Your founding fathers did not mention GOD because of expounding french revolt by mindless people like you. But almost everything your founding fathers have in constituion is copied from BIBLE
That's bullshit. Have you ever heard of Jefferson's bible? The founding fathers were no fan of religion at all. Nowhere in the Constitution is there any mention of a god (let alone a christian one). God is only mentioned once in the Bill of Rights and that is to restrict religion. Religion is only a big deal now because it has been politicized for the purpose of vote winning. Religion is a disease. Take your bible and stick it up your ass.
@Redbaron011 Please stop calling it the "Jefferson Bible". "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth" is the proper title. Jefferson of course meant to remove all religious leanings from what he thought were some of the reasonable teachings of Jesus ... but you already knew that. It's proper title makes this clear.
@jnemuri1 The constitution is taken in large part from English common law and before you say it, that's not taken from the bible either ... No, it's not.
As far as the sequences are concerned, the HIV genome is reported to have immense variations, while for all other RNA viruses, the variation is about 1%.
According to Peter Duesberg... "There is a range, in which you can mutate around without too much penalty, but as soon as you exceed it you are gone, and you are not HIV any longer, or a human any longer... then you are either dead or you are a monkey, or what have you."
all of which has nothing to do with the assay under discussion. You take cells with no active virus, you introduce the resurrected virus and badabingbadaboom you've got live viruses all over the place.
Of course what I say never has anything to do with what you say now does it? I'm just so illogical and unreasonable nothing makes ever sense. I know. But crazy people don't realize their crazy now do they? And if you argue with a crazy person who's really crazy?
I'll never fight for evolution to be out of the class room. It's good discussion scientifically that I can't argue. I think it's a good story for the history of science. It wastes lots of money though for those who want to prove origins of life because it will never prove where we came from. But it keeps us moving forward to the things we can try to accomplish.
I can accept that. Did you check out the AIG site i linked up regarding 2nd law. That page has a lot of very VERY debunked arguments. You seem like someone who doesn't want to come across as a fool, and i respect that. Peace out.
They claimed the detection of a DNA which was the result of reverse transcription of an RNA rich in adenine and concluded that the RNA was the HIV RNA and the DNA the HIV provirus.
To do so would be like conducting a paternity suit where the sample for DNA used for testing may not have even come from a man, any man at all, not to mention the defendant.
RNA rich in adenine is not specific to retroviruses. Any RNA can be reverse transcribed into DNA and reverse transcription is not specific to retroviruses.
I just had this discussion with a visitor and they kept bringing up bacteria also.... So I asked him why he thought bacteria are resistant. He said, "Because we introduced antibiotics." And I asked if that supported macroevolution. He said, "No that supports what you were saying about micro evolution." Then he brought up hybrids so....Anyways...
most scientists generally agree that they were likely the result of mutated transposons or plasmids, which are notoriously unstable segments of motile DNA capable of splicing into the genome of other cells.
And you next will argue that homologous DNA sequences such as ERV's shared between chimps and humans supports common ancestry, but this is somewhat of a circular argument isn't it? So....
There is no way of scientifically proving that heritable ERV's found in the chimp and human genome are in fact the result of failed retroviral insertions. In fact, the evidence seems to suggest just the opposite. LOL.
therefore very likely that retroviruses actually originated from these transposable elements, rather than the transposable elements associated with ERV's originating from the retroviruses. What this implies is that rather than ERV's being genetic "scars" that we can trace back through our hominid ancestry, they are merely shared segments of transposable elements that later gave rise to retroviruses. BLAH!
There is NO question that the ERVs were infectious viruses. LOL.
oh here's lenski
Lenski, R. E., 1995. Evolution in experimental populations of bacteria. In: Population Genetics of Bacteria, Society for General Microbiology, Symposium 52, S. Baumberg et al., eds., Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 193-215.
What did I say? If similarity implies common ancestry and common ancestry implies some genetic similarity, then this argument just begs the black tar out of your question doesn't it?
It is just as valid to claim that homologous DNA sequences are the result of a consistent, intelligent Creator.
you are hopeless. seriously. LTR's actually signal the transcription of mRNA from certain parts of DNA. Numerous other studies have shown that many ERV's previously regarded as being extraneous actually play important roles in gene expression.
There are flaws and I'll tell you why. The HIV genome has undergone a further resurrection by the development of tests which claim to quantify the HIV in plasma, that is the viral load. There are 3 main tests and they suffer from all the limitations. For example, in a study by French researchers they cultured 15 HIV-1 strains. Strain zero which is said to be the most diverse was not included. They tested samples of cell free fluid containing the same load of HIV as quantified by p24 measurements
Why do you dispute FACTS because they do not agree with evolution? It has EVERYTHING TO DO WITH IT. If we can't figure out strains though living humans then how do you suppose they know about a strain in monkey that doesn't even exist any longer. I showed you below the argument. What you've shown me is This is pop science nothing more.
"Their consensus sequence resulted in not only functional proteins, but in a retrovirus that was capable of creating new viral particles and integrating itself into a host cells genome."
What part of this are you having trouble understanding?
The current anti-HIV drugs are said to act by preventing fresh cycles of infection, that is by preventing the formation of new proviral DNA in previously uninfected cells, which in turn prevents the formation of new RNA within these cells and the production of new viral particles.
if you prevent RNA production you will die. RNA production is absolutly necessary for the production of proteins. The site you are reading from is a lie.
If the tests were true measurement of HIV RNA the results should have been the same for all strains in a given test and all tests for a specific strain. If this test measured the "viral load" accurately, every number to the right of the first column should be identical.
One would have to wonder if they can't test human strains how they could determine the strain stains of an extinct virus from evolved monkeys correctly.
The drugs that decrease the viral load, that is, RNA, should first decrease the proviral DNA, that is, the "viral burden". But what is found is that the viral load decreases to undetectable levels while there is no significant decrease in DNA. So either "HIV RNA" and "HIV DNA" or both are not HIV, or RT and protease inhibitors do not have anti-HIV effects. They only prohibit the measurement of RNA. If the former is the case then there can be no HIV genome and thus no anti-HIV drugs.
How reasonable is it to believe that evolution is a fact when even the simplest of experiments has not been able to document it?
DUH I'm an evolution dummy.........Look at me I speak in big words and think I'm rational and logical and everyone else is stupid and has no clue what they are saying and I can't show then up cause I'm a liar!
If evolution is the "grand mechanism" that has produced all natural things from a simple gas, surely it should be easily seen. It should be possible to prove its existence in a matter of weeks or days, if not hours. Yet scientists have been bombarding countless generations of fruit flies with radiation for several decades in order to show evolution in action and still have only produced What? More (deformed) fruit flies! YAY! AWESOME>
ERVs are lingering remnants of failed viral infection which occurred in an ancestor's sex cell and got propagated in its offspring. The viral insertion site is completely random and finding one in the same location in two individuals indicates they each had that same ancestor. humans and chimps share 98,000 ERVs locations in common. What other conclusion can one come to?
