged......

OMG, another challenge - we can't have that now, can we???

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Noinden

Again, you didn't provide any evidence. You couldn't articulate a response so you posted 3 links and said go fish.

Just imagine if every thread on ATS consisted of just links with no commentary or context LOL.

YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS!

If you can't articulate a response then you should find a forum where people just post links without commentary or context.

There's an old saying "Put up or shut up". I think it's about time????

a reply to: Phantom423

In all honestly, as funny as that would be. I would not trust him near a lab. The equipment is expensive, the required coding is not trivial, and I have not even mentioned the H&S issues of allowing an untrained "civilian" loose in a chemical/biochemical environment.

a reply to: Phantom423

Yep. @neoholographic

READ

THE

PAPERS

They are not that esoteric. I indeed made sure I left the really dense Bioinformatic ones out

a reply to: cooperton

If evolution is the change in DNA.

In a POPULATION, yes.

then every viral infection is an evolution,

only if every individual in the population is infected the same way and the virus change the DNA in the same way, or if the virus changes the DNA in an individual in some really beneficial way that gives that individual a distinct reproductive advantage so its mutated DNA spreads throughout the population as generation gives way to generation.

And the DNA change is NOT evolution, it is a mutation.

every mitotic division is an evolution (telomeres are lost, thus changing DNA composition),

No. Mutations occur during mitotic division, yes. Replication errors, cosmic ray strikes, chemical pollution, whatever. Changes in an individual's DNA are not evolution - they are mutations.

and meiosis must then be evolution due to crossing over of the genetic coding.

No. Mutations occur during cell division of any kind. Mutations (by themselves) are not evolution.

Surely, these are not examples of evolution, try again with the definition.

You are correct, these are not examples of evolution - these are examples of mutation - they are changes in an individual's DNA.

Evolution occurs not at the level of an individual. Evolution occurs on the level of the population.

This is not rocket science or brain surgery.

*] Mutations occur in individuals
*] Some mutations are immediately beneficial to the individual.
*] Some mutations are immediately bad for the individual.
*] Some mutations (perhaps most) are neutral or at least not immediately good or bad for the individual
*] If a mutation is bad for an individual, that individual will not live long enough to breed or will not breed as well as its cohorts. That is the process of natural selection filtering out the bad mutations.
*] If a mutation is good for an individual it will have some sort of breeding advantage over its cohorts. Perhaps it makes stronger offspring, or more offspring, or can 'eat' a better food, or can hide from predators better, whatever. That is the process of natural selection supporting the good mutations.
*] If a mutation is neutral, it gives no advantage or disadvantage to the individual. The mutation spreads very slowly, and may even disappear if the descendant line of the individual dies out.
*] Every cell division has dozens of errors, perhaps hundreds. Every single one. Every child is different from its parent.
*] Replication errors are not the only source of mutations, but they are the most numerous and obvious. Egg and sperm combination problems can cause mutations. Cosmic ray strikes on the egg or sperm can cause mutations. There are lots of causes of mutations.
*] The DNA from individuals that have a breeding advantage eventually, generation after generation, comes to dominate the population.
*] When the population is dominated by individuals with that advantageous mutation, then the population is said to have evolved. Populations evolve, not individuals.

a reply to: Noinden

You guys are becoming unhinged because you can't debate the issue.

You're actually trying to defend posting links without any context. Like I said, ATS wouldn't have a forum. Just a bunch of threads with nothing but links.

Let me let you in on a little secret. The reason people post commentary and context with these links is because in a 10 page PDF or a 4-5 page citation includes things that are not relevent to the topic that's being discussed in the thread.

This is why you point out the parts in the PDF or article that relate to the subject being discussed.

I looked at one of your links and it had nothing to do with the thread. The reason you couldn't articulate how this related to the topic being discussed because it wasn't there.

You're looking silly because it's obvious you can't debate the issue or articulate how the citations you listed relate to or address the topics being discussed.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Phantom423

Yep. @neoholographic

READ

THE

PAPERS

They are not that esoteric. I indeed made sure I left the really dense Bioinformatic ones out

I read it and it has nothing to do with the topic being discussed. This is why you couldn't articulate a coherent response.

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: peter vlar


The combination produces a single protein capable of blocking infection by viruses closely related to HIV.

It never said anything was created it said THE COMBINATION PRODUCED. There was no regulatory change or any sequence change in the regulation of expression of TRIM5-CrypA that CREATED a new function.

Random mutation don't bestow meaning or function on a sequence of DNA letters that regulate expression.

You can't be serious with this! When the 2 genes combined they produced a new protein that protects them from infection by a host of Lentiviruses, of which HIV is amongst that family. This protein does not occur in the Macaques Monkeys who do not have the mutation.

Thus, the mutation, which interferes with expression of the normal TRIM5α protein, instead contributes to expression of a novel protein.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

We have previously reported that the TRIM5 coding sequence of old world monkeys is highly polymorphic [7]. In the course of genotyping the TRIM5 locus in a colony of captive bred rhesus macaques, we identified a single-nucleotide polymorphism in the terminal nucleotide of intron 6 (Figure 1). The SNP is the result of a G-to-T substitution that alters the canonical 3′ splice acceptor site (AG to AU) immediately upstream of exon 7. Initial sequence data revealed the presence of this mutation in 2 of 8 animals, including one homozygote (T/T) and one heterozygote (G/T). The cis-acting AG element at the end of introns is a highly conserved feature of 3′ splice sites, and the presence of such a mutation is predicted to interfere with mRNA splicing.

The predicted proteins encoded by the TRIM5-CypA chimeric transcripts of Asian macaques and South American owl monkeys are remarkably similar (Figure 3). However, unlike owl monkey TRIMCyp, macaque TRIM5-CypA did not block infection by HIV-1. There are multiple nonsynonymous differences between the two proteins, including differences in both the TRIM5 and CypA related domains. In addition, relative to owl monkey TRIMCyp, the macaque variants are missing 9 amino acids corresponding to exon-7 of TRIM5 and perhaps these residues are critical for function of the chimeric protein. It has previously been shown that artificial fusions between CypA and the RBCC domain of rhesus TRIM5α can restrict HIV-1 [15],[34]. Therefore, the functional differences between owl monkey TRIMCyp and macaque TRIM5-CypA (as measured against HIV-1) may instead be due either to differences in the CypA domains, the missing sequences corresponding to exon-7 [35], or both. Some or all of the amino-acid differences, as well as the observed differential restriction of HIV-1, may reflect differences between the natural agents of selection encountered by owl monkey TRIMCyp and macaque TRIM5-CypA during the evolution of each lineage.