|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Tangled writes:
Not at all ... God can create life wherever he likes.
It would not resolve how life came about elsewhere in the galaxy but it would cause religionists like you some problems.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
[qs=There is a reason why Crick brought up the notion of panspermia. When he realized what the structure of DNA is, there is no rational way to explain the evolution of such a molecule.[/qs]
Crick would rather make a fool of himself by believing in the superstitious nonsense of panspermia than believe in a Creator. It never ceases to amaze how highly intelligent atheists can be so stupid when it comes to facing reality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 366 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman:I do know how descent with modification and adaptation works which is the way to describe the evolution of drug resistance and you don't. And neither do biologists. If you think I'm wrong, post a paper (with an appropriate quote) which explains why it takes a billion replications for each adaptive step in the Kishony and Lenski biological evolutionary experiments. You won't. Kleinman:That is another dumb idea that biologists have. How old does that idea have to become before you realize how stupid it is? Kleinman:Don't you think you will return to dust? Perhaps you think that the Bible and God will disappear when you die. And what evidence do you have that God doesn't exist?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
Crick would rather make a fool of himself by believing in the superstitious nonsense of panspermia than believe in a Creator. It never ceases to amaze how highly intelligent atheists can be so stupid when it comes to facing reality.
There is a reason why Crick brought up the notion of panspermia. When he realized what the structure of DNA is, there is no rational way to explain the evolution of such a molecule.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 366 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman:Once Crick saw the structure of DNA, he realized there was a logical problem with the belief system that is held by most biologists. He tried to address this problem with the notion of panspermia. It only puts more focus on the theoretical problems of abiogenesis, and the theory of evolution which depends on universal common descent which biologists try to present the theory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9517 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Dredge writes:
Actually a hypothesis awaiting evidence.
Biology for space-cadets. To get from "amino acids" to a living, reproducing organism you need to pull out two items from your atheist bag of tricks - delusion and superstition. Actually, just chemistry. But again, we wait for evidence before claiming anything (or making shit up).Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine. "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 366 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Dredge:There is an edit button at the bottom of the post that allows you to correct a typo error or make other corrections to your post so that you don't have to make a new post with the correction.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 366 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Dredge:And Dredge:Who says that for atheists hope doesn't spring eternal?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
Yes I know, thank you. My "edit" button used to work but now it doesn't, so to correct a typo I have to submit the whole post again. There is an edit button at the bottom of the post that allows you to correct a typo error or make other corrections to your post so that you don't have to make a new post with the correction..
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Dredge writes:
To get from "amino acids" to a living, reproducing organism you need to pull out two items from your atheist bag of tricks - delusion and superstition.Tangled writes:
The only "evidence" scientists will ever produce will be some bag-of-hot-air theory that proves nothing. Actually, just chemistry. But again, we wait for evidence before claiming anything (or making shit up). Wake me up when scientists produce a viable organism from inanimate matter. Anything less than that is just superstitious pie-in-the-sky.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 366 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Dredge:Who says that atheists and biologists don't have faith?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9517 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Kleinman writes: Who says that for atheists hope doesn't spring eternal? You're truly weird aren't you? We'll never get evidence for panspermia, whatever happened to form life on Earth happened billions of years ago and all evidence has long since gone. Atheist hope for nothing like this. Personally I'd love to see progress on abiogenesis and finding life on other planets but it's not something that crosses my mind anywhere but here or anymore than wondering about AI or what's for dinner. You're so stuck in your own hopes of religious afterlife fantasies you can't imagine anyone not doing the same. It's called projection.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine. "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 366 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
Kleinman:Tangle evidence is that he hopes that the evidence once existed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
As I recall, Dredge kept abusing his edit privileges so they were suspended. That is why his Edit button does not work.
Rather than resubmitting entire posts again (thus wasting even more bandwidth), do not submit a post until you have reviewed it. That is what the Preview button is for, as I have advised you previously. One can always tell a creationist. One just cannot tell him anything. A better alternative would be to write your posts in your favorite text editor, verify that you have corrected any typos, and then copy-and-paste it into the edit box. Basic computer skill that everybody knows ... except for creationists, I guess. You can always tell a creationist, ... .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Kleinman writes: So, now you claim an LTR is an ERV? Everyone in biology claims that, you fucking moron.
That's a relief for those with HIV, they don't have to worry about herpes simplex, herpes zoster, or cytomegalovirus,... affecting them. Which has nothing to do with what you asked.
Sure, we got your nonsensical answer that LTRs are the same as ERVs, LTRs would be ERVs if they had viral protein-coding regions. Any remnant of a retroviral insertion is an ERV. Solo LTR's are what is left over after homologous recombination of a full length ERV. Solo LTR's are the result of mutations in full length ERVs.
But you claim you can identify proteins even when they don't exist. They do exist in many ERVs, you fucking moron.
So the 10% of LTRs that have some remaining protein-coding regions associated with them, why isn't the LTR altered as well? Most of them are altered, you fucking moron. How do we tell that both mice and humans have a cytochrome c gene? How do you think that works? The two gene sequences differ by quite a bit, so how can they tell these are the same gene?
Is your claim now that the genetic sequences for LTRs never evolve? No, you fucking moron. I have never said that. As shown by genes shared by many different vertebrates, it's possible to identify homologous sequence even when the sequence differs. These are basic, basic concepts, and you can't seem to understand them.
A long terminal repeat (LTR) is a pair of identical sequences of DNA, several hundred base pairs long, which occur in eukaryotic genomes on either end of a series of genes or pseudogenes that form a retrotransposon or an endogenous retrovirus or a retroviral provirus. So how do you think the authors of the human genome paper were able to distinguish between LTRs from retroviruses and LTRs from retrotransposons?
Do vertebrates have retrotransposons that are not ERVs? Wrong question. What are the LTR sequences?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024