The presence of energy from the Sun does NOT solve the evolutionist's problem of how increasing order could occur on the Earth, contrary to the Second Law.
I got the science book out tonight as always. Who needs a bible to refute you? By the way how'd you learn how to type? Are you one of those typing monkeys they spoke so highly about? See I told you you'd be of some use. LOL
Endogenous retroviruses are viral DNA that is left in a genome. Sometimes when a virus inserts its DNA into a genome it fails to replicate and the viral DNA is stuck in the genome. Sometimes this happens in a germline cell thus all subsequent generations will have the viral DNA at the same insertion site. Humans and chimps have the same viral DNA at the same insertions sites in their genomes. This shows that humans and chimps share common ancestry.
yes it does. viruses end up in insertion sites randomly which means it would be impossible to get the same patterns in multiple species let alone in germ line cells and become established in the species genome.
the only way you can get them in common is to inherit them from a common ancestor.
We will have to back to RNA's. back to chemistry. RNA's also produce disease. Humans have ERV's. Monkey whatever kind HERV's. I bring this up for future readers. However, the the junk DNA argument cfails completely to take into account the possibility of the DNA in question actually has a desiged function.
Are you using LSD to clean your pant brushes? Are the fumes affecting you? We're not talking about junk DNA. We're not talking about disease. We ARE talking about inherited retroviral germline insertion failures that we share with chimps numerous identical locations (in spite of the very random nature of insertion location).
You need some help to overcome the fact that you are so upset about not being the first monkey in space. But there still is hope for you somewhere. They need you.
when she started with the 2nd law pile of crap i steered her to AiG's dont_use page. I hope she reads it. I hate pointing people to AIG but when their own side screams "It's CRAZY, DON'T USE IT." They need to hear it.
Anyway I felt the time was ripe for the slam dunk argument.
Srike #1 if a particular DNA sequence is found that appears to have no function, it makes sense under an "evolutionary interpretation" that the evidence of DNA will have no function, so it is very rare that further investigation will follow. Isn't that grand.... however...
a recent study demonstrated that certain DNA sequences called LINE-1 elements, formerly regarded as junk DNA, actually serve to repair broken strands of DNA. This DNA was previously thought to be the remnant of ancient DNA left in the human genome by evolution. It is curious to think what could have happened if someone had not questioned the original assumptions. I was getting to that earlier but you wanted to skip it. See why you can't? cont....
"if a particular DNA sequence is found that appears to have no function"
no they have function. they function as viruses. if you mean they have no function with the genome you are mostly right. most ERVs have no co-opted functions. some however have someo f their viral genes used like gag, pol or env. however whole ERVs are not used.
The Second Law says that free energy tends to be reduced through time. Let me point out that the availability of raw energy to a system is a necessary but far from a sufficient condition for a local decrease in entropy to occur. Certainly the application of a blow torch to bicycle part will not result in a bicycle being assembled only the careful application of directed energy will, such as from the hands of a person following a plan.
"the energy from the sun allows evolution to occur."
Your lack of realizing this law is temporary and does NOT support the long billion year process evolution claims made me pee my pants. I may disturb you but you make me laugh.
ok. now that it has been established that this had nothing to do with macro evolution, or evolution in general. can you now address the fact that your claim that macro evolution is incorrect unless you can provide a mechanism that prevents the accumulation of mutations?
yep that's what I said. But I'll get back to that because you are talking DNA and stuff and thats chemistry not biology. Chemistry needs to come first. We can go to DNA and RNA and work or way up not backwards.
You are either going to discuss before biology which is chemistry or end the conversation with me. I don't have the time. Chemistry comes first not biology. You need chemicals to make a biological mutation so it's only fair we talk biology.
ok, i will let you do this. i still dont see logically why this is needed to refute macro evolution. all you have to do is simply explain the mechanism.
Okay then you understand although two chemical molecules may appear to have the same elements and similar properties, they can still have different structures. And when the two molecules appear identical, their structures differ only by being mirror images of each other, so those molecules are said to have chirality.
If proteins and DNA were formed by chance, each and every one of the components would be a 50/50 mixture of the two optical isomers. This is not what we see in natural proteins or in natural DNA.
"each and every one of the components would be a 50/50 mixture of the two optical isomer"
this argument is relevant how?
oh and it is incorrect. i like the analogy from wiki
Enzymes, which are chiral, often distinguish between the two enantiomers of a chiral substrate. Imagine an enzyme as having a glove-like cavity that binds a substrate. If this glove is right-handed, then one enantiomer will fit inside and be bound, whereas the other enantiomer will have a poor fit and is unlikely to bind.
excuses excuses. the point still remains. your claim of there being a 50/50 mixture occuring in DNA and proteins is inccorrect. for the organisms to function they would use one or the other.
"It's refuting the single cell evolution theory"
no, its a poor argument against abiogenesis. you switched it to abiogenesis because you are incapable of giving a mechanism to prevent macro evolution.
"if evolution cannot provide a mechanism that forms one product with chirality"
it can. use one kind or you will die. that is called a selective pressure and give evolution a way to choose kind of protein and not have a 50/50 mix.
"It has EVERYTHING to do with macro evolution!"
no it doesnt. it has nothing to do with the accumulation of mutations in populations. at most you would have exposed a problem with a hypothesis of abiogenesis. a different subject.
"Not much difference is there when our biology tells us different?"
i just explained it. if any life form tried using both it would likely not function very well. therefore there is a selective pressure for using just one, therefore a way for one chirality to occur naturally on its own in biology.
If evolution cannot provide a mechanism that forms one product with chirality, how do you expect it to explain the formation of two products of opposite chirality?
YOU want to skip the fact altogether the big bang and go right to the first cell. Noway. No free ticket. Tell me how RNA evolved into DNA please I'm all ears (eyes)
"Tell me how RNA evolved into DNA please I'm all ears"
you are a moron.
this is the subject of abiogenesis. even if you could refute it evolution would still stand.
lets say god created DNA RNA and the first living organism.
all the evidence still confirms that life evolved. for example there is no mechanism that prevents mutations accumulating indefinitely causing macro evolution.
Well,according to evolution natural processes must explain everything over long periods of time. The process that forms chirality cannot be explained by natural science in any amount of time. And you claimed not I that the lack of chirality in evolution was abiogenesis.
So explain it to me if you must how without chirality, proteins and enzymes could do their job with DNA without properly functioning proteins and DNA, and how life could exist on this earth.
"So explain it to me if you must how without chirality, proteins and enzymes could do their job with DNA without properly functioning proteins and DNA"
your sentences are incoherent.
any organism that uses both will be less fit than those that use one kind or the other. they would die while the others would function just fine.
