Graycoder:


Am I the one who is not being logical here or you are the one arguing straw man?

1. Your statement which brought up the HCL and Pepsin for the digestion of proteins was "I can't even decipher what you have written. Hydrolysis of proteins happen in the body all the time. It involves water, acid and enzymes."

- Now, I responded by saying this only happens in the stomach. Why bring up gaseous state argument for HCL?
(a) Please, tell us, is the HCL in the stomach a gas or in the gaseous state or a solution?
(b)Tell us, is the stomach's temperature the same as room temperature?

I must say, sir, your inability to decipher is really a huge setback



So you know it is vague, but you made it anyway.



Digestion is a hydrolytic process. This is why I have been hammering your field of study. You can't keep talking about the things you have little or no knowledge about.

I want you to read this quote, maybe you'll catch a clue that hydrolysis is not just about water and it doesn't happen to all compounds or molecules too.

"Hydrolyzed protein is a protein that has been hydrolyzed or broken down into its component amino acids. While there are many means of achieving this, two of the most common methods are prolonged boiling in a strong acid (acid-HVP) or strong base or using an enzyme such as pancreatic protease to simulate the naturally occurring hydrolytic process"

Please show me where it is written that water hydrolyzed the protein. They said the most common methods of hydrolyzing protein to boil it in Strong acids or bases. Did you see water there? Still, note that acids don't contain water

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrolyzed_protein

You have no argument. You should read properly the answers I have already given you, and structure your responses logically.

I can do nothing with illogical replies.

Graycoder:


What I calculated is the number of years it would take water to hydrolyze all the proteins of a typical animal. And obviously, it is impossible for any organism to remain in water for 6 billion years. It will reproduce, move around and die even before one bond from one protein is broken. These FACTS provided by pro creationists has however proved that evolution is possible.

I understand your calculation. My question, however, was whether the concentration of water affects the hydrolyzation rate. Say it takes 1 bathtub of water to fully hydrolyze a typical animal in 6,000,000,000 years, will immersion in two bathtubs worth take half the time? That was my question. Put in other words, if a typical animal were to be submerged in a river, and the water were pure, would it really take up to 6 billion years to hydrolyze?

AgentOfAllah:


I understand your calculation. My question, however, was whether the concentration of water affects the hydrolyzation rate. Say it takes 1 bathtub of water to fully hydrolyze a typical animal in 6,000,000,000 years, will immersion in two bathtubs worth take half the time? That was my question. Put in other words, if a typical animal were to be submerged in a river, and the water were pure, would it really take up to 6 billion years to hydrolyze?

Okay, I understand your question, but no the concentration does not affect it. The concentration in the case of water means the number of moles. And all reactions have mole ratios of reactants and products produced. So, even if the organism is thrown into the Atlantic ocean, the same amount of water that might attack it will not increase, in proportion to the amount of protein.

sinequanon:


You have no argument. You should read properly the answers I have already given you, and structure your responses logically.

I can do nothing with illogical replies.

I understand your excuse. You cannot argue science if you cannot explain or understand it.

I gave you academical and credible links you cannot refute and this is the best response you can give. Then go to any laboratory and test the hydrolysis of proteins with water. I'm sure you can wait for 600 hundred years.

Graycoder:


I understand your excuse. You cannot argue science if you cannot explain or understand it.

I gave you academical and credible links you cannot refute and this is the best response you can give. Then go to any laboratory and test the hydrolysis of proteins with water. I'm sure you can wait for 600 hundred years.

You need to find a more mature approach to debating. This is your standard:

Graycoder:
(a) Please, tell us, is the HCL in the stomach a gas or in the gaseous state or a solution?
(b)Tell us, is the stomach's temperature the same as room temperature?

Two totally irrelevant red herring questions. If HCl is a gas at room temperature, then it is clearly a gas a body temperature or at the stomach's temperature.

Stomach containing HCl in solution does not defend your erroneous claim that you can hydrolyze a protein with HCl and an enzyme alone. It is a ridiculous claim.

