To all the nit picking materialist ninnies on here, I learn more in one 15 minute creations video than hours of evolution videos. I think you don't want people to actually learn, but you want them to adopt your psychotic philosophy. Nah, but you can just keep on whining if you like.
It's true though. This one video detailed more science than cdk007s entire upload library. Well, I could be exaggerating slightly. Oh, I mean to ask, are you ever going to make a comment with any intellectual value, or are you just going to keep whining like a nit picking ninny forever and ever?
You are the one here justifying feelings. I genuinely asked you to teach me, but of course you didn't. But you have a chance to say something now, or you can go on with the delusions. Last chance.
Haha! You have never shut me down once. There is seriously something wrong with you. You could easily shut me down, at least on this point. Simply provide a coherent argument that refutes my claims about the non-coding regions of the genome. I never denied that genes exist, but you are a habitual lying troll, that is for sure. You should thank me for letting you troll. Most people just spam you.
@elmattomagico All evolutionists have is hot air on the mostly anonymous Internet. We have the real science backed up by the $10,000 Life Science Prize. You can evolve from a chicken and win the prize or make cowardly remarks on websites until you ultimately die and become a creationists after it's too late. My last remark to you is something that everyone understands: CLUCK, CLUCK
I watched over an hour of Susan Lindquist expound on her lab's work. This video and her work agree on facts. Lindquist explains her conclusions and ideas based on evidence. I think her work is more nuanced than presented here. She does not make broad stroke claims like the sensational science journalism excerpted here. I felt this video actually explained the role of HSP's well, in laymen terms and is therefore a useful video.
Also, it is not just big, strong animals that adapt and overcome a relative catastrophe. There are benefits to animals that can burrow, that can fly, that can live at night...I believe you are a true, mind warped, asshole.
humans(homo sapiens) make up 300 thousand years of the earth's history. the earth is dated back to 4.6 billion years ago. we are one fraction of three hundred thousand. The earth has undergone an abundance of change over this long time. we as humans havent even covered every square inch over time, let alone dug into the earth to search for the astronomical number of fossils in the depths of the rock formations and landmasses.
if it were true we would have evidence of it happening in the fossil record, there should be MILLIONS of fossils, but i havent seen or heard of any. and just a question. What about irreducible complexity? doesnt that disprove it as well?
hey guys for darwin to be correct just show me the evidence. last ive heard is that there are a few GAPS in the fossil record. and natural selection? yeah tottally real (i believe). i believe that in times of famin the bigger stronger animals survive, therefore the stronger ones that survive pass the genetically good genes along and you get bigger animals over time. we see that today in people we addapt to whatever situation we are in. but since when has there been new species created throughit?
Here is you evidence..... The fossils are layered like this, In the bottom layer of rock are shell fossils, above that is a layer with shells and fish fossils, above that is a layer with shells, fish and amphibians fossils, above that is a layer with shells, fish, amphibian and reptile fossils, above that is a layer with shells, fish, amphibian, reptile fossils and dinosaur fossils SEE a Pattern? There are no human fossils found in any of these layers. No dating methods used
There is no debunking of Darwin here. But even if there was, it wouldn't mean anything. Lots of scientists have corrected Darwin. Evolution is a constantly evolving scientific theory that is always being rigorously tested, updated, and becoming more nuanced, just like all good scientific theories.
Oh, this is beyond bullshit. All HSPs are only expressed as 1-2% of the total proteins in unstressed cells. When stressed they are expressed to 4-6%. When the cell is no longer understress the signaling cascade reduces its production. ONLY WHEN THE GENOME ITSELF MUTATES AND REPLICATES DOES IT BECOME PERMANENT. I just love it when creationists try to talk science. Then show themselves for the idiots they are.
the video is implying that the we so called "evolutionists" have been stumped because we don't know what causes mutations - oh, except for the fact that we totally do.
mutations are caused by mutagenic factors such as specific chemical compounds and ionizing radiation. these changes occur on a daily basis.
