thehomer:


The tertiary and quaternary structures of the amino-acid chains. What exactly is the point you're trying to make?

Those structures you describe merely make up L-isomers. Again, what natural process makes organisms use only L-isomers ?

thehomer:


You did not answer my question. How would you say man arose?

God created man As a debater , you should know your opponent

UyiIredia:


Lol ! The guy's case is serious.

Me sef Tire !

As for transitional species, when one is provided, another is demanded. No account is taken of the difficult conditions for fossilization.

You can't win. God did it.

UyiIredia:


This is yet another example of your wilful ignorance. If natural processes can't effect proteins or L-isomers only then they're incapable of making life.

Life is a natural process and that makes proteins. Secondly, the precursors are readily available. I still don't see the point you're trying to make.

UyiIredia:

Neurons get turned on and off like transistors. Artificial hearts also contract. Nanotech and genetic engineering feats are more similar to living systems in scale and manner of operation. It shouldn't be ignored.

No neurons don't get turned on and off. Do pumps work by contracting muscles? Again, your talk about nanotech is still no better than your talk about pumps and computers.

UyiIredia:

I don't need to present a better theory to show evolution is crap. The theory must be analyzed on its own merit not on the merit of another theory.

Actually you need to because you should be able to explain what the theory of evolution does and more.

UyiIredia:

You just asserted a different environment could have organized life. You made no arguments supporting that assertion. If natural processes didn't cause life on many other planets with different environments, then there's a reason to doubt such happened on early earth, moreso given the fact that extreme heat and radiation would have killed of any life that presumably evolved.

It is a fact that life arose in a different environment. How about the fact that there was a time when the earth was to hot to support life? Why exactly should the fact that life arose on earth by natural processes mean that it must also happen everywhere else? This makes no more sense than saying since there are humans living on one part of earth's surface, they must live everywhere. How about the fact that the earth cooled and still changed further.

UyiIredia:

Again evading the point. If you have no evidence for how life could arise naturally then you have no basis to assert it did. There's nothing wrong with an argument by analogy, in fact evolutionists use it when they point to similarities in DIFFERENT species to assert a common ancestry. I argue that similarities in human inventions and living systems are a basis to infer creation since human inventions were made via their intellect.

Haven't you been reading what I said? Again there are philosophical reasons not to accept your assertions. As I've said in the past, I don't know exactly how it arose but that isn't enough reason for me to say your God did it.
Everything is wrong with it the way you're using it. The different species are still living organisms. What you're referring to as similarities actually aren't that similar. Saying humans invent things therefore God invented other things is missing too many steps to be valid.

davidylan:


they are not... how many times do we have to go through this musical chairs you keep playing?

Well, why don't you consult the texts or search online for evidence of evolution. I'm sure you'll see fossils somewhere in there. Merely asserting they're not doesn't make them stop being evidence of evolution.

thehomer:


Humans only use certain isomers because the proteins they produce only use those isomers. Those proteins have certain active areas that are exposed and the exposure depends on how those proteins fold. The isomers that aren't used cannot physically fit into the proteins to get in contact with the active areas in order to react.

This is a very poor answer. The proteins are made of those isomers so saying humans use L-isomers because their proteins only use the L-isomers is circular logic.

davien:
davidylan...

Have you heard of random people who look alike as a pair , does that mean they are twins or siblings ?

KingEbukasBlog:



Have you heard of random people who look alike as a pair , does that mean they are twins or siblings ?

DNA-wise,yes...what exactly do you think makes genetic tests so reliable.

thehomer:


Life is a natural process and that makes proteins. Secondly, the precursors are readily available. I still don't see the point you're trying to make.

This is a poor answer. The requirement is natural processes excluding life that could effect the same kind of biochemicals life has. If natural processes lack that ability they couldn't have effected life.

thehomer:

No neurons don't get turned on and off. Do pumps work by contracting muscles? Again, your talk about nanotech is still no better than your talk about pumps and computers.

Neurons get turned on and off when they are or aren't firing electrical impulses. Artificial hearts don't need to contract actual muscles, they are similar in that they contract. Does an artificial muscle have to be invented before you see their similarity ?