And it seems as if you have struggled to read or understand the definition I gave you, of hydrolysis. So you come up with this rhetorical waffle:

Please show me where it is written that water hydrolyzed the protein.

I'm sorry, but your illogical mode of debate is a waste of my time.

oh, don't bother. That was my last post to you. I know you will carry on in the same vein.

.

sinequanon:


"Natural selection of favorable mutations is a directed process" is not a claim made by scientists.

It is implied in the word "selection", isn't it? That is to say, nature is doing the selection, albeit, mindlessly. Unless you wish to impose a mind (by which I mean purpose) on the director, in which case the onus is on you to explain why this is necessary. I should stress that evolution doesn't necessarily rule out a sentient director, it just doesn't see any need for it.

I have said that scientists have provided no evidence that "mutations are undirected".

This is true. But the theory of evolution itself does not require mutations to be undirected, it takes mutations as a matter of course and proceeds from there.
However, back to whether they are directed or not. Would you say it is safe to assume that if >90% of the mutations that occur end up either pointless or harmful then they are undirected?

I wonder how and where a hydrolysis reaction wouldn't involve water, isn't it very straightforward that hydro means water?!

While the arguments about this hydrolysis had been compounded, we need to first understand that protein, a macromolecule has different levels of structural representations, so when you use denature and hydrolysis, you must know which of the structural levels you are talking about.

Anyways, for those arguing for and against water present or not in hydrolysis, let's read from a textbook of Biochemistry...

"Nucleophilic attack by water generally results in the cleavage of the amide, glycoside, or ester bonds that hold biopolymers together. This process is termed hydrolysis. Conversely, when monomer units are joined together to form biopolymers such as proteins or glycogen, water is a product, for example, during the formation of a peptide bond between two amino acids:

While hydrolysis is a thermodynamically favored reaction, the amide and phosphoester bonds of polypeptides and oligonucleotides are stable in the aqueous environment of the cell. This seemingly paradoxic behavior reflects the fact that the thermodynamics governing the equilibrium of a reaction do not determine the rate at which it will proceed. In the cell, protein catalysts called enzymes accelerate the rate of hydrolytic reactions when needed. Proteases catalyze the hydrolysis of proteins into their component amino acids" (Harpers Illustrated Biochemistry, 26th Edition, pp. 7-

I need not explain that enzymes are not part of the reactive species, they only speedup the process which would have normally taken say 600 years to take place in seconds....

Graycoder:


Okay, I understand your question, but no the concentration does not affect it. The concentration in the case of water means the number of moles. And all reactions have mole ratios of reactants and products produced. So, even if the organism is thrown into the Atlantic ocean, the same amount of water that might attack it will not increase, in proportion to the amount of protein.

Okay, thanks! I accept your answer, but your calculation seemed to assume a serial, rather than parallel hydrolyzation process, which was why I asked the question. Anyway, don't mind me. I was just being pedantic.

AgentOfAllah:

It is implied in the word "selection", isn't it? That is to say, nature is doing the selection, albeit, mindlessly. Unless you wish to impose a mind (by which I mean purpose) on the director, in which case the onus is on you to explain why this is necessary. I should stress that evolution doesn't necessarily rule out a sentient director, it just doesn't see any need for it.

In the sense Richard Dawkins (for one) uses the term "undirected" it means "with no foresight or purpose". In fact, he stresses that the word "selected" is unfortunate and should not be construed as implying "directed".

AgentOfAllah:
This is true. But the theory of evolution itself does not require mutations to be undirected, it takes mutations as a matter of course and proceeds from there.

You are saying two different things.

The theory is sometimes stated including the idea of "undirectness", sometimes not. So whether it is required or not cannot be determined, until the equivocation is resolved.

AgentOfAllah:
However, back whether they are directed or not. Would you say it is safe to assume that if >90% of the mutations that occur end up either pointless or harmful then they are undirected?

