proudafrogal:


okay Mr scientist educate me I want to learn. what type of protein is in DNA?

"Maybe" to Dr sleep, it's Hemoglobin......

Má Laugh small jare

felixomor:


Ok dear.
By "proteinous" part, i meant the part that contains similarities with amino acids and nitrogenous groups just like proteins.
Dna also has other parts like the sugar and phosphate groups.e tc
These are what makes its chemical structure.

I hope u garrit.

Ewwwwww, that moment when someone is one Wikipedia 24/7hr.

Kai, Felix yoor, twale

adepeter26:

Ewwwwww, that moment when someone is one Wikipedia 24/7hr.

Kai, Felix yoor, twale

Hehehehe,
Just confess
I am too much for you.

Anyway, na God

felixomor:


Hehehehe,
Just confess
I am too much for you.

Anyway, na God

Long time joor, how's you.

felixomor:

Well, this is also an argument for a common intelligent designer of all living things.

Nailed it

adepeter26:

Long time joor, how's you.

Fine mahn.
Peace be unto you

felixomor:

Fine mahn.
Peace be unto you

Et unto you too

KingEbukasBlog:


Nailed it

fool
The evidence of common descent is not about mere similarity, but rather a very specific pattern of similarity. if they were all specially created for some particular purpose, there's no reason any of them would be similar.

jonbellion:
fool
The evidence of common descent is not about mere similarity, but rather a very specific pattern of similarity. if they were all specially created for some particular purpose, there's no reason any of them would be similar.

You are wrong sir.
Do all snakes look alike, do they all move the same way? Do they all feed the same way? Do they all kill the same way? If your answer to those questions are all no then ask yourself why they have no specific pattern of similarity despite all being snakes?

Do all insects look alike? Do they all fly or do they all walk on the ground? The ones that fly can they perform the function of the ones that walk and vice versa? How and why did they "choose" to take on specific roles in nature despite all being insects?

Do all fishes look alike? Do they all breed the same way or swim the same? Do they all feed the same way ? Why not?

Do all humans look alike? Do we have twins who are 100% identical " on the outside" yet still unique in the DNA composition? Why?
Do all twins think alike and have equal levels of intelligence? If no, why?

Do all monkeys look alike? Are they all the same size and colour and structure? Do they all make the same sounds and share mannerisms? Why not?

Similarity does not alter purpose. A glass mirror and a shiny steel surface both reflect images very well yet both do not share the same purpose.

Shoes and slippers are for the feet yet are not interchangeable.

The nose and mouth share a function (breathing) yet do not serve the same purpose.

Why do all children not grow up to become footballers or scientists? Why do children at such early ages able to identify their passion and the things they love? Why does going to school not guarantee one of being a genius while so many drop outs became geniuses Afterall we are supposedly all similar so why do we all serve different purposes?

Why do you not reason like every member of your family? Do you all reason alike? Why not?

I deliberately said all I did above to cause your mind to be triggered into doing some proper thinking and not what you have been spoon fed into believing about evolution and genetics. There are too too too many gaps in genetics that voids it.

spacetacular:


You are wrong sir.
Do all snakes look alike, do they all move the same way? Do they all feed the same way? Do they all kill the same way? If your answer to those questions are all no then ask yourself why they have no specific pattern of similarity despite all being snakes?

Do all insects look alike? Do they all fly or do they all walk on the ground? The ones that fly can they perform the function of the ones that walk and vice versa? How and why did they "choose" to take on specific roles in nature despite all being insects?

Do all fishes look alike? Do they all breed the same way or swim the same? Do they all feed the same way ? Why not?

Do all humans look alike? Do we have twins who are 100% identical " on the outside" yet still unique in the DNA composition? Why?
Do all twins think alike and have equal levels of intelligence? If no, why?

Do all monkeys look alike? Are they all the same size and colour and structure? Do they all make the same sounds and share mannerisms? Why not?

Similarity does not alter purpose. A glass mirror and a shiny steel surface both reflect images very well yet both do not share the same purpose.

Shoes and slippers are for the feet yet are not interchangeable.

The nose and mouth share a function (breathing) yet do not serve the same purpose.

Why do all children not grow up to become footballers or scientists? Why do children at such early ages able to identify their passion and the things they love? Why does going to school not guarantee one of being a genius while so many drop outs became geniuses Afterall we are supposedly all similar so why do we all serve different purposes?

Why do you not reason like every member of your family? Do you all reason alike? Why not?

I deliberately said all I did above to cause your mind to be triggered into doing some proper thinking and not what you have been spoon fed into believing about evolution and genetics. There are too too too many gaps in genetics that voids it.

you have completely missed the point!
Specific types of similarity that proves common descent is what I said.For instance, many proteins can have different amino acid sequences without this affecting the way they fold and hence what they do. However, species thought to be more closely related by common descent have sequences more like each other than they do with species that are more distantly related. Why would a common designer make it look like it "evolved" rather than was created?.The theory of evolution depends on similarities. The theory of evolution predicts that species branch off from common ancestors but because this occurs through a slow gradual process, we should observe a vast number of similar traits both genetically and anatomically which we do!
Evolution is a fact okay. Intelligent design is pseudoscientific bullshit. It can't be tested because it doesn't rely on evidence. It just goes for the easy way out without even asking why the designer would even bother using the same materials to make every animal when it can simply create extremely different forms of life that would make evolution impossible to prove. If the earth is even only thousands of years old evolution couldn't even occur and there is no evidence from that expect you want to ignore it all and stick your head in books like the bible, Koran, torah etc- books that know nothing about anything and depict the utmost peak of human ignorance and stupidity. If you want to disprove evolution then follow the scientific method exactly, providing objective, verifiable evidence that withstands repeated peer review showing that all aspects of evolution currently supported by two centuries' worth of evidence are false and get your Nobel prize