You told me you knew what chirality was. There is evidence for it and in fact without it there would not be life of any kind. So... you lied and you wasted my time.
"There is evidence for it and in fact without it there would not be life of any kind"
you asked why there was not a mixture of 50/50 of it DNA and proteins. you wanted to know why there was homochirality. i explained it.
"you lied and you wasted my time."
no. you are stupid and can not comprehend that this was irrelevant and did nothing to refute macro evolution. it was an attempt to change the subject and hide your own incompetence.
"you asked why there was not a mixture of 50/50 of it DNA and proteins. you wanted to know why there was homochirality. i explained it." I didn't asked I said becasue you said you knew what chirality was I stated
the fact that chirality was missing in those amino acids it points to a catastrophic failure that "life" cannot come from chemicals by natural processes. So there is no need to go into macro evolution. You do not have a life form to create from that point forth.
I knew the "meteor" claim was coming next. Ya know I spent 4 hours the other day with someone just like you who claimed they knew what PNA's were. They even claimed they were having computer problems and eluded my questions Then said they thought PNA's were something different and had to do research. RNaS cannot survive radiation, heat, or light or on their own.
Actually scientist need to be careful even with medication not to destroy RNA. So do so more research. Because unto this day, there is no known process that has ever converted amino acids into a life form.
For now I have some painting to do. And I don't mind taking the time to discuss these things I just don't like when people want to skip steps or think they know what they are refuting and call me dumb, stupid when they are the ones who don't know what they are talking about or pretend they do.
"RNaS cannot survive radiation, heat, or light or on their own. "
that's actually one of the things that helps the RNA world scenario kick start life. If joined RNA chains weren't volatile the the first chains made would be it. As it is they get to keep breaking up and retrying until some version that's a replicator happens along. Building up length at night then breaking into chunks during the day. It's a perfect recipe for Spiegelman's monster.
I don't know what you mean by "almost life" or targeting or what degradation you are referring to. Translation of RNA into proteins comes later, but wrapping around and amino acid could certainly help to radiation harden an RNA sequence and make it more robust(an evolutionary advantage). Plausible paths exist for transitioning to the tool holders with handles(tRNA) and from there to protein manufacture.
we've already explained how chiral preference can be implemented in a racemic mixture. crystals which would have mirror image surfaces can have one side buried or embedded in rock IOW unexposed IOW unavailable to catalyze BOTH reaction IOW only one chiral reaction type takes place in spite of both L&R versions of the molecules being present.
um yeah, we're talking about a nucleic acid linker. period. if you want to call nucleic acids inorganic you'll want to redefine everything i suppose. I'm saying you can produce a single chiral version of SM via this method. We're not yet talking about cells. We're not yet talking about proteins. We're talking about a 48+nt RNA chain that can self replicate under various catalytic substrates. We're talking about breaking down in open water conditions.
Yes I understand however they are using individual monomers which have been genetically coded with nucleic acid libraries which are genetically encoded(i.e. they carry the information for their own enzymatic replication). Not the same as I have been talking about. And despite numerous attempts, this approach has produced few new catalysts.
of course not. You are talking about straw men and red herrings which you propose are obstacles to abiogenesis. Neglecting plausible paths does nothing to prove your case. You need to disprove the plausible paths. Then you will have made your case.
Much like Urey-Millers experiment merely showed a path to natural formation of amino acid, it wasn't the only path and it wasn't presented as exclusive nor as "life from scratch" if you ignore that...
if you ignore that these processes would be taking place in an extremely varied and complex and dynamic environment, then you would do an injustice to the rigor of your rebuttal.
hey that's what I'm sticking to. You two are taking a complete structure which screams complexity and are making it chaotic by adding inorganic materials like they came to life!
I'm not expecting you to have a clue about abiogenesis. In fact I've really only been responding to you for the benefit of anyone else who happens upon this discussion. I thought it rather amusing the you let jt's offer of allowing god to make the first cell slip right by without even blinking, but hey whatever floats your boat. I'd really like to see you address his questions given tha he's been generous in your direction. Fair's fair right?
damianpoirier : Evolution says that unicellular organisms came from non-living matter such as gasses and other atoms/molecules. Basic biology classes teach people this and it's an obvious fact. This has been proven to never have happened.
"nice word salad. good night "
Seems you know lots about "salad" especially tossing them. G'night.
"Evolution says that unicellular organisms came from non-living matter"
no it did not. that subject is called abiogenesis and is not evolution. that means if you were to prove abiogenesis incorrect you have not refuted evo theory.
Every college level course on evolution will address abiogenesis at length, as will any evolutionary biology textbook. Most dedicate an ENTIRE CHAPTER to the origin of life. Abiogenesis is a theory that attempts to explain the origin of life through random natural processes, and is taught as a regular component of evolutionary biology. There IS NO difference.
There is no argument here. Despite the absence of proof, abiogenesis has become accepted by nearly all practicing scientists. The theory still remains virtually unchanged since its inception in the 1920s, and assumes that life originated at some point in earth's past under conditions no longer present. Do NOT DENY that he tenet of evolution can be summed-up by the phrase "abiogenesis at first biogenesis ever since".
It is taught today as a certainty although the exact mechanisms remain theoretical. Discussions in evolutionary biology textbooks go to great lengths to demonstrate how abiogenesis could have occurred under multiple primordial scenarios. So no I am not saying something that is NOT already known or disturbing to the knowledge we know, well people who don't believe in evolution anyway. ;0)
One thing leads to the other IF it's related. Your talking about unrelated studies. Blood from a stone. That's the un-plausible path here. abiogenesis you bring it into play here. don't twist the facts.
There are 500 characters available to use. Please try to maximize your use of them. It will make your feeble attempts to communicate a touch easier on the brain.
I can't help your brain works a certain way and I again am responding to two different people. If I respond to you you will see it in your inbox. Is that easy enough for you? It's just a concept and I've been doing that this WHOLE discussion.
I have kept up with this conversation while multi tasking. so... I'm done for now. You are me accusing of things I didn't bring up. I asked you questions & the "Rational Response Team" didn't or couldn't answer in clear relation. It's a waste of time. I can't even use
He's from Houston? He doesn't have a southern accent.
jityr2 3 months ago
Your founding fathers did not mention GOD because of expounding french revolt by mindless people like you. But almost everything your founding fathers have in constituion is copied from BIBLE
jnemuri1 2 years ago
That's bullshit. Have you ever heard of Jefferson's bible? The founding fathers were no fan of religion at all. Nowhere in the Constitution is there any mention of a god (let alone a christian one). God is only mentioned once in the Bill of Rights and that is to restrict religion. Religion is only a big deal now because it has been politicized for the purpose of vote winning. Religion is a disease. Take your bible and stick it up your ass.