Not at all.

Graycoder:


It could be more than millions if you consider evolution. 600 years for one bond of protein that contains 10 thousand bonds and an organism that contains 1000 proteins.

That's 600 X 10000 X 1000 = 6 billion years for an organism to melt back into amino acids.

And the constant absence of water will mean that the process will have to start again. That is supposing I am the organism in question, if I enter water today, I must remain there for 6 billion years to melt into amino acids. If I leave the water tomorrow and enter next tomorrow, the 6 billion years will start counting from next tomorrow again. That makes it impossible for water to ever hydrolyze protein under natural conditions. And since evolution took place under natural conditions, then evolution is very very viable and hydrolysis of proteins is impossible.

Amazing

So the primordial soup which some fluke energy brought about amino acids also had an already present living organism which further aided the process?

By the way isn't evolution meant to occur when amino acids bind and not when they break apart?

You are indeed confused. As long as amino acids cannot be stable in water and bind and would rather break apart then tell me how the first organism evolved over millions of years from an already failed process?

The farce is strong in you.

Plus these amino acids did not just come about but they somehow knew they had to be left handed amino acids in order to form life. You are aware that acids come in left hand and right hand varieties. Life is composed of 100% left hand amino acids. Anything that is alive, such as you, or trees, or sardines has no right-hand amino acids.

So much perfection in this game of chance and gamble played by nature during evolution

For amino acids to be assembled into something that leads to life (assuming both left and right-handed amino acids are available), requires a plan. It is a very complex process, which in life is controlled by RNA. RNA contains the information (instructions) for assembling amino acids into proteins to make life. So evolution science now postulates that RNA had to have existed before amino acids were created. Where does the RNA come from? They don't have an answer. But we know that information (RNA) does not come from nothing.

We know that information requires an intelligence. We can look at something that has been built, such as a house or Ferrari, and recognize that it took human intelligence (information) to create that object. No matter how many millions of years you allow, you will never see a house or Ferrari come into existence "naturally". It takes an intelligence to design and build them. We see the same thing when we look at life. Life requires information.

Prove me wrong.

sino:
I wonder how and where a hydrolysis reaction wouldn't involve water, isn't it very straightforward that hydro means water?!

Good luck getting a sensible response out of Graycoder.

(Note: an enzyme does take part in a reaction [of course], but it is not used up in the reaction. Industrial catalysts, for example, are known to work in various ways and are the subject of big patents. They can totally alter the balance of an equilibrium reaction by bonding with and releasing from the reactants. Sometimes this saves a lot of energy with reactions that would not go without a lot of heat. It must be a very interesting field. The last I heard, new things were happening involving the use of electromagnetic radiation and catalysts to drive reactions and save energy.)

sino:
I wonder how and where a hydrolysis reaction wouldn't involve water, isn't it very straightforward that hydro means water?!

While the arguments about this hydrolysis had been compounded, we need to first understand that protein, a macromolecule has different levels of structural representations, so when you use denature and hydrolysis, you must know which of the structural levels you are talking about.

Anyways, for those arguing for and against water present or not in hydrolysis, let's read from a textbook of Biochemistry...

"Nucleophilic attack by water generally results in the cleavage of the amide, glycoside, or ester bonds that hold biopolymers together. This process is termed hydrolysis. Conversely, when monomer units are joined together to form biopolymers such as proteins or glycogen, water is a product, for example, during the formation of a peptide bond between two amino acids:

While hydrolysis is a thermodynamically favored reaction, the amide and phosphoester bonds of polypeptides and oligonucleotides are stable in the aqueous environment of the cell. This seemingly paradoxic behavior reflects the fact that the thermodynamics governing the equilibrium of a reaction do not determine the rate at which it will proceed. In the cell, protein catalysts called enzymes accelerate the rate of hydrolytic reactions when needed. Proteases catalyze the hydrolysis of proteins into their component amino acids" (Harpers Illustrated Biochemistry, 26th Edition, pp. 7-

I need not explain that enzymes are not part of the reactive species, they only speedup the process which would have normally taken say 600 years to take place in seconds....