Good luck with that

jonbellion:
you have completely missed the point!
Specific types of similarity that proves common descent is what I said.For instance, many proteins can have different amino acid sequences without this affecting the way they fold and hence what they do. However, species thought to be more closely related by common descent have sequences more like each other than they do with species that are more distantly related. Why would a common designer make it look like it "evolved" rather than was created?.The theory of evolution depends on similarities. The theory of evolution predicts that species branch off from common ancestors but because this occurs through a slow gradual process, we should observe a vast number of similar traits both genetically and anatomically which we do!
Evolution is a fact okay. Intelligent design is pseudoscientific bullshit. It can't be tested because it doesn't rely on evidence. It just goes for the easy way out without even asking why the designer would even bother using the same materials to make every animal when it can simply create extremely different forms of life that would make evolution impossible to prove. If the earth is even only thousands of years old evolution couldn't even occur and there is no evidence from that expect you want to ignore it all and stick your head in books like the bible, Koran, torah etc- books that know nothing about anything and depict the utmost peak of human ignorance and stupidity. If you want to disprove evolution then follow the scientific method exactly, providing objective, verifiable evidence that withstands repeated peer review showing that all aspects of evolution currently supported by two centuries' worth of evidence are false and get your Nobel prize

Good luck with that

Sorry you missed the point entirely. You seem to have a single tracked never think out of the confined box you are type of mind which is why you only offer me garbage in garbage out.

You say intelligent design is false yet the best prostethic arms, heart, etc were all humanly designed from the so called unintelligently designed functionality of the arm or heart yet have never been able to match the performance or effect of the real deal they were copied from yet these man made prostethics are termed as intelligently made yet that which they copied from and are yet unable to fully design per the original came about by chance? How laughable.

Man would make a robot and call it a super intelligent feat yet the robot was copied from everything human and yet humans are termed to be a product of evolutionary trial and error? The ridiculousness is beyond redemption.

DNA is like what we have in computer upgrades. Mutation is simply an attempt to upgrade or degrade a body in order to match it's environment but even that shows intelligence as it has been set on this path in a pre-programmed manner.

Mutation is a genetic operator used to maintain genetic diversity from one generation of a population of genetic algorithm chromosomes to the next. It is analogous to biological mutation. Mutation alters one or more gene values in a chromosome from its initial state. In mutation, the solution may change entirely from the previous solution. Hence GA can come to a better solution by using mutation. Mutation occurs during evolution according to a user-definable mutation probability. This probability should be set low. If it is set too high, the search will turn into a primitive random search.

The classic example of a mutation operator involves a probability that an arbitrary bit in a genetic sequence will be changed from its original state. A common method of implementing the mutation operator involves generating a random variable for each bit in a sequence. This random variable tells whether or not a particular bit will be modified. This mutation procedure, based on the biological point mutation, is called single point mutation. Other types are inversion and floating point mutation. When the gene encoding is restrictive as in permutation problems, mutations are swaps, inversions, and scrambles.

The purpose of mutation in GAs is preserving and introducing diversity. Mutation should allow the algorithm to avoid local minima by preventing the population of chromosomes from becoming too similar to each other, thus slowing or even stopping evolution. This reasoning also explains the fact that most GA systems avoid only taking the fittest of the population in generating the next but rather a random (or semi-random) selection with a weighting toward those that are fitter.

Mutations result from errors during DNA replication or other types of damage to DNA, which then may undergo error-prone repair (especially microhomology-mediated end joining, or cause an error during other forms of repair, or else may cause an error during replication (translesion synthesis). Mutations may also result from insertion or deletion of segments of DNA due to mobile genetic elements. Mutations may or may not produce discernible changes in the observable characteristics (phenotype) of an organism. Mutations play a part in both normal and abnormal biological processes including: evolution, cancer, and the development of the immune system, including junctional diversity.

Read this again and again and then tell me that when mutative reactions are 100% expected to happen under certain exposures that those reactions were not preprogrammed to be so intelligently.

What you fail to realise is that humans are the highest level of computers in existence and all other computerised system are designed to mimic humans yet cannot in totality. The genetic codes in man can be likened to the codes which give "life" to computers and keep them running.

DNA is beyond any living human beings understanding or control. We can only theorise as nobody has been able to create a single string of DNA or control it.

I am busy now otherwise I would have loved to show you so much you seem ignorant of.

hopefulLandlord:
even the Catholic church accepted the big bang and evolution

So the Catholic church is now the standard for Christians?

ilynem:
So the Catholic church is now the standard for Christians?

never said so

felixomor:
Apes and humans dont share common ancestor.
As a matter of fact, many scientists disagree.

Humans share similar DNA with banana and tobacco.
By your logic, maybe we also share similar ancestors to tobacco.

Besides, its only the proteinous part of DNA that even share similarly.
And the proteinous part is not up to 10% of DNA itself.

Your logic is dead on arrival.

Pls, what do you mean by proteinous part of DNA?

ChromosomeZ:

Pls, what do you mean by proteinous part of DNA?

The nitrogenous part.

hopefulLandlord:


never said so

Ok

Any more?

adepeter26:
Dr sleep has destabilised the thread with his medical Jargons again on page Zero.... Gush.... People are really doctors Sha

Can you imagine? I really doubt that dude is a doctor even in Secondary school we learned all those basics stuff so am very suprised

Deicide:

Can you imagine? I really doubt that dude is a doctor even in Secondary school we learned all those basics stuff so am very suprised