A blow to evolution - Gene Regulation

I find it very funny that everytime someone tries to prove this theory wrong they get bashed as an "idiot". Seriously, it is always the same thing , "idiot". An idiot is someone who can believe almost 9 million different species somehow became from one microorganism. Not to mention, the species are so incredibly different. Now, if all animals, and plants, looked relatively similar, you may have a case.

Originally posted by SplitInfinity

If...and that is a BIG IF...a GOD does exist then the evidence points to such a GOD using Evolution....NOT spontanious Creation.

Yes IF there is a god.

Again read what I said carefully.

IF god is real then he created evolution. I am agreeing with you.

reply to post by ANOK


That said and agreed upon...It is also logical to state that since Quantum and Biological Evolutions are the process by which our Universe....perhaps...Multiverse....and all and any or anything within them have been created....these processes show absolutely no evidence of being created by a GOD....as well these processes show absolutely no evidence of not being created by a GOD....but there is currently...based upon the evidence....a GREATER PROBABILITY that they were NOT created by a GOD.

Split Infinity

Evolution is a lie. It is said that these creatures evolve themselves. But I haven't seen any creature evolving itself telling it self "I must grow this way, then it grow" My skin is tanned when it is exposed to sunlight. I don't tell it "get tanned" Some rule is imposed on it and it gets tanned. Western materialists invented Evolution to ignore god.

reply to post by mideast


You don't actually know anything about the theory of evolution, do you ?

reply to post by Ismail

He won't believe it until he sees it. And he expects to see it, if it's there.

When you think the world was made by Big Sky Man only six thousand years ago, everything telescopes. You expect to see dinosaurs turning into Captain America every day. On the creationist timescale the Cretaceous only ended a hundred years ago. Noah built his Ark in the Precambrian. No wonder it was only the size of a modern river barge—all the animals it held were microscopic.

Civilisation and rationality. Not exactly what you might call evenly spread about the world, even today.

Originally posted by Ismail

Evolution is a lie. It is said that these creatures evolve themselves. But I haven't seen any creature evolving itself telling it self "I must grow this way, then it grow" My skin is tanned when it is exposed to sunlight. I don't tell it "get tanned" Some rule is imposed on it and it gets tanned. Western materialists invented Evolution to ignore god.

reply to post by mideast

 

You don't actually know anything about the theory of evolution, do you ?

I prefer to stand out of what materialists are inventing based on lies and far from mind speculation. They want to make people blind followers of science.

On the other hand , they feed people with whatever fits their agenda.

But I really wonder that you talk about Noah and follow this theories simultaneously.

This thread = Creationists suggesting:
"New scientific research clearly shows how creationism is right and science is wrong"

Can we do anything but laugh? Are they purposely being dishonest or do they really not have a clue?


If you cared about how stuff works you would at least try to learn basic science..
To not do that is to shun your own god's creation. What do you expect to learn about nature in church??

How can you ever understand anything useful about the world we live in when you wont accept the best known way to diagnose reality... science .. ?

Its disrespectful to this very site to allow ignorance to flourish like you do.

reply to post by SplitInfinity

The ONLY possible way this could happen is that All Life on Earth EVOLVED from a Single Celled Organism that had been infected by a Virus. Thus the Virus encoded it's DNA upon the original lifeform and evolved into all species of Life upon Earth.

So in this scenario of yours which one came first, is it the Virus or the Single Celled Organism?

If its the virus, was it a complex virus of a single celled virus?

How did this virus of yours came to be so that it has the intelligence of infecting the single celled organism?

I can go on but the above are enough for now.

reply to post by edmc^2

SplitInfinity is no longer around to answer your question, but viruses don't have cells.

A cell is a form of life that has already undergone considerable evolution.

Originally posted by colin42

A blow to evolution - Gene Regulation

or you could have had the title

Another Triumph for Science - Gene Regulation

It is science that discovered this and science that looks for the evidence to explain it and yet again expands our knowledge and uncovers more questions that need to be answered.