Redbaron011 2 years ago
@Redbaron011 Please stop calling it the "Jefferson Bible". "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth" is the proper title. Jefferson of course meant to remove all religious leanings from what he thought were some of the reasonable teachings of Jesus ... but you already knew that. It's proper title makes this clear.
MrMZaccone 10 months ago
@jnemuri1 That's the biggest bunch of horseshit I've ever heard.
MrMZaccone 10 months ago
@jnemuri1 The constitution is taken in large part from English common law and before you say it, that's not taken from the bible either ... No, it's not.
MrMZaccone 10 months ago
To claim that a stretch of RNA is the genome of a retrovirus it is absolutely necessary but not sufficient to prove
The existence of a unique molecular entity and the molecular entity originates from a retroviral particle.
dadealeo88 3 years ago
and why "not sufficient"?
damianpoirier 3 years ago
As far as the sequences are concerned, the HIV genome is reported to have immense variations, while for all other RNA viruses, the variation is about 1%.
According to Peter Duesberg... "There is a range, in which you can mutate around without too much penalty, but as soon as you exceed it you are gone, and you are not HIV any longer, or a human any longer... then you are either dead or you are a monkey, or what have you."
dadealeo88 3 years ago
all of which has nothing to do with the assay under discussion. You take cells with no active virus, you introduce the resurrected virus and badabingbadaboom you've got live viruses all over the place.
You are being quite stubborn. but not very smart.
damianpoirier 3 years ago
Of course what I say never has anything to do with what you say now does it? I'm just so illogical and unreasonable nothing makes ever sense. I know. But crazy people don't realize their crazy now do they? And if you argue with a crazy person who's really crazy?
dadealeo88 3 years ago
"ever sense"
see make make sense to some. who knows any more.
dadealeo88 3 years ago
I'll never fight for evolution to be out of the class room. It's good discussion scientifically that I can't argue. I think it's a good story for the history of science. It wastes lots of money though for those who want to prove origins of life because it will never prove where we came from. But it keeps us moving forward to the things we can try to accomplish.
dadealeo88 3 years ago
I can accept that. Did you check out the AIG site i linked up regarding 2nd law. That page has a lot of very VERY debunked arguments. You seem like someone who doesn't want to come across as a fool, and i respect that. Peace out.
damianpoirier 3 years ago
They claimed the detection of a DNA which was the result of reverse transcription of an RNA rich in adenine and concluded that the RNA was the HIV RNA and the DNA the HIV provirus.
Now remember this is in humans only!
dadealeo88 3 years ago
To do so would be like conducting a paternity suit where the sample for DNA used for testing may not have even come from a man, any man at all, not to mention the defendant.
RNA rich in adenine is not specific to retroviruses. Any RNA can be reverse transcribed into DNA and reverse transcription is not specific to retroviruses.
dadealeo88 3 years ago
I just had this discussion with a visitor and they kept bringing up bacteria also.... So I asked him why he thought bacteria are resistant. He said, "Because we introduced antibiotics." And I asked if that supported macroevolution. He said, "No that supports what you were saying about micro evolution." Then he brought up hybrids so....Anyways...
dadealeo88 3 years ago
most scientists generally agree that they were likely the result of mutated transposons or plasmids, which are notoriously unstable segments of motile DNA capable of splicing into the genome of other cells.
dadealeo88 3 years ago
which doesn't begin to touch on explaining their identical placement in concert with phylogenetic order.
damianpoirier 3 years ago
And you next will argue that homologous DNA sequences such as ERV's shared between chimps and humans supports common ancestry, but this is somewhat of a circular argument isn't it? So....
dadealeo88 3 years ago
There is no way of scientifically proving that heritable ERV's found in the chimp and human genome are in fact the result of failed retroviral insertions. In fact, the evidence seems to suggest just the opposite. LOL.
The suspense..... Oh the suspense.
dadealeo88 3 years ago
google ancient retrovirus resurrected.
There is NO question that the ERVs were infectious viruses. LOL.
damianpoirier 3 years ago
therefore very likely that retroviruses actually originated from these transposable elements, rather than the transposable elements associated with ERV's originating from the retroviruses. What this implies is that rather than ERV's being genetic "scars" that we can trace back through our hominid ancestry, they are merely shared segments of transposable elements that later gave rise to retroviruses. BLAH!
dadealeo88 3 years ago
google ancient retrovirus resurrected.
There is NO question that the ERVs were infectious viruses. LOL.
oh here's lenski
Lenski, R. E., 1995. Evolution in experimental populations of bacteria. In: Population Genetics of Bacteria, Society for General Microbiology, Symposium 52, S. Baumberg et al., eds., Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 193-215.
damianpoirier 3 years ago
What did I say? If similarity implies common ancestry and common ancestry implies some genetic similarity, then this argument just begs the black tar out of your question doesn't it?
It is just as valid to claim that homologous DNA sequences are the result of a consistent, intelligent Creator.
dadealeo88 3 years ago
you are hopeless. seriously. LTR's actually signal the transcription of mRNA from certain parts of DNA. Numerous other studies have shown that many ERV's previously regarded as being extraneous actually play important roles in gene expression.
dadealeo88 3 years ago
"many ERV's previously regarded as being extraneous actually play important roles in gene expression."
This is known. ERV's co-opted by the host genome are evidence of NEW INFORMATION evolved and useful. TYVM. :-)
google ancient retrovirus resurrected
damianpoirier 3 years ago
"google ancient retrovirus resurrected"
Okay I'm looking....
dadealeo88 3 years ago
There are flaws and I'll tell you why. The HIV genome has undergone a further resurrection by the development of tests which claim to quantify the HIV in plasma, that is the viral load. There are 3 main tests and they suffer from all the limitations. For example, in a study by French researchers they cultured 15 HIV-1 strains. Strain zero which is said to be the most diverse was not included. They tested samples of cell free fluid containing the same load of HIV as quantified by p24 measurements
dadealeo88 3 years ago
all of which has squat to do with the subject at hand.
damianpoirier 3 years ago
Why do you dispute FACTS because they do not agree with evolution? It has EVERYTHING TO DO WITH IT. If we can't figure out strains though living humans then how do you suppose they know about a strain in monkey that doesn't even exist any longer. I showed you below the argument. What you've shown me is This is pop science nothing more.
dadealeo88 3 years ago
"Their consensus sequence resulted in not only functional proteins, but in a retrovirus that was capable of creating new viral particles and integrating itself into a host cells genome."
What part of this are you having trouble understanding?
damianpoirier 3 years ago
Don't you apply what is known to what is newly known or do you just apply what you want to apply to support what you believe? Come on~!
dadealeo88 3 years ago
Your dispute seems to be incredulity that the reconstructed ERVs can be detected. You need to take your dispute to the authors of the paper.