get your heads out of the bible and look around, people. it isnt 4 BC and god isnt turning the nile to blood or resurrecting dead martyrs anymore. meanwhile, here on this very earth we have documented and observed with our own eyes how species have evolved. the world has changed, and science along with it. you might as well jump on board. honest faith is unquestionably an honorable and worthy pursuit but when it blinds people to blatantly obvious facts, it ISNT honest anymore, just sad.
if you entirely remove yourself from the religious aspects and THINK for once, just look at evolution vs. intelligent design/creation. more textbooks, experiments, and studies than you could ever read in your life, 150 freakin YEARS of work, all favoring evolution. Millions of the world's greatest minds have spent their careers on work which gives conclusive evidence for evolution. now name a single legitimate study which supports creation. Score stands: Evolution: infinity, Creation: zero.
accepts that as the freakin mechanism for evolution. So essentially, the MECHANISM for evolution has been here as long as the modern theory of evolution itself! that was the whole deal with darwin v. lamarck-- both guys knew evolution was happening, its just that they disagreed over the mechanism. darwin got it right. and theres the modern theory of evolution. seriously, holy crap. this is not even a debate anymore. people always say read the bible. does anyone say read on the origin of species?
wait, wait, wait. the very first thing this hack says is "for years evolutionists have been trying to find the mechanism for evolution." WHAT THE FUCK. remember the first guy who came up with modern evolution? that darwin dude? well theres this little section in some book he wrote that talks about DESCENT WITH MODIFICATION (more like the entire book)! modern scientists call it NATURAL freakin SELECTION. THATS THE GODDAMN MECHANISM. "evolutionists," or should I say, every legitimate scientist,
My baloney-detector just blew a fuse. Where do they get this stuff? I've said it before and I'll say it again... we MUST do something about the poor state of scientific literacy in this country! We live in an age where most of us are capable of reading & performing simple mathematics. Yet, so many of us lack important critical thinking skills that would all but eliminate this so-called "debate". Save our schools, save this nation!
You haven't paid much attention to what is going on in the schools. In 17 of the largest cities in America, 50% of the students don't graduate. That's 1.2 million per year. Critical thinking? What a joke. Go to any communist country and students receive the same evolutionary brainwash as in America. You already own the schools and you probably are a result of the failed system.
I strongly agree with you, JordanProtcell! These "creation science" debates are thrusting our education system in the balance. Our academic standards are already low enough. I suspect that you are familliar with "The Demon Haunted World." I recomend this book to all, religeous or not.
btw berean, i spent years studying abroad and took science courses in anglican england, catholic france, and china. im also something of a political conservative. what you're saying about brainwashing is crud. Four educations, all taught evolution, among many other things. my bio teacher in france was highly conservative, didnt approve of stem cell research or abortion, still believed in evolution. can you possibly guess why?
a) you imply 50% of american people are uneducated, because they've dropped out.
b) you say the "liberal" evolution offered in schools is bad.
ok lets think about that. the uneducated 50% have dropped out of school so they arent getting that liberal evolution stuff. so what DO they believe in then? why, probably creation! so yes, you ARE CORRECT. the education system FAILS in that it doesnt get EVOLUTION to everyone, leaving people like you. thanks bud, this was all fun. gnight
The late 1850s is when it was published. And more and more evidence supporting evolution has continually come in, up to the present day.
Now, when's the last time God did a miracle like part the Red Sea? Gee, those things only (allegedly) happened back when people were scientifically ignorant and vastly superstitious. What a coincidence!!!
Anyway There is more and more evidence coming in that dosen't support evolution as well. Like this video for one. Being scientifically honest, evolution isn't a law like gravity or thermodynamics, therefore it dosen't have the proof to show its a fact. Its quite feasible and intelligent to refuse to accept evolution on the fact that it has "serious" flaws in its reasoning and understanding. Evolution is a belief. No (honest) scientist states otherwise.
My humblest apology. It was meant as only a friendly suggestion, and certainly not as a joke. I may have misread your comment and thought that you were sad, which prompted me to submit my comment. BTW, I would not have recommended reading the Bible if I had not first read it. What a marvellous book! Again, my deepest apologies, and good luck!