If you ignore nanotech and genetic engineering you are being unreasonable. DNA computers, artificial chromosomes, buckyballs, artificial skin etc get as close to elements of living things as it is.

thehomer:

Actually you need to because you should be able to explain what the theory of evolution does and more.

This is silly. Just as you don't have to accept creation because abiogenesis is unevidenced, I don't have to propose another theory to show that evolution is wrong.

thehomer:

It is a fact that life arose in a different environment. How about the fact that there was a time when the earth was to hot to support life? Why exactly should the fact that life arose on earth by natural processes mean that it must also happen everywhere else? This makes no more sense than saying since there are humans living on one part of earth's surface, they must live everywhere. How about the fact that the earth cooled and still changed further.

It doesn't have to happen everywhere else. One other planet would be good for starters, after all humans don't all live in one place. It's amazing that you still hold unto an unevidenced belief while holding a position that lays claim to 'reason and logic'.

thehomer:

Haven't you been reading what I said? Again there are philosophical reasons not to accept your assertions. As I've said in the past, I don't know exactly how it arose but that isn't enough reason for me to say your God did it.
Everything is wrong with it the way you're using it. The different species are still living organisms. What you're referring to as similarities actually aren't that similar. Saying humans invent things therefore God invented other things is missing too many steps to be valid.

If different species are living organisms then hearts, brains, pumps and computers are functional systems (comprised of various parts achieving a given purpose).

Must man design an artificial lifeform before you accept the similarities ? Not to mention that designing such is not impossible and would be a powerful argument for design. I think your 'philosophical reasons' term is a smokescreen, but then again, what are these philosophical reasons ?

davien:
DNA-wise,yes...what exactly do you think makes genetic tests so reliable.

Wrong. People can look similar and yet have different ancestry and different DNA. That's the point.

thehomer:


Well, why don't you consult the texts or search online for evidence of evolution. I'm sure you'll see fossils somewhere in there. Merely asserting they're not doesn't make them stop being evidence of evolution.

What evidence do you find the most convincing about evolution ?

UyiIredia:


Wrong. People can look similar and yet have different ancestry and different DNA. That's the point.

Humans only have less than 1% variation...does that make them "not human"? impeccable logic

davien:
DNA-wise,yes...what exactly do you think makes genetic tests so reliable.

no they are not ... you are missing the point . My point was similarity means nothing , comparing the anatomy of ape and man does not mean evolution took place .

KingEbukasBlog:


no they are not ... you are missing the point . My point was similarity means nothing , comparing the anatomy of ape and man does not mean evolution took place .

So also by the same logic if i compare your father's DNA to yours and it's similar it means nothing,you have no father then..your birth didn't take place..

Just to keep things in perspective the purpose of this thread was to argue for God as generally understood (by theists and deists), the Creator of the universe. I think one must first get atheists to accepting there's a God before arguing for why it has to be the God of a religion. As it is, getting a deist out of an atheist is as difficult as turning lead into gold, or as Jesus said, getting a camel through a needle's eye.

UyiIredia:
Just to keep things in perspective the purpose of this thread was to argue for God as generally understood (by theists and deists), the Creator of the universe. I think one must first get atheists to accepting there's a God before arguing for why it has to be the God of a religion. As it is getting a deist out of an atheist is as difficult as turning lead into gold, or as Jesus said, getting a camel through a needle's eye.

I agree....

davien:
Humans only have less than 1% variation...does that make them "not human"? impeccable logic

I don't get

@ davien ... these people are total strangers to each other but share some resemblance . They are not related in any way . Its amazing !

davien:
So also by the same logic if i compare your father's DNA to yours and it's similar it means nothing,you have no father then..your birth didn't take place..

Am sure this comment does not make sense even to you . Please keep shut and dont embarrass yourself , Thanks

UyiIredia:


I don't get

Here's an educative piece on the variation of our genomes... @Kingebukasblog


Just as you can look at two people and tell that they are different,you could, with the proper chemicals and laboratory equipment, look at the genomes of two people and tell that they are different, too. In fact, people are unique in large part because their genomes are unique.