Are you a biochemist? What led to this argument is the hydrolysis of Proteins, not hydrolysis in general.

The reactions

protein + water -> amino acids

&

protein + water -> protein solution

Which one is feasible under natural conditions, T =273K, P = 760mmHG, M = 1?

Hydration is also the addition of water to compounds, isn't it? One of those reactions is hydration and the other hydrolysis.

If hydrolysis completes after 600 years under natural conditions and hydration completes in few hours. Which one will always happen under natural conditions?

If a reaction takes 600 years to complete, then it is not feasible, in chemistry terms.

You need to find a more mature approach to debating. This is your standard:



Two totally irrelevant red herring questions. If HCl is a gas at room temperature, then it is clearly a gas a body temperature or at the stomach's temperature.
[b][/b]
Stomach containing HCl in solution does not defend your erroneous claim that you can hydrolyze a protein with HCl and an enzyme alone. It is a ridiculous claim.

And it seems as if you have struggled to read or understand the definition I gave you, of hydrolysis. So you come up with this rhetorical waffle:



I'm sorry, but your illogical mode of debate is a waste of my time.

oh, don't bother. That was my last post to you. I know you will carry on in the same vein.

The bolded above is a wrong statement, It's even far worse than saying hydrolysis may not include water. You shouldn't also argue again. It's a very big error. Then why 3 different states of matter? HCL is not a gas in the stomach, it is a solution.

butterflyl1on:


Amazing

So the primordial soup which some fluke energy brought about amino acids also had an already present living organism which further aided the process?

Garbage.

butterflyl1on:

By the way isn't evolution meant to occur when amino acids bind and not when they break apart?

We are not talking about amino acids breaking apart. You obviously don't even understand the argument. We are talking about proteins breaking apart instantly they were formed. Which your theory has helped us confirm is not possible.

butterflyl1on:

You are indeed confused. As long as amino acids cannot be stable in water and bind and would rather break apart then tell me how the first organism evolved over millions of years from an already failed process?

No, you are. You don't even know what we are talking about. You are just typing nonsense under the influence of the holy spirit

butterflyl1on:

Plus these amino acids did not just come about but they somehow knew they had to be left handed amino acids in order to form life. You are aware that acids come in left hand and right hand varieties. Life is composed of 100% left hand amino acids. Anything that is alive, such as you, or trees, or sardines has no right-hand amino acids.

What's left hand and right hand? Another garbage from the bin?

Do you mean Levo and dextrorotatory amino acids? That's not the topic of discussion here.

butterflyl1on:

For amino acids to be assembled into something that leads to life (assuming both left and right-handed amino acids are available), requires a plan. It is a very complex process, which in life is controlled by RNA. RNA contains the information (instructions) for assembling amino acids into proteins to make life. So evolution science now postulates that RNA had to have existed before amino acids were created. Where does the RNA come from? They don't have an answer. But we know that information (RNA) does not come from nothing.

Why are you sprouting garbage? It's funny how people who don't understand science struggle to explain it. All molecules of life no matter what it is are still composed of elements. Grow up brother, please.

butterflyl1on:

We know that information requires an intelligence. We can look at something that has been built, such as a house or Ferrari, and recognize that it took human intelligence (information) to create that object. No matter how many millions of years you allow, you will never see a house or Ferrari come into existence "naturally". It takes an intelligence to design and build them. We see the same thing when we look at life. Life requires information.

Prove me wrong.

I can tell you bro, the intelligence of man is greatly enormous than the intelligence of whoever you think, believe, or assume created this universe. This universe is nothing close to perfect. In fact, the universe is in constant chaos. I salute your unintelligent designer, it really did a great work.

Akin1212:


You are seriously a fool.

- You said in the presence of water protein is immediately broken down into amino acids.