Anyone who can prove Evolution wrong will be the world next most reverred Scientist. The fact that thier is no legitimate alternative proves that this kind of rubbish is rubbish. Science isn't ignored and its extreemly commen in science and academia to fight long standing ideas wrong. You cant accept any of these arguments as valid as it requires you to put faith in things that the science in no sense support - Its not a friggin art appreciation class.
Aren't these bacteria still bacteria?This argumen/discovery was first propounded by Japanese scientist in 1976 and article after article on the internet is pro or anti,,,why would matter that's immortal need to struggle to survive,so matter is eternal but also 4 1/2 billion years old,it makes more sense that we were created in the image of God to think His thoughts after Him and be in awe of the creation.
You didn't ask for a speciation, you asked for one single beneficial mutation. I delivered, and can cite more.
As for a change in species... Would a unicellular animal becoming multicellular qualify according to your standards? How about a whale sprouting legs? At what point do YOU decide that an animal is different?
Who says I'm NOT in awe of creation?
Evolution doesn't preclude God, nor diminish the splendor of the universe.
about this new nylon digesting ability allegedly from a frame shift.New evidence shows that the ability was due to plasmids,In fact,more than one species of bacteria have the ability,residing on plasmids,This suggests that the information probably already existed & was just passed between different types of bacteria,,<b><i>yahoo search</b></i>
The plasmid argument was proposed in 1995, especially at AIG.
Gene sequencing in 1999, and again in 2004, put that argument to rest. It was specifically the frame-shifted nucleotides that were responsible for the new metabolic pathways.
It was also confirmed when the same mutation was provoked in laboratory conditions. - Yahoo search.
Not to mention, nylon has only existed for a little over 50 years.
The nylon digesting genes are nylA, nylB, and nylC (duplicated genes) which were formed from a deletion mutation and subsequent frame shift in the RSII repetitive element and followed by an insertion of a T at position 99 in the repetitive sequence which resulted in a start codon and a stop codon 392 amino acids away. - Paraphrased
I had never heard of nylonase,am researching the biology and capabilities of frame-shift and other mutations,,I was a theistic evolutionist when in Catholic church and believed God directed the DNA ala <i>Of Pandas and People</i> Noticed you are a comedian,know any evolution or creation jokes I could borrow?
"Ever notice how people who don't believe in evolution look really unevolved?" - George Carlin (This one can be changed to apply to evolutionists or people arguing over evolution)
"My theory on evolution? I think Darwin was adopted." - Steven Wright
There is a british comic on youtube somewhere who does a hillarious reading of Genesis 1.
"You know what you never hear in a creation/evolution debate? 'Say, that's a good point! Maybe I'm wrong!'" - Me
I'm at work when this is aired in Birmingham so thanx for posting.
Just show us 1 new beneficial mutation that adds information to the genome that is passed on to survivable progeny of extant species,not conjecture based on faith,just the observable, repeatable, quantifiable evidence
Bacteria developed brand new metabolic pathways to be able to digest nylon. The structures did not exist before and were the result of new genetic information due to a frame-shift mutation.
qabala, where did the original DNA information come from? How did non-living chemicals receive information that did not exist and how did these chemicals react to natural selection?
Firstly, your question is unrelated to evolution. It is in reference to abiogenesis. Evolution only describes changes in life after it's formed.
Secondly,
The inference is that, not having an answer means there isn't one. A quick investigation into abiogenesis, especially in light of current events, will show you that assumption is without merit.
After reviewing your post again, I should clear up something. Chemicals don't react to natural selection. Natural Selection is the reaction itself.
However, to answer your question I will suggest you honestly take a look at the work of Kahr on clay crystals generating and transfering information as well as "Synthetis Biology"
Even if you are a YE creationist, it should be fascinating.
To all the nit picking materialist ninnies on here, I learn more in one 15 minute creations video than hours of evolution videos. I think you don't want people to actually learn, but you want them to adopt your psychotic philosophy. Nah, but you can just keep on whining if you like.
circusOFprecision 4 months ago
@circusOFprecision
"I learn more in one 15 minute creations video than hours of evolution videos"
Your political bias prevents you from learning anything other than how to complain that the facts don't support your opinions...