The day I will agree with you that science is a religion and its discoveries are a faith is when it says it has all the answers and writes a book for all to follow without question

In our current DNA structure, we have two visible strands, which are called backbone DNA, but all the other 10 strands are present…According to Esoteric teachings, the first two strands are called "Physical DNA" and , the other ten strands are called "Spiritual DNA." These esoteric writings state that by "activating" this 'dormant DNA in time you will also be given "access" to the secrets and mysteries of which you are and what your life-purpose is. It is the same apostate message being preached as "God's sperma and seed" residing in all humanity that simply needs to be activated. Now, add to that the President of Iran's last UN speech whereby he declared (paraphrasing) that his Imam Mahdi and 'Jesus Christ' will shortly come to "revert" the children of Adam back to their innate nature by opening the gates of science and (esoteric) knowledge paving the way for divine bliss to enter the world. In a nutshell, they believe that we have both a divine side and human side and that humanity has merely ignored this 'truth'.
Look at the supposed secular ScienceDaily website and look at the logo. It's esoterically branded in blue and red signally this belief that man is divine and human. The little white circle signifies occult 'illumination'. Knowing this, the " news" which it pushes for your consumption has an occult purpose, and that is to provide evidence of the truthfulness of what it preaches.
It's got a captive audience in that we have been indoctrinated to trust science as our truth teller and to believe in things if they can be measured or experienced. What is a major downside? These science foundations are funded by the same groups of people. With knowing the occult beliefs above, the "evidence" is being presented which will lead you into agreement with them. Why? Because you know no other truth. They, in essence, are proving a lie and you'd never know any different.

Science can be truth. But science falsely called seeks to provide the "proof" of their pre-existing beliefs. Those that fund these science foundations have an agenda, and to that end the "scientific studies" which they prioritise and fund are to provide the "evidence" which proves that their beliefs were correct all along. When the MSM are owned by these same groups, we can then determine how the information which purports to establish the truthfulness of their writings gets "airtime" and everything else gets buried. It's like them showing the Grand canyon as proof of the millions of years required for eath processes whilst never discussing the huge canyons formed in the southeast today from a small steam that started in a farmers field a mere 150+ years ago or the massive canyon formed during Mt. Saint Helen's. And if anyone does mention these, all they say is that the soil is different which silences 99.9% of the population because they couldn't prove it otherwise.

Science today is buried. It is controlled by those in the money and in control. Nothing is brought to your attention that does not fit with what they need you to believe. Science falsely called is a mere puppet for occultism because it is their vehicle to provide the "evidence" which you have been indoctrinated to require before you'll believe anything. Please don't underestimate the wickedness of men with agendas. They don't hesitate to kill, start wars and blow up skyscrapers, so they certainly have zero conscience to refrain from lying and deceiving.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by edmc^2

 

SplitInfinity is no longer around to answer your question, but viruses don't have cells.

A cell is a form of life that has already undergone considerable evolution.

Which brings me to this question - are viruses living things?

reply to post by edmc^2

Which brings me to this question - are viruses living things?

How does this question arise with respect to gene regulation?

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by edmc^2

 

Which brings me to this question - are viruses living things?

How does this question arise with respect to gene regulation?

edit on 3/3/13 by Astyanax because: I'm not putting up with tripe.

The ONLY possible way this could happen is that All Life on Earth EVOLVED from a Single Celled Organism that had been infected by a Virus. Thus the Virus encoded it's DNA upon the original lifeform and evolved into all species of Life upon Earth. -- SplitInfinty

Since

The modulation of any of the stages of gene expression, ...encompasses the various systems that control and determine which genes are switched on and off, and when, how long, and to what extent the genes are expressed.

www.biology-online.org...

So I surmise, viruses are then part of gene regulation according to - SplitInfinty.

Back to my question - are viruses living things?

If not - how do these "things" adapt to their host?

How did the first virus "got" its DNA/RNA if it's not a living thing?

Which came first, the virus or its DNA?

If the DNA came first, where did the information came from to form itself into a virus?

know what i mean?

reply to post by edmc^2

I am not responsible for another member's speculations regarding the origins of life. As far as I am aware, that particular view is without scientific foundation.

As for your subsequent questions, I wish you the best of luck with your research.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by edmc^2

 

I am not responsible for another member's speculations regarding the origins of life. As far as I am aware, that particular view is without scientific foundation.

As for your subsequent questions, I wish you the best of luck with your research.

OK thanks. Since SplitInifinity split into infinity I guess we will never know what the heck he/she was talking about.

But one thing for sure is obvious - virus are way too destructive and dangerous to promote "evolution" from simplex into complex.

Devolution maybe best to describe the functions of viruses in a cell as they destroy - most of the time what they infect.

Originally posted by edmc^2
Back to my question - are viruses living things?

Depends who you ask. There's no universally accepted definition of life.

Originally posted by edmc^2
If not - how do these "things" adapt to their host?

Natural selection.

Originally posted by edmc^2
How did the first virus "got" its DNA/RNA if it's not a living thing?