Public Library of Science Pathogens 3(1): e10 (January 26, 2007)
damianpoirier 3 years ago
The current anti-HIV drugs are said to act by preventing fresh cycles of infection, that is by preventing the formation of new proviral DNA in previously uninfected cells, which in turn prevents the formation of new RNA within these cells and the production of new viral particles.
dadealeo88 3 years ago
if you prevent RNA production you will die. RNA production is absolutly necessary for the production of proteins. The site you are reading from is a lie.
damianpoirier 3 years ago
No this is what is known about HIV.
dadealeo88 3 years ago
the supressions which occur in antiviral drugs which occur in medications for antibodies that attack the immune system. It is not a lie.
dadealeo88 3 years ago
antibodies are not RNA. You are still off base and unreal.
damianpoirier 3 years ago
You are confusing what I am saying. I'm not repeating myself.
dadealeo88 3 years ago
If you prevent diseased RNA you will not die.
dadealeo88 3 years ago
If the tests were true measurement of HIV RNA the results should have been the same for all strains in a given test and all tests for a specific strain. If this test measured the "viral load" accurately, every number to the right of the first column should be identical.
One would have to wonder if they can't test human strains how they could determine the strain stains of an extinct virus from evolved monkeys correctly.
dadealeo88 3 years ago
um, i don't know which columns you are referring to. Did you click the first link in the google search?
damianpoirier 3 years ago
The drugs that decrease the viral load, that is, RNA, should first decrease the proviral DNA, that is, the "viral burden". But what is found is that the viral load decreases to undetectable levels while there is no significant decrease in DNA. So either "HIV RNA" and "HIV DNA" or both are not HIV, or RT and protease inhibitors do not have anti-HIV effects. They only prohibit the measurement of RNA. If the former is the case then there can be no HIV genome and thus no anti-HIV drugs.
dadealeo88 3 years ago
So back to EVR"s
dadealeo88 3 years ago
sorry I was learning about the dirty dirty sanchez, rusty trombone, and the bumkin and something about shrimp. LOL
dadealeo88 3 years ago
pretty gross stuff.
dadealeo88 3 years ago
DNA has also been found to be an important function to the sequence's of vertebrate development. (side note)
....door hang on....
dadealeo88 3 years ago
How reasonable is it to believe that evolution is a fact when even the simplest of experiments has not been able to document it?
DUH I'm an evolution dummy.........Look at me I speak in big words and think I'm rational and logical and everyone else is stupid and has no clue what they are saying and I can't show then up cause I'm a liar!
dadealeo88 3 years ago
If evolution is the "grand mechanism" that has produced all natural things from a simple gas, surely it should be easily seen. It should be possible to prove its existence in a matter of weeks or days, if not hours. Yet scientists have been bombarding countless generations of fruit flies with radiation for several decades in order to show evolution in action and still have only produced What? More (deformed) fruit flies! YAY! AWESOME>
dadealeo88 3 years ago
ERVs are lingering remnants of failed viral infection which occurred in an ancestor's sex cell and got propagated in its offspring. The viral insertion site is completely random and finding one in the same location in two individuals indicates they each had that same ancestor. humans and chimps share 98,000 ERVs locations in common. What other conclusion can one come to?
Google lenski citrus Long term ecoli experiment
damianpoirier 3 years ago
ERVS now how can they support evolution? You should keep more current on your science.
dadealeo88 3 years ago
"ERVS now how can they support evolution?"
they confirm the relatedness of species.
you cant get ERVs in common without common ancestry.
jtyranus 3 years ago
The presence of energy from the Sun does NOT solve the evolutionist's problem of how increasing order could occur on the Earth, contrary to the Second Law.
dadealeo88 3 years ago
Take a hike with yer CSE/AiG/IdD/creationist-crap, bible-clown.
Say hi to the talking snake for me, clown.
sonykroket 3 years ago
OH there you are sony. Best you stop talking in the mirror pooh flinging - flea picker.
dadealeo88 3 years ago
You're an idiot, worshipping one.
Your nonsense has been refuted 100's of times yet you act like nothing happened.
Typical creationist-tactics.
sonykroket 3 years ago
here's a banana now calm down boy.....
dadealeo88 3 years ago
Please take that toiletpaper/comicbook/bible and shove it up your ass, you sorry excuse for a god-defender.
You;re a reli-joke.
sonykroket 3 years ago
I got the science book out tonight as always. Who needs a bible to refute you? By the way how'd you learn how to type? Are you one of those typing monkeys they spoke so highly about? See I told you you'd be of some use. LOL
Santa says hi!
dadealeo88 3 years ago
Endogenous retroviruses are viral DNA that is left in a genome. Sometimes when a virus inserts its DNA into a genome it fails to replicate and the viral DNA is stuck in the genome. Sometimes this happens in a germline cell thus all subsequent generations will have the viral DNA at the same insertion site. Humans and chimps have the same viral DNA at the same insertions sites in their genomes. This shows that humans and chimps share common ancestry.
jtyranus 3 years ago
This shows that humans and chimps share common ancestry. no it doesn't. Try again.
dadealeo88 3 years ago
"no it doesn't."
so you allege. unfortunately the fact that virus end up randomly in the genome but are non randomly inherited means they will mark descent.
that means if you share a pattern of ERVs in common with chimps then you shared a common ancestor.
jtyranus 3 years ago
This claim is very much akin to the vestigial organs argument.
dadealeo88 3 years ago
"This claim is very much akin to the vestigial organs argument."
it is different. but if you feel you can refute the ERVs then feel free to.
jtyranus 3 years ago
Okay give me a few mins. I have to clean a paint brush...
dadealeo88 3 years ago
no, vestigial organs argument would be our vitamin C connection with other apes.
damianpoirier 3 years ago
Getting there one thing at a time and yes they are connected. Chemistry not biology.... again
dadealeo88 3 years ago
"that means if you share a pattern of ERVs in common with chimps then you shared a common ancestor. "
No it doesn't
dadealeo88 3 years ago
"No it doesn't"
yes it does. viruses end up in insertion sites randomly which means it would be impossible to get the same patterns in multiple species let alone in germ line cells and become established in the species genome.
the only way you can get them in common is to inherit them from a common ancestor.
jtyranus 3 years ago
We will have to back to RNA's. back to chemistry. RNA's also produce disease. Humans have ERV's. Monkey whatever kind HERV's. I bring this up for future readers. However, the the junk DNA argument cfails completely to take into account the possibility of the DNA in question actually has a desiged function.
dadealeo88 3 years ago
Are you using LSD to clean your pant brushes? Are the fumes affecting you? We're not talking about junk DNA. We're not talking about disease. We ARE talking about inherited retroviral germline insertion failures that we share with chimps numerous identical locations (in spite of the very random nature of insertion location).