- Now, you are running everywhere to prove that water breaks down protein and you saw that it is a very slow process which takes several hundred of years. What does that mean to you?

Let's be clear here: how did the first protein come about? If the presence of water can cleave peptide bonds, how did the (yes, let's assume bifunctional) amino acids in the primordial soup in the ocean manage to bypass the hydrolytic effect of water to form first dipeptides, tripeptides, oligopeptides, and then polypeptides(proteins)? Dr. Charles McCombs has noted that the Law of Mass Action says that all reactions proceed in a direction from highest to lowest concentration. This means that any reaction that produces water cannot be performed in the presence of water. This Law of Mass Action provides a total hindrance to protein, DNA/RNA, and polysaccharide formation because even if the condensation took place, the water from a supposed primordial soup would immediately hydrolyze them. Thus, if they are formed according to evolutionary theory, the water would have to be removed ... which is impossible in a 'watery' soup.

Dr. McCombs' assertionis corroborated by another article, which says that "these processes (condensation of amino acids to form peptides) are disfavoured in the presence of excess water, i.e. the hydrolysis of the biopolymers is the thermodynamically favoured process. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2672000/

It is left for you to tell us the amount of time contained in the word "immediately".

- I told you that in science, when a reaction takes several hundreds of years, for example, 500 years, then it means it is impossible or nearly impossible.

Shut up! If a protein molecule found itself in the ocean in the year 1317 AD, by now, would it not have been broken down into its component amino acids? If a reaction is impossible simply because it takes long(maybe 700 years or even less), then the reactions that supposedly produced abiogenesis are impossible since you claim they took billions of years.

- Nobody can start such experiment and observe it happen and because of this it is impossible.

- Now, tell me how your claim stands? Have you lived for a hundred of years before to see it happen? Don't forget you said it happens immediately.

So, in light of the above evidence you brought here, hydrolysis of water is impossible.

If this logic true, then evolution is impossible because nobody was there to observe the first unicellular organism turn into a multicellular one. No one observed the human ancestors evolve. No one observed the first amino acids combine to form peptides in the primordial soup.

Now tell me how your claim of evolution stands? Were you alive to observe the first organism from the chemical soup in the ocean?

DoctorAlien:
Let's be clear here: how did the first protein come about? If the presence of water can cleave peptide bonds, how did the (yes, let's assume bifunctional) amino acids in the primordial soup in the ocean manage to bypass the hydrolytic effect of water to form first dipeptides, tripeptides, oligopeptides, and then polypeptides(proteins)? Dr. Charles McCombs has noted that the Law of Mass Action says that all reactions proceed in a direction from highest to lowest concentration. This means that any reaction that produces water cannot be performed in the presence of water. This Law of Mass Action provides a total hindrance to protein, DNA/RNA, and polysaccharide formation because even if the condensation took place, the water from a supposed primordial soup would immediately hydrolyze them. Thus, if they are formed according to evolutionary theory, the water would have to be removed ... which is impossible in a 'watery' soup.

Dr. McCombs' assertionis corroborated by another article, which says that "these processes (condensation of amino acids to form peptides) are disfavoured in the presence of excess water, i.e. the hydrolysis of the biopolymers is the thermodynamically favoured process. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2672000/

It is left for you to tell us the amount of time contained in the word "immediately".

The presence of water cannot cleave water until after 600 years, remember? Meanwhile, from your link, I copied this, since it's your tactics.