Poor suddsy....just growing older and angrier--never closer to the truth.
odinata 4 months ago
@odinata
It's true though. This one video detailed more science than cdk007s entire upload library. Well, I could be exaggerating slightly. Oh, I mean to ask, are you ever going to make a comment with any intellectual value, or are you just going to keep whining like a nit picking ninny forever and ever?
circusOFprecision 4 months ago
@circusOFprecision
I taught you a painful lesson about DNA, and you simply tucked your tail between your legs and slinked away.
You aren't here to learn, and you never have been.
You are here to justify your feelings that facts aren't as important as your personal religious feelings.
Its because you despise people who have contributed to science....
odinata 4 months ago
@odinata
You are the one here justifying feelings. I genuinely asked you to teach me, but of course you didn't. But you have a chance to say something now, or you can go on with the delusions. Last chance.
circusOFprecision 4 months ago
@circusOFprecision
Sorry bud, but that would be your game.
"Ninny" this and "materialist" that, but when it gets down to the nitty gritty, the inner workings of Biology, you don't have the facts.
I've shut you down every single time.
You even deny that genes exist...
odinata 4 months ago
@odinata
Haha! You have never shut me down once. There is seriously something wrong with you. You could easily shut me down, at least on this point. Simply provide a coherent argument that refutes my claims about the non-coding regions of the genome. I never denied that genes exist, but you are a habitual lying troll, that is for sure. You should thank me for letting you troll. Most people just spam you.
circusOFprecision 4 months ago
@circusOFprecision
HA ha I shut your ass silent on DNA, non coding RNA--and just about everything you open your Creationis opinions upon.
Sorry bud.
Its simple.YOU don't have facts, and that kind of wrecks your assertions.
odinata 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circusOFprecision
The burden is proof is on you, but you don't have the ability to prove anything.
This is why you spend most of your time complaining about the rules....
odinata 4 months ago
"I know this may sound a bit technical" - a testament to this man's intelligence...or lack thereof
elmattomagico 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@elmattomagico All evolutionists have is hot air on the mostly anonymous Internet. We have the real science backed up by the $10,000 Life Science Prize. You can evolve from a chicken and win the prize or make cowardly remarks on websites until you ultimately die and become a creationists after it's too late. My last remark to you is something that everyone understands: CLUCK, CLUCK
BereanBeacon1 8 months ago
I watched over an hour of Susan Lindquist expound on her lab's work. This video and her work agree on facts. Lindquist explains her conclusions and ideas based on evidence. I think her work is more nuanced than presented here. She does not make broad stroke claims like the sensational science journalism excerpted here. I felt this video actually explained the role of HSP's well, in laymen terms and is therefore a useful video.
nebraskaqtee 11 months ago
Wrong, scientists figured it out 150 years ago. Every hear of a guy named Darwin.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Also, it is not just big, strong animals that adapt and overcome a relative catastrophe. There are benefits to animals that can burrow, that can fly, that can live at night...I believe you are a true, mind warped, asshole.
thepurplepony12321 2 years ago
humans(homo sapiens) make up 300 thousand years of the earth's history. the earth is dated back to 4.6 billion years ago. we are one fraction of three hundred thousand. The earth has undergone an abundance of change over this long time. we as humans havent even covered every square inch over time, let alone dug into the earth to search for the astronomical number of fossils in the depths of the rock formations and landmasses.
thepurplepony12321 2 years ago
if it were true we would have evidence of it happening in the fossil record, there should be MILLIONS of fossils, but i havent seen or heard of any. and just a question. What about irreducible complexity? doesnt that disprove it as well?
jacobmoeder17 2 years ago
Some fossils would never survive the long age of the earth. Its like me asking you why are there no original manuscripts of the bible?
showbizjosh40 2 years ago
@jacobmoeder17 ID lost in court, sorry.
gregrutz 1 year ago
hey guys for darwin to be correct just show me the evidence. last ive heard is that there are a few GAPS in the fossil record. and natural selection? yeah tottally real (i believe). i believe that in times of famin the bigger stronger animals survive, therefore the stronger ones that survive pass the genetically good genes along and you get bigger animals over time. we see that today in people we addapt to whatever situation we are in. but since when has there been new species created throughit?
jacobmoeder17 2 years ago
gregrutz 1 year ago
this is why I fucking dropped out of christian school.
kuma0131 2 years ago 2
because they taught you science?..Or is this a lie too?..It's not fair..a christian butting in and debunking darwin..waaa stay on your own side..