You will fail to refute this in 5 4 3 2 1
damianpoirier 3 years ago
You want to jump OVER things how about taking one think at a t time and hang ON!
dadealeo88 3 years ago
You need some help to overcome the fact that you are so upset about not being the first monkey in space. But there still is hope for you somewhere. They need you.
dadealeo88 3 years ago
a snowflake is increase of order. the sorting of pebbles on a beach is increase of order. WAKE THE FREAK UP.
damianpoirier 3 years ago
now you are talking snowflakes and sand? You want to talk salt too?
dadealeo88 3 years ago
salt? You haven't figured out SLoT yet. Stay on track.
damianpoirier 3 years ago
so did you just spring the ERVs on her or is this something thats been going on for a while?
jtyranus 3 years ago
when she started with the 2nd law pile of crap i steered her to AiG's dont_use page. I hope she reads it. I hate pointing people to AIG but when their own side screams "It's CRAZY, DON'T USE IT." They need to hear it.
Anyway I felt the time was ripe for the slam dunk argument.
damianpoirier 3 years ago
Srike #1 if a particular DNA sequence is found that appears to have no function, it makes sense under an "evolutionary interpretation" that the evidence of DNA will have no function, so it is very rare that further investigation will follow. Isn't that grand.... however...
dadealeo88 3 years ago
a recent study demonstrated that certain DNA sequences called LINE-1 elements, formerly regarded as junk DNA, actually serve to repair broken strands of DNA. This DNA was previously thought to be the remnant of ancient DNA left in the human genome by evolution. It is curious to think what could have happened if someone had not questioned the original assumptions. I was getting to that earlier but you wanted to skip it. See why you can't? cont....
dadealeo88 3 years ago
"called LINE-1 elements"
which replicate on their own within the genome or form from the recombinational deletions of ERVs if i recall correctly. those however are not ERVs.
also it does nothing to address the points of the ERVs.
jtyranus 3 years ago
red herring #1 we're not talking about junk DNA
damianpoirier 3 years ago
"red herring #1 we're not talking about junk DNA" the "ripple effect"
that's your demise and you are impatient.
dadealeo88 3 years ago
"if a particular DNA sequence is found that appears to have no function"
no they have function. they function as viruses. if you mean they have no function with the genome you are mostly right. most ERVs have no co-opted functions. some however have someo f their viral genes used like gag, pol or env. however whole ERVs are not used.
jtyranus 3 years ago
The Second Law says that free energy tends to be reduced through time. Let me point out that the availability of raw energy to a system is a necessary but far from a sufficient condition for a local decrease in entropy to occur. Certainly the application of a blow torch to bicycle part will not result in a bicycle being assembled only the careful application of directed energy will, such as from the hands of a person following a plan.
dadealeo88 3 years ago
anyone wanting to use 2nd law of thermodynamics to refute evolution ought to take a peek here...
htt p://w ww . answersingenesis . org/home/area/faq/dont_use . asp
damianpoirier 3 years ago
"Evolution denies this law."
i find your lack of intelligence disturbing.
"the energy from the sun allows evolution to occur."
Your lack of realizing this law is temporary and does NOT support the long billion year process evolution claims made me pee my pants. I may disturb you but you make me laugh.
dadealeo88 3 years ago
You are flat out denying it. Evolutions wants its cake and to eat it to. And you know darn well RNA DNA and proteins CAN NOT exist alone.
dadealeo88 3 years ago
"And you know darn well RNA DNA and proteins CAN NOT exist alone. "
you haven't met Spiegelman's Monster?
damianpoirier 3 years ago
Oh please
dadealeo88 3 years ago
"I'm not done yet."
yes you are. your points are irrelevant and do nothing to address the question I asked FIRST.
jtyranus 3 years ago
ok. now that it has been established that this had nothing to do with macro evolution, or evolution in general. can you now address the fact that your claim that macro evolution is incorrect unless you can provide a mechanism that prevents the accumulation of mutations?
jtyranus 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I'm not done yet. You can start by answering those questions.
dadealeo88 3 years ago
lets put aside biology for a minute. Let's look at chemistry. I like chemistry.
dadealeo88 3 years ago
ok, chemistry. What have you got?
damianpoirier 3 years ago
"Let's look at chemistry. I like chemistry."
lets deal with the claims already put out there first.
your claims on macro evolution for example? do you admit you were incorrect and had no basis to state that macro evolution can not occur?
jtyranus 3 years ago
macro evolution can not occur
yep that's what I said. But I'll get back to that because you are talking DNA and stuff and thats chemistry not biology. Chemistry needs to come first. We can go to DNA and RNA and work or way up not backwards.
dadealeo88 3 years ago
"macro evolution can not occur"
so far that has been a baseless assertion.
"DNA and stuff and thats chemistry not biology."
this seems to be nothing but an evasion. you should just admit that you dont have a mechanism that prevents macro evolution.
jtyranus 3 years ago
You are either going to discuss before biology which is chemistry or end the conversation with me. I don't have the time. Chemistry comes first not biology. You need chemicals to make a biological mutation so it's only fair we talk biology.
dadealeo88 3 years ago
after chemistry. DNA and RNA anyone.... You brought it up
dadealeo88 3 years ago
"Chemistry comes first not biology"
ok, i will let you do this. i still dont see logically why this is needed to refute macro evolution. all you have to do is simply explain the mechanism.
jtyranus 3 years ago
are you familiar with Chirality?
dadealeo88 3 years ago
"are you familiar with Chirality?"
yes.
jtyranus 3 years ago
Okay then you understand although two chemical molecules may appear to have the same elements and similar properties, they can still have different structures. And when the two molecules appear identical, their structures differ only by being mirror images of each other, so those molecules are said to have chirality.
dadealeo88 3 years ago
"Okay then you understand"
yes i understand. i too am fond of chemistry.
jtyranus 3 years ago
Then I can save time by saying
If proteins and DNA were formed by chance, each and every one of the components would be a 50/50 mixture of the two optical isomers. This is not what we see in natural proteins or in natural DNA.
dadealeo88 3 years ago
"each and every one of the components would be a 50/50 mixture of the two optical isomer"
this argument is relevant how?
oh and it is incorrect. i like the analogy from wiki
Enzymes, which are chiral, often distinguish between the two enantiomers of a chiral substrate. Imagine an enzyme as having a glove-like cavity that binds a substrate. If this glove is right-handed, then one enantiomer will fit inside and be bound, whereas the other enantiomer will have a poor fit and is unlikely to bind.
jtyranus 3 years ago
analogy from wiki
humm I don't read wiki atheists do and anyone can sign in and write whatever they want.
dadealeo88 3 years ago
"humm I don't read wiki atheists"
excuses excuses. the point still remains. your claim of there being a 50/50 mixture occuring in DNA and proteins is inccorrect. for the organisms to function they would use one or the other.