The pioneering experiment of Miller [1] evidenced that the first molecular building blocks could have been formed through standard chemical reactions and established a landmark in the field of prebiotic chemistry. More recently, R. M. Hazen [2] suggested that at least a sequence of four steps of increasing chemical complexity are required for the origin of life on Earth to occur: i) the emergence of biomolecules; ii) the emergence of macromolecules; iii) the emergence of self-replicating systems; iv) the emergence of molecular evolution by natural selection. The prebiotic soup theory (i.e. Miller-based experiments) only touches the first step: by applying electric discharges to a heated mixture of gases, either resembling highly reducing [1,3–6] (namely H2O, NH3, CH4 and H2) or neutral [7–9] (namely H2O, N2 and CO2) primitive Earth atmospheres, the formation of biochemically significant compounds such as amino acids is indeed possible. Similar to processes occurring on the pristine Earth, chemical processes occurring in the interstellar and nebular environments may also lead to the synthesis of biochemical monomers [10–12]. Although the detection of glycine in these media is controversial, [13,14] the presence of a wide variety of amino acids in carbonaceous meteorites fallen on Earth strengthens this theory [15,16]. At the bottom of the Oceanic crust [17], energy sources like hydrothermal vents known as “black-smokers” allowed for carbon fixation [18,19] and formation of the first biomonomers thanks to the reducing power of sulphide minerals coupled to conditions of high temperatures and pressures readily available at those deep-sea sites. Therefore, there are a variety of possibilities for the first step of the life’s emergence sequence to occur.

DoctorAlien:

Shut up! If a protein molecule found itself in the ocean in the year 1317 AD, by now, would it not have been broken down into its component amino acids? If a reaction is impossible simply because it takes long(maybe 700 years or even less), then the reactions that supposedly produced abiogenesis are impossible since you claim they took billions of years.

However, if an organism found itself in the ocean, it would have reproduced many times and would have died even before the 500 years completes. And even if a protein find itself in the ocean, it would have become an organism. Or in your mighty wisdom you thought the protein would remain a protein. I'm sure you have forgotten we are talking about EVOLUTION.

DoctorAlien:

If this logic true, then evolution is impossible because nobody was there to observe the first unicellular organism turn into a multicellular one. No one observed the human ancestors evolve. No one observed the first amino acids combine to form peptides in the primordial soup.

Now tell me how your claim of evolution stands? Were you alive to observe the first organism from the chemical soup in the ocean?

I agree completely then on this basis alone, evolution is not true because of the reasons you cited.


But on one condition only... Who was there when god created the heavens and the earth? Who was there when the spirit god molded clay and formed Adam as a grown man? Who was there when the serpent spoke to eve? who, who, who?

You, your pastors? your parents who fed you the lies, oh no it has to be Moses, or Abraham, or better still Jesus? Nonsense.

Evolution is backed up by empirical evidence, keep doing your research bro, you'll find the truth. But you may not, because yopu understand science upside down.

butterflyl1on:


Amazing

So the primordial soup which some fluke energy brought about amino acids also had an already present living organism which further aided the process?

By the way isn't evolution meant to occur when amino acids bind and not when they break apart?

You are indeed confused. As long as amino acids cannot be stable in water and bind and would rather break apart then tell me how the first organism evolved over millions of years from an already failed process?

The farce is strong in you.

Plus these amino acids did not just come about but they somehow knew they had to be left handed amino acids in order to form life. You are aware that acids come in left hand and right hand varieties. Life is composed of 100% left hand amino acids. Anything that is alive, such as you, or trees, or sardines has no right-hand amino acids.

So much perfection in this game of chance and gamble played by nature during evolution

For amino acids to be assembled into something that leads to life (assuming both left and right-handed amino acids are available), requires a plan. It is a very complex process, which in life is controlled by RNA. RNA contains the information (instructions) for assembling amino acids into proteins to make life. So evolution science now postulates that RNA had to have existed before amino acids were created. Where does the RNA come from? They don't have an answer. But we know that information (RNA) does not come from nothing.

We know that information requires an intelligence. We can look at something that has been built, such as a house or Ferrari, and recognize that it took human intelligence (information) to create that object. No matter how many millions of years you allow, you will never see a house or Ferrari come into existence "naturally". It takes an intelligence to design and build them. We see the same thing when we look at life. Life requires information.

Prove me wrong.