Hisson82 2 years ago
dumbass read it right.
kuma0131 2 years ago
There is no debunking of Darwin here. But even if there was, it wouldn't mean anything. Lots of scientists have corrected Darwin. Evolution is a constantly evolving scientific theory that is always being rigorously tested, updated, and becoming more nuanced, just like all good scientific theories.
TBoneOSU1 2 years ago 2
@Hisson82
What is an evolutionist?
gregrutz 2 years ago
Oh, this is beyond bullshit. All HSPs are only expressed as 1-2% of the total proteins in unstressed cells. When stressed they are expressed to 4-6%. When the cell is no longer understress the signaling cascade reduces its production. ONLY WHEN THE GENOME ITSELF MUTATES AND REPLICATES DOES IT BECOME PERMANENT. I just love it when creationists try to talk science. Then show themselves for the idiots they are.
magick205 2 years ago 4
Darwin didn't invent evolution, he came up with the reason it happens.
Origin of species by means of Natural Selection
gregrutz 2 years ago
the video is implying that the we so called "evolutionists" have been stumped because we don't know what causes mutations - oh, except for the fact that we totally do.
mutations are caused by mutagenic factors such as specific chemical compounds and ionizing radiation. these changes occur on a daily basis.
Tapahtumahorisontti 2 years ago 7
get your heads out of the bible and look around, people. it isnt 4 BC and god isnt turning the nile to blood or resurrecting dead martyrs anymore. meanwhile, here on this very earth we have documented and observed with our own eyes how species have evolved. the world has changed, and science along with it. you might as well jump on board. honest faith is unquestionably an honorable and worthy pursuit but when it blinds people to blatantly obvious facts, it ISNT honest anymore, just sad.
Jailbreak1247 2 years ago
if you entirely remove yourself from the religious aspects and THINK for once, just look at evolution vs. intelligent design/creation. more textbooks, experiments, and studies than you could ever read in your life, 150 freakin YEARS of work, all favoring evolution. Millions of the world's greatest minds have spent their careers on work which gives conclusive evidence for evolution. now name a single legitimate study which supports creation. Score stands: Evolution: infinity, Creation: zero.
Jailbreak1247 2 years ago
accepts that as the freakin mechanism for evolution. So essentially, the MECHANISM for evolution has been here as long as the modern theory of evolution itself! that was the whole deal with darwin v. lamarck-- both guys knew evolution was happening, its just that they disagreed over the mechanism. darwin got it right. and theres the modern theory of evolution. seriously, holy crap. this is not even a debate anymore. people always say read the bible. does anyone say read on the origin of species?
Jailbreak1247 2 years ago
wait, wait, wait. the very first thing this hack says is "for years evolutionists have been trying to find the mechanism for evolution." WHAT THE FUCK. remember the first guy who came up with modern evolution? that darwin dude? well theres this little section in some book he wrote that talks about DESCENT WITH MODIFICATION (more like the entire book)! modern scientists call it NATURAL freakin SELECTION. THATS THE GODDAMN MECHANISM. "evolutionists," or should I say, every legitimate scientist,
Jailbreak1247 2 years ago
My baloney-detector just blew a fuse. Where do they get this stuff? I've said it before and I'll say it again... we MUST do something about the poor state of scientific literacy in this country! We live in an age where most of us are capable of reading & performing simple mathematics. Yet, so many of us lack important critical thinking skills that would all but eliminate this so-called "debate". Save our schools, save this nation!
JordanProtocell 3 years ago 3
You haven't paid much attention to what is going on in the schools. In 17 of the largest cities in America, 50% of the students don't graduate. That's 1.2 million per year. Critical thinking? What a joke. Go to any communist country and students receive the same evolutionary brainwash as in America. You already own the schools and you probably are a result of the failed system.