"It's refuting the single cell evolution theory"
no, its a poor argument against abiogenesis. you switched it to abiogenesis because you are incapable of giving a mechanism to prevent macro evolution.
jtyranus 3 years ago
"if evolution cannot provide a mechanism that forms one product with chirality"
it can. use one kind or you will die. that is called a selective pressure and give evolution a way to choose kind of protein and not have a 50/50 mix.
"It has EVERYTHING to do with macro evolution!"
no it doesnt. it has nothing to do with the accumulation of mutations in populations. at most you would have exposed a problem with a hypothesis of abiogenesis. a different subject.
jtyranus 3 years ago
No that is not what I said. abiogenesis is exactly what macro evolutions claims are is it not? Don't deny it.
dadealeo88 3 years ago
"abiogenesis is exactly what macro evolutions claims are is it not?"
that was incoherent. but i assume you are trying to say abiogenesis is macro evolution.
and my reply is: NO! these are two different phenomena. hence the different names.
jtyranus 3 years ago
They apparently explain how a cell came from an chance. Not much difference is there when our biology tells us different?
dadealeo88 3 years ago
"Not much difference is there when our biology tells us different?"
i just explained it. if any life form tried using both it would likely not function very well. therefore there is a selective pressure for using just one, therefore a way for one chirality to occur naturally on its own in biology.
jtyranus 3 years ago
Don't elude the questions!
If evolution cannot provide a mechanism that forms one product with chirality, how do you expect it to explain the formation of two products of opposite chirality?
dadealeo88 3 years ago
"If evolution cannot provide a mechanism that forms one product with chirality"
did you miss my post?
damianpoirier 3 years ago
"..how do you expect it to explain the formation of two products of opposite chirality?"
HUH?
damianpoirier 3 years ago
"did you miss my post?"
she is not very smart is she?
for some reason she believed that this would somehow explain away macro evolution.
jtyranus 3 years ago
YOU want to skip the fact altogether the big bang and go right to the first cell. Noway. No free ticket. Tell me how RNA evolved into DNA please I'm all ears (eyes)
dadealeo88 3 years ago
"Tell me how RNA evolved into DNA please I'm all ears"
you are a moron.
this is the subject of abiogenesis. even if you could refute it evolution would still stand.
lets say god created DNA RNA and the first living organism.
all the evidence still confirms that life evolved. for example there is no mechanism that prevents mutations accumulating indefinitely causing macro evolution.
jtyranus 3 years ago
Well,according to evolution natural processes must explain everything over long periods of time. The process that forms chirality cannot be explained by natural science in any amount of time. And you claimed not I that the lack of chirality in evolution was abiogenesis.
dadealeo88 3 years ago
"And you claimed not I that the lack of chirality in evolution was abiogenesis."
it has been explained. now lets move on.
jtyranus 3 years ago
Can macro evolution explain it?
dadealeo88 3 years ago
"Can macro evolution explain it?"
sorry, you already used up all your questions with your irrelevant tangent on chirality.
i asked a question first. what is the mechanism that prevents macro evolution from occurring?
jtyranus 3 years ago
So explain it to me if you must how without chirality, proteins and enzymes could do their job with DNA without properly functioning proteins and DNA, and how life could exist on this earth.
dadealeo88 3 years ago
"So explain it to me if you must how without chirality, proteins and enzymes could do their job with DNA without properly functioning proteins and DNA"
your sentences are incoherent.
any organism that uses both will be less fit than those that use one kind or the other. they would die while the others would function just fine.
jtyranus 3 years ago
You told me you knew what chirality was. There is evidence for it and in fact without it there would not be life of any kind. So... you lied and you wasted my time.
dadealeo88 3 years ago
"There is evidence for it and in fact without it there would not be life of any kind"
you asked why there was not a mixture of 50/50 of it DNA and proteins. you wanted to know why there was homochirality. i explained it.
"you lied and you wasted my time."
no. you are stupid and can not comprehend that this was irrelevant and did nothing to refute macro evolution. it was an attempt to change the subject and hide your own incompetence.
jtyranus 3 years ago
We didn't discuss amino acids, but we're going to get there aren't we?
dadealeo88 3 years ago
"We didn't discuss amino acids, but we're going to get there aren't we?"
we have moved passed this subject.
No on to the macro evolution question which you seem so desperate to avoid.
What is the mechanism that prevents macro evolution. if you can not present one then you have no basis to claim it can not happen.
jtyranus 3 years ago
You don't have life. There is/are no cell(s)so why discuss macro evolution? The earth is baren from that point forth!
dadealeo88 3 years ago
"There is/are no cell(s)so why discuss macro evolution?"
your inability to distinguish chronological relevance and actual functional relevance is rather frustrating.
fine god decided there should be one kind of chirality in the amino acids.
life still evolved and you cant deny that.
jtyranus 3 years ago
"you asked why there was not a mixture of 50/50 of it DNA and proteins. you wanted to know why there was homochirality. i explained it." I didn't asked I said becasue you said you knew what chirality was I stated
the fact that chirality was missing in those amino acids it points to a catastrophic failure that "life" cannot come from chemicals by natural processes. So there is no need to go into macro evolution. You do not have a life form to create from that point forth.
dadealeo88 3 years ago
"that "life" cannot come from chemicals by natural processes."
abiogenesis. not relevant to evolution.
"the fact that chirality was missing in those amino acids"
meteors and other sources of amino acids show a asymmetry. it was likely that one kind of amino acid simply outnumbered the other.
jtyranus 3 years ago
I knew the "meteor" claim was coming next. Ya know I spent 4 hours the other day with someone just like you who claimed they knew what PNA's were. They even claimed they were having computer problems and eluded my questions Then said they thought PNA's were something different and had to do research. RNaS cannot survive radiation, heat, or light or on their own.
dadealeo88 3 years ago
Actually scientist need to be careful even with medication not to destroy RNA. So do so more research. Because unto this day, there is no known process that has ever converted amino acids into a life form.
dadealeo88 3 years ago
For now I have some painting to do. And I don't mind taking the time to discuss these things I just don't like when people want to skip steps or think they know what they are refuting and call me dumb, stupid when they are the ones who don't know what they are talking about or pretend they do.
dadealeo88 3 years ago
"RNaS cannot survive radiation, heat, or light or on their own. "
that's actually one of the things that helps the RNA world scenario kick start life. If joined RNA chains weren't volatile the the first chains made would be it. As it is they get to keep breaking up and retrying until some version that's a replicator happens along. Building up length at night then breaking into chunks during the day. It's a perfect recipe for Spiegelman's monster.