There are more than three million differences between your genome and anyone else's. On the other hand, we are all 99.9 percent the same, DNA-wise


http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/resources/whats_a_genome/Chp4_1.shtml

KingEbukasBlog:


Am sure this comment does not make sense even to you . Please keep shut and dont embarrass yourself , Thanks

I can see i struck a nerve...similarity means nothing now....so the only person with similar DNA to you isn't related to you,by your logic you're an orphan or a mutant,lol....

UyiIredia:
Just to keep things in perspective the purpose of this thread was to argue for God as generally understood (by theists and deists), the Creator of the universe. I think one must first get atheists to accepting there's a God before arguing for why it has to be the God of a religion. As it is, getting a deist out of an atheist is as difficult as turning lead into gold, or as Jesus said, getting a camel through a needle's eye.

Its simple . Their perception of God comes from the wrong practice of religion . Like what the SA pastor did to his gullible members - the atheist can see Christianity as as some scam or a tool used to control people.

Its clearly evident that there's a supreme being , denial is pure hypocrisy.

davien:
Here's an educative piece on the variation of our genomes... @Kingebukasblog


Just as you can look at two people and tell that they are different,you could, with the proper chemicals and laboratory equipment, look at the genomes of two people and tell that they are different, too. In fact, people are unique in large part because their genomes are unique.

There are more than three million differences between your genome and anyone else's. On the other hand, we are all 99.9 percent the same, DNA-wise


http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/resources/whats_a_genome/Chp4_1.shtml

So what ? That doesn't mean all humans came from a single ancestor. It's funny how evolutionists scoff at Adam and Eve and actually hold the more extreme posiition that all life resulted from a universal ancestor.

KingEbukasBlog:


Its simple . Their perception of God comes from the wrong practice of religion . Like what the SA pastor did to his gullible members - the atheist can see Christianity as as some scam or a tool used to control people.

Its clearly evident that there's a supreme being , denial is pure hypocrisy.

Yes. Bad religion doesn't help at all.

In addition, atheism never made sense to me. Like most others, life on earth and the awesomeness of the universe were enough for me to assume God. A deist I can begin to understand, but I see atheism as ridiculous, evolution even more so. I see evolution as more of the problem since it gives grounds for atheism. If life was created then God exists, if life evolved then God can be dismissed.

Kingebukasblog...by your logic...the matching chromosomes here doesn't mean they're related...the kid's similar pairs mean nothing..

davien:
I can see i struck a nerve...similarity means nothing now....so the only person with similar DNA to you isn't related to you,by your logic you're an orphan or a mutant,lol....

Please is this difficult to understand :

People who share striking resemblance have been proven not to be related in any way .

Bringing the father-son comparison is just a facetious attempt to digress from the issue at hand - similarity is not an evidence of evolution

UyiIredia:


So what ? That doesn't mean all humans came from a single ancestor. It's funny how evolutionists scoff at Adam and Eve and actually hold the more extreme posiition that all life resulted from a universal ancestor.

That's exclusively what it means....your mix of genes had an ancestor did it not...i've not even gotten into theology yet...we're still in biology..

Even if you believe in a creator,your genes can be traced through a myriad of ancestors which i and everyone shared...that's factual dude...unless you also want to say similarity means nothing,and i'd include you in KEB's palava of not having a Dad or Mum..lol

davien:
Kingebukasblog...by your logic...the matching chromosomes here doesn't mean they're related...the kid's similar pairs mean nothing..

*sigh* ... how about sitting down and making a good research on the examples I gave you . Why do they share some facial similarity but not in any way ever related and it has been proven these people are not related .

UyiIredia:
As it is, getting a deist out of an atheist is as difficult as turning lead into gold, or as Jesus said, getting a camel through a needle's eye.

You'd be surprised.

KingEbukasBlog:


Please is this difficult to understand :

People who share striking resemblance have been proven not to be related in any way .

Bringing the father-son comparison is just a facetious attempt to digress from the issue at hand - similarity is not an evidence of evolution

I know what you mean KEB...but you and i know that DNA is what proves ancestry and has the strongest stand in determining anything...in a court of law,that can even lead to a life or death situation...

KingEbukasBlog:


*sigh* ... how about sitting down and making a good research on the examples I gave you . Why do they share some facial similarity but not in any way ever related and it has been proven these people are not related .

Because people don't just look at fossils and say off-hand whats related and what's not....they make charts based on DNA...