Mr plagiarist. When next you plagiarize people's material do well to reference it and give them credit. You plagiarized from this website.

http://www.missiontoamerica.org/genesis/creation-email/questions-creation.html

You guys have no scientific knowledge of your own, only to be plagiarising people's work up and down .

Akin1212:


Lol, these people don't know that they are hydrocarbons o. They are clay, let them remain as clay.

Clay who started to talk and move around because god breathed into them. I never knew god breathes.

You see, bro, there are some "ignorant knowledge" we need to start learning from these folks. Lmao

Ignorance is bliss for you obviously

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/752936/Humans-evolved-from-MUD-says-Richard-Dawkins-bible-was-right-evolution-bible/amp


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2488467/Scientists-believe-beginnings-CLAY.html

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/11/06/new-study-suggests-man-came-from-clay-as-bible-suggests.amp.html


http://news.cornell.edu/stories/2013/11/chemicals-life-may-have-combined-clay

http://www.sci-news.com/biology/science-clay-birthplace-life-01522.html

I guess you never realised that the entire 59 elements found in the human body are all also found in the earth's crust.


So incidentally your ancestor is kpotokpoto and not the chimpanzee

And as Job says in Job 10:9, “Remember, I beseech thee, that thou hast made me as the clay; and wilt thou bring me into dust again?”

When you die people would ultimately dump your stiff corpse back where it came from to become one with the earth again. Again I repeat, ignorance for you is most definitely bliss.

Without scientific knowledge the Bible writers via inspiration knew what your scientific world is confirming today in the articles I posted.

Keep on with your ignorant swag.

dalaman:


Mr plagiarist. When next you plagiarize people's material do well to reference it and give them credit. You plagiarized from this website.

http://www.missiontoamerica.org/genesis/creation-email/questions-creation.html

You guys have no scientific knowledge of your own, only to be plagiarising people's work up and down .

I see you did not get the message in the post so did your normal job

Science is lost on you. Stick to what you know which is arguing Christianity using Islam.

butterflyl1on:



I see you did not get the message in the post so did your normal job

Science is lost on you. Stick to what you know which is arguing Christianity using Islam.

Normal job of exposing your plagiarist ways abi? Shut up and be quiet. If you want to argue science use your OWN knowledge instead of stealing people's thoughts and posting them as yours. Shameless akuya .

dalaman:


Normal job of exposing your plagiarist ways abi? Shut up and be quiet. If you want to argue science use your OWN knowledge instead of stealing people's thoughts and posting them as yours. Shameless akuya .

In all my other posts on same thread can you point out anywhere I "stole" other people's thoughts?

Did I steal others thoughts with regards to the primordial soup? (I am sure you think that is a soup from bayelsa state)

Did I steal others thoughts when spoke about hydrolysis?

Did I steal others thoughts when I pointed out the errors in the fossil records and asked for the missing links?

I read to understand FIRST (something you have a deficiency of) before I make any comment. You are simply just sitting and twiddling your fingers on a thread that all that is being said on it looks like alien language to you as a science flunky you are.

Go and troll where you are also still ignorant about but would not quite be noticed unlike here where your ignorance sticks out like a sore thumb.

You can have the last word now and end with words like akuya or baaa baaa mee mee (words only thrown by people who lack expression)

butterflyl1on:


In all my other posts on same thread can you point out anywhere I "stole" other people's thoughts?

Did I steal others thoughts with regards to the primordial soup? (I am sure you think that is a soup from bayelsa state)

Did I steal others thoughts when spoke about hydrolysis?

Did I steal others thoughts when I pointed out the errors in the fossil records and asked for the missing links?

I read to understand FIRST (something you have a deficiency of) before I make any comment. You are simply just sitting and twiddling your fingers on a thread that all that is being said on it looks like alien language to you as a science flunky you are.

Go and troll where you are also still ignorant about but would not quite be noticed unlike here where your ignorance sticks out like a sore thumb.