BereanBeacon 3 years ago
failed? and no it is not fifty percent, get your facts right.
tribalspacemonkey 3 years ago
Yeah! Critical thinking is a joke if you're a theist. Smart people know better.
a715124 3 years ago
William Lane Craig is smart.
TheGeneralOfWar 2 years ago
I strongly agree with you, JordanProtcell! These "creation science" debates are thrusting our education system in the balance. Our academic standards are already low enough. I suspect that you are familliar with "The Demon Haunted World." I recomend this book to all, religeous or not.
a715124 3 years ago
btw berean, i spent years studying abroad and took science courses in anglican england, catholic france, and china. im also something of a political conservative. what you're saying about brainwashing is crud. Four educations, all taught evolution, among many other things. my bio teacher in france was highly conservative, didnt approve of stem cell research or abortion, still believed in evolution. can you possibly guess why?
Jailbreak1247 2 years ago
furthermore,
a) you imply 50% of american people are uneducated, because they've dropped out.
b) you say the "liberal" evolution offered in schools is bad.
ok lets think about that. the uneducated 50% have dropped out of school so they arent getting that liberal evolution stuff. so what DO they believe in then? why, probably creation! so yes, you ARE CORRECT. the education system FAILS in that it doesnt get EVOLUTION to everyone, leaving people like you. thanks bud, this was all fun. gnight
Jailbreak1247 2 years ago
YO!!!! you have the same last name as Me. EGGEN
palmbeachvicskim 3 years ago
Why do I get the feeling I'm listening to a commercial trying to sell me magnetic healing bracelets or similar unwarranted pseudoscience hogwash?
DNAunion 4 years ago 2
Try prayerful reading of the Bible, friend.
lazhen 3 years ago
I have the Bible: in fact, that's what pushed me over the fence into the Atheist camp!
I suggest you step back and look at things from the outside. Your Bible is scientifically refuted, ridiculous, immoral, and internally inconsistent.
The Bible is an ancient mythology book written by scientifically ignorant and vastly superstitious men.
DNAunion 3 years ago 3
lol when do think darwins theory was descovered?
alfamale05 3 years ago
The late 1850s is when it was published. And more and more evidence supporting evolution has continually come in, up to the present day.
Now, when's the last time God did a miracle like part the Red Sea? Gee, those things only (allegedly) happened back when people were scientifically ignorant and vastly superstitious. What a coincidence!!!
JTPJMP 3 years ago
Hey
One awesome miracle is creation!
Anyway There is more and more evidence coming in that dosen't support evolution as well. Like this video for one. Being scientifically honest, evolution isn't a law like gravity or thermodynamics, therefore it dosen't have the proof to show its a fact. Its quite feasible and intelligent to refuse to accept evolution on the fact that it has "serious" flaws in its reasoning and understanding. Evolution is a belief. No (honest) scientist states otherwise.
sss4sss4 3 years ago
lol this is just sad.
worldlystone 4 years ago 2
But if you prayerfully read the Bible...you'll be glad.
lazhen 3 years ago
I didn't say that i was sad.I said this was sad......was your comment a joke?
worldlystone 3 years ago
My humblest apology. It was meant as only a friendly suggestion, and certainly not as a joke. I may have misread your comment and thought that you were sad, which prompted me to submit my comment. BTW, I would not have recommended reading the Bible if I had not first read it. What a marvellous book! Again, my deepest apologies, and good luck!
lazhen 3 years ago
Anyone who can prove Evolution wrong will be the world next most reverred Scientist. The fact that thier is no legitimate alternative proves that this kind of rubbish is rubbish. Science isn't ignored and its extreemly commen in science and academia to fight long standing ideas wrong. You cant accept any of these arguments as valid as it requires you to put faith in things that the science in no sense support - Its not a friggin art appreciation class.
SimplyBen84 4 years ago
Aren't these bacteria still bacteria?This argumen/discovery was first propounded by Japanese scientist in 1976 and article after article on the internet is pro or anti,,,why would matter that's immortal need to struggle to survive,so matter is eternal but also 4 1/2 billion years old,it makes more sense that we were created in the image of God to think His thoughts after Him and be in awe of the creation.
dingorex 4 years ago
You didn't ask for a speciation, you asked for one single beneficial mutation. I delivered, and can cite more.