What do you suppose was the first virus? Are you aware that viruses are not a monophyletic group? Some viruses have over 1,000 genes (and might have once been free-living microorganisms) whereas others have just a few genes. Summa summarum, there's more than one answer to your question.

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by edmc^2
Back to my question - are viruses living things?

Depends who you ask. There's no universally accepted definition of life.

Originally posted by edmc^2
If not - how do these "things" adapt to their host?

Natural selection.

Originally posted by edmc^2
How did the first virus "got" its DNA/RNA if it's not a living thing?

What do you suppose was the first virus? Are you aware that viruses are not a monophyletic group? Some viruses have over 1,000 genes (and might have once been free-living microorganisms) whereas others have just a few genes. Summa summarum, there's more than one answer to your question.

So are you implying virus came first as a "free-living microorganism" then followed by the single celled organism?

If so - was this virus then the first organism?

Originally posted by edmc^2
So are you implying virus came first as a "free-living microorganism" then followed by the single celled organism?

Not at all. I'm saying some viruses might have once been free-living. I also wrote that viruses don't have a single origin.

Originally posted by edmc^2
If so - was this virus then the first organism?

What does it take to be the first organism?

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by edmc^2
So are you implying virus came first as a "free-living microorganism" then followed by the single celled organism?

Not at all. I'm saying some viruses might have once been free-living. I also wrote that viruses don't have a single origin.

Originally posted by edmc^2
If so - was this virus then the first organism?

What does it take to be the first organism?

OK I understand what you're saying but it doesn't answer my first question - which is: did this virus of yours came first then followed by single celled organism?

Unless I misunderstood you in that the single celled organism came first then followed by virus of some sort and infected the cell?

If so does this mean then the single celled organism was dependent on the existence of the virus in order to regulate its genes - thereby promote evolution?

SO without the virus then evolution would not occur. Unless of course if by blind chance the single celled organism evolved by itself without the aid of the virus.

But that's not what's being implied here.

know what I mean?

As for Organism:

As I understand it, if it has structure or a body to regulate itself then it's an organism.

Scientifically put:

Organism Definition noun, plural: organisms (Science: Biology)

An individual living thing that can react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, and maintain homeostasis. It can be a virus, bacterium, protist, fungus, plant or an animal.

www.biology-online.org...

In biology, an organism is any contiguous living system (such as animal, fungus, micro-organism, or plant). In at least some form, all types of organisms are capable of response to stimuli, reproduction, growth and development, and maintenance of homeostasis as a stable whole.

An organism may be either unicellular (a single cell) or, as in the case of humans, comprise many trillions of cells grouped into specialized tissues and organs. The term multicellular (many cells) describes any organism made up of more than one cell.

All organisms living on Earth are divided into the eukaryotes and prokaryotes based on the presence or absence of true nuclei in their cells. The prokaryotes represent two separate domains, the Bacteria and Archaea. Eukaryotic organisms, with a membrane-bounded cell nucleus, also contain organelles, namely mitochondria and (in plants) plastids, generally considered to be derived from endosymbiotic bacteria.[1] Fungi, animals and plants are examples of species that are eukaryotes.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
If we were designed by a creator I'd still like to know who designed the creator. If it's not possible for amazingly complex things to naturally evolve over time then we must conclude that something else created the creator. Saying that complex things must always be designed and can't arise naturally is a paradox... because then you are forced to say the creator couldn't have possibly arisen naturally. At the end of the day, the ONLY possible conclusion that one may reach is that given enough time even the most absurdly unlikely events will occur. It doesn't matter how unlikely those events are, they will eventually occur. And when extremely rare things like sentient life pops up they think "man there's no way we got here naturally".

edit on 23/2/2013 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

At the end of the day - the facts remain there are things that are beyond man's ability to understand yet they pose no problem in accepting them.

And just because we can't understand them - like the existence of an uncreated Creator doesn't mean that He doesn't exist. It only means that we don't have the ability, the capability to process the data.

Case in point:

Black Hole/Event Horizon - where the gravity is so strong that even light can't escape its pull. We don't know what it is yet we accept that it exist.

Electromagnetism
Weak Force
Strong Force
Nuclear Force
Gravity



We seem to know what they are and know what they can do but we don't really have an accurate understanding of how they came to be. Did these forces always existed or were they created? No one really can (at least in the scientific community) give an accurate answer yet we have no problem accepting them.

Add to it:
Invisibility
Infinity
Time


So to excuse the existence of a Creator just because we can't fathom the meaning of uncreated is closing ones eyes to the fact.