You can have the last word now and end outwith akuya or baaa baaa mee mee (words only thrown by people who lack expression)

All this meaningless talk simply because you were caught plagiarizing. You pointed errors in the fossil records and you haven't won a Nobel peace prize for your work abi? Seems your mental illness is fully back. You have scientific knowledge so much so that it's always when scientific discussion are going on that you are always caught engaging in plagiarism. Hide your head in shame and be quiet.

butterflyl1on:



Ignorance is bliss for you obviously

Ignorance is surely bliss, no wonder you are basking in its euphoria. I'm very sure that once again, you didn't take the pleasure to read through the articles. Don't worry, while you couldn't achieve the urge to read through and learn, I have helped you.

butterflyl1on:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/752936/Humans-evolved-from-MUD-says-Richard-Dawkins-bible-was-right-evolution-bible/amp

From your link :

"The researchers told the journal Scientific Reports that clay acts as a breeding laboratory for[b] tiny molecules and chemicals[/b] which it 'absorbs like a sponge' and over billions of years the chemicals react with each other to form proteins, DNA and, eventually, living cells."

Nothing in this article shows that clay alone is responsible for life. The title even reads "humans EVOLVED." In fact, the claim here is the importance of clay in conjunction with biomolecules to form the first organism. Not the molding of clay to form man. Don't be stupid, brother. Can you see that it took billions of years for the chemicals to react? According to the clay molder, we are just 6000 years old, remember?

butterflyl1on:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2488467/Scientists-believe-beginnings-CLAY.html

Same content.

butterflyl1on:

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/11/06/new-study-suggests-man-came-from-clay-as-bible-suggests.amp.html

Same content.

When are you going to be wise, you are really perishing because you lack knowledge. The experiment is true for life even at the basic level.

There was no claim that man is wholly clay. Even bacteria too is included. The claim is about "LIFE" which includes everything that has a life.

butterflyl1on:

http://news.cornell.edu/stories/2013/11/chemicals-life-may-have-combined-clay

Same content as the rest

Of course, chemicals MAY have combined with clay to form the first organism we all evolved from. I agree with that, but I do not agree that man was formed from clay alone. Nobody molded clay to form man. We are biomolecules, all living things. And the experiment is true for all organisms and not only man. Be wise.

butterflyl1on:

http://www.sci-news.com/biology/science-clay-birthplace-life-01522.html

from your link :

“We propose that in early geological history clay hydrogel provided a confinement function for biomolecules and biochemical reactions,” explained senior author Prof Dan Luo from the Cornell University’s Kavli Institute."

Your lack of understanding and comprehension is playing a major role in your life, at least it is making you more ignorant daily. Nowhere in the article did they mention that clay was molded. If you can see clearly, they mention biomolecules, that's what we are, not clay

butterflyl1on:

I guess you never realised that the entire 59 elements found in the human body are all also found in the earth's crust.


So incidentally your ancestor is kpotokpoto and not the chimpanzee

And as Job says in Job 10:9, “Remember, I beseech thee, that thou hast made me as the clay; and wilt thou bring me into dust again?”

When you die people would ultimately dump your stiff corpse back where it came from to become one with the earth again. Again I repeat, ignorance for you is most definitely bliss.

Without scientific knowledge the Bible writers via inspiration knew what your scientific world is confirming today in the articles I posted.

Keep on with your ignorant swag.

Other animals also have elements found in the earth's crust, and we evolved from them. As expected, you did not read through the articles again, or maybe you found it difficult to comprehend. Whichever, I have thrown some light on your ignorance. The scientific research discovered something entirely different from what your tiny imaginations concluded. You need to read through again. It doesn't confirm your fairytale stories.

Nobody ever said our ancestors were Chimps, you lack intellect, I swear. How do you do it? You are amazingly retarded_ We share ancestors with Chimps, the ancestors which must have also had a history with clay helping their biomolecules evolve.

Without scientific knowledge, your biblical delusional writers said God molded clay, same with Hindu book writers, same with Islam's Quran, same with