As for a change in species... Would a unicellular animal becoming multicellular qualify according to your standards? How about a whale sprouting legs? At what point do YOU decide that an animal is different?
Who says I'm NOT in awe of creation?
Evolution doesn't preclude God, nor diminish the splendor of the universe.
qabala 4 years ago
about this new nylon digesting ability allegedly from a frame shift.New evidence shows that the ability was due to plasmids,In fact,more than one species of bacteria have the ability,residing on plasmids,This suggests that the information probably already existed & was just passed between different types of bacteria,,<b><i>yahoo search</b></i>
dingorex 4 years ago
The plasmid argument was proposed in 1995, especially at AIG.
Gene sequencing in 1999, and again in 2004, put that argument to rest. It was specifically the frame-shifted nucleotides that were responsible for the new metabolic pathways.
It was also confirmed when the same mutation was provoked in laboratory conditions. - Yahoo search.
Not to mention, nylon has only existed for a little over 50 years.
qabala 4 years ago
Just to give some techno babble on the subject.
The nylon digesting genes are nylA, nylB, and nylC (duplicated genes) which were formed from a deletion mutation and subsequent frame shift in the RSII repetitive element and followed by an insertion of a T at position 99 in the repetitive sequence which resulted in a start codon and a stop codon 392 amino acids away. - Paraphrased
qabala 4 years ago
I had never heard of nylonase,am researching the biology and capabilities of frame-shift and other mutations,,I was a theistic evolutionist when in Catholic church and believed God directed the DNA ala <i>Of Pandas and People</i> Noticed you are a comedian,know any evolution or creation jokes I could borrow?
dingorex 4 years ago
dingorex, when I come across one I will let you know.
BereanBeacon 4 years ago
Dingo,
"Ever notice how people who don't believe in evolution look really unevolved?" - George Carlin (This one can be changed to apply to evolutionists or people arguing over evolution)
"My theory on evolution? I think Darwin was adopted." - Steven Wright
There is a british comic on youtube somewhere who does a hillarious reading of Genesis 1.
"You know what you never hear in a creation/evolution debate? 'Say, that's a good point! Maybe I'm wrong!'" - Me
qabala 4 years ago
I'm at work when this is aired in Birmingham so thanx for posting.
Just show us 1 new beneficial mutation that adds information to the genome that is passed on to survivable progeny of extant species,not conjecture based on faith,just the observable, repeatable, quantifiable evidence
dingorex 4 years ago
Bacteria developed brand new metabolic pathways to be able to digest nylon. The structures did not exist before and were the result of new genetic information due to a frame-shift mutation.
That's one!
qabala 4 years ago
qabala, where did the original DNA information come from? How did non-living chemicals receive information that did not exist and how did these chemicals react to natural selection?
BereanBeacon 4 years ago
BB,
Firstly, your question is unrelated to evolution. It is in reference to abiogenesis. Evolution only describes changes in life after it's formed.
Secondly,
The inference is that, not having an answer means there isn't one. A quick investigation into abiogenesis, especially in light of current events, will show you that assumption is without merit.
qabala 4 years ago
qabala, so information was available to the non-living chemicals according to current events? What are those events?
BereanBeacon 4 years ago
Please define "Information" and how it applies to chemistry.
I just need to make sure we're on the same page before I bother to go on.
qabala 4 years ago
BB,
After reviewing your post again, I should clear up something. Chemicals don't react to natural selection. Natural Selection is the reaction itself.
However, to answer your question I will suggest you honestly take a look at the work of Kahr on clay crystals generating and transfering information as well as "Synthetis Biology"
Even if you are a YE creationist, it should be fascinating.
qabala 4 years ago
It should have read "Synthetic Biology".
A lot is going on in that field now.
Also look up "Wet Artificial Life"
The first synthetic organism is expected to be announced within 3 to 10 years.
qabala 4 years ago
I answered you earlier but it didn't show up.
Before I can answer your question, I have to know how you define "information" as it applies to DNA.
qabala 4 years ago
For more detailed information and citations go to wikipedia and type in "Nylonase"
qabala 4 years ago