damianpoirier 3 years ago
Spiegelman's monster is noted as "almost life" almost doesn't count. Not quite "perfect"
There is no targeting, degradation, and translation of RNAs into proteins.
dadealeo88 3 years ago
I don't know what you mean by "almost life" or targeting or what degradation you are referring to. Translation of RNA into proteins comes later, but wrapping around and amino acid could certainly help to radiation harden an RNA sequence and make it more robust(an evolutionary advantage). Plausible paths exist for transitioning to the tool holders with handles(tRNA) and from there to protein manufacture.
damianpoirier 3 years ago
It's been tried and all that resulted was amino acids and apparently that's how you and evolution scientists "prove" macro evolution.
dadealeo88 3 years ago
we've already explained how chiral preference can be implemented in a racemic mixture. crystals which would have mirror image surfaces can have one side buried or embedded in rock IOW unexposed IOW unavailable to catalyze BOTH reaction IOW only one chiral reaction type takes place in spite of both L&R versions of the molecules being present.
damianpoirier 3 years ago
That's a rock and inorganic carriers. they don't get broken down once inside a living cell.
dadealeo88 3 years ago
"That's a rock and inorganic carriers."
um yeah, we're talking about a nucleic acid linker. period. if you want to call nucleic acids inorganic you'll want to redefine everything i suppose. I'm saying you can produce a single chiral version of SM via this method. We're not yet talking about cells. We're not yet talking about proteins. We're talking about a 48+nt RNA chain that can self replicate under various catalytic substrates. We're talking about breaking down in open water conditions.
damianpoirier 3 years ago
Yes I understand however they are using individual monomers which have been genetically coded with nucleic acid libraries which are genetically encoded(i.e. they carry the information for their own enzymatic replication). Not the same as I have been talking about. And despite numerous attempts, this approach has produced few new catalysts.
dadealeo88 3 years ago
"Not the same as I have been talking about. "
of course not. You are talking about straw men and red herrings which you propose are obstacles to abiogenesis. Neglecting plausible paths does nothing to prove your case. You need to disprove the plausible paths. Then you will have made your case.
Much like Urey-Millers experiment merely showed a path to natural formation of amino acid, it wasn't the only path and it wasn't presented as exclusive nor as "life from scratch" if you ignore that...
damianpoirier 3 years ago
if you ignore that these processes would be taking place in an extremely varied and complex and dynamic environment, then you would do an injustice to the rigor of your rebuttal.
damianpoirier 3 years ago
"complex and dynamic environment"
hey that's what I'm sticking to. You two are taking a complete structure which screams complexity and are making it chaotic by adding inorganic materials like they came to life!
dadealeo88 3 years ago
"by adding inorganic materials like they came to life! "
where did i say that?
damianpoirier 3 years ago
Are you wasted by now or what?
dadealeo88 3 years ago
I'm not expecting you to have a clue about abiogenesis. In fact I've really only been responding to you for the benefit of anyone else who happens upon this discussion. I thought it rather amusing the you let jt's offer of allowing god to make the first cell slip right by without even blinking, but hey whatever floats your boat. I'd really like to see you address his questions given tha he's been generous in your direction. Fair's fair right?
damianpoirier 3 years ago
damianpoirier : Evolution says that unicellular organisms came from non-living matter such as gasses and other atoms/molecules. Basic biology classes teach people this and it's an obvious fact. This has been proven to never have happened.
"nice word salad. good night "
Seems you know lots about "salad" especially tossing them. G'night.
dadealeo88 3 years ago
The Origin of Life - Abiogenesis
/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg
How Abiogenesis Works
/watch?v=XhWds7djuWo
The Origin of Life made easy
/watch?v=v8nYTJf62sE
damianpoirier 3 years ago
"Evolution says that unicellular organisms came from non-living matter"
no it did not. that subject is called abiogenesis and is not evolution. that means if you were to prove abiogenesis incorrect you have not refuted evo theory.
jtyranus 3 years ago
damianpoirier: The Law of Entropy states that order cannot arise from disorder. Evolution denies this law. Simple as that.
dadealeo88 3 years ago
There is zero thermodynamic difference between copying mutation A vrs copying mutation B.
There is zero thermodynamic difference between culling mutation A vrs culling mutation B.
The environment pushes and life pushes back.
Action = reaction.
Complexity happens.
damianpoirier 3 years ago
"Evolution denies this law."
i find your lack of intelligence disturbing. the energy from the sun allows evolution to occur.
jtyranus 3 years ago
Every college level course on evolution will address abiogenesis at length, as will any evolutionary biology textbook. Most dedicate an ENTIRE CHAPTER to the origin of life. Abiogenesis is a theory that attempts to explain the origin of life through random natural processes, and is taught as a regular component of evolutionary biology. There IS NO difference.
dadealeo88 3 years ago
There is no argument here. Despite the absence of proof, abiogenesis has become accepted by nearly all practicing scientists. The theory still remains virtually unchanged since its inception in the 1920s, and assumes that life originated at some point in earth's past under conditions no longer present. Do NOT DENY that he tenet of evolution can be summed-up by the phrase "abiogenesis at first biogenesis ever since".
dadealeo88 3 years ago
It is taught today as a certainty although the exact mechanisms remain theoretical. Discussions in evolutionary biology textbooks go to great lengths to demonstrate how abiogenesis could have occurred under multiple primordial scenarios. So no I am not saying something that is NOT already known or disturbing to the knowledge we know, well people who don't believe in evolution anyway. ;0)
dadealeo88 3 years ago
One thing leads to the other IF it's related. Your talking about unrelated studies. Blood from a stone. That's the un-plausible path here. abiogenesis you bring it into play here. don't twist the facts.
dadealeo88 3 years ago
There are 500 characters available to use. Please try to maximize your use of them. It will make your feeble attempts to communicate a touch easier on the brain.
damianpoirier 3 years ago
I can't help your brain works a certain way and I again am responding to two different people. If I respond to you you will see it in your inbox. Is that easy enough for you? It's just a concept and I've been doing that this WHOLE discussion.
dadealeo88 3 years ago
I have kept up with this conversation while multi tasking. so... I'm done for now. You are me accusing of things I didn't bring up. I asked you questions & the "Rational Response Team" didn't or couldn't answer in clear relation. It's a waste of time. I can't even use
dadealeo88 3 years ago
Biogenesis vs.evolution
dadealeo88 3 years ago
nice word salad. good night
damianpoirier 3 years ago
" Biogenesis vs.evolution "
evolution depends on biogenesis, which is the opposite of creation ex nihilo.
XGralgrathor 3 years ago
" Biogenesis vs.evolution "
evolution depends on biogenesis, which is the opposite of creation ex nihilo.
I'm just stiring the soup as it cooks or maybe as the fire dies out whatever you chose to see it as.
dadealeo88 3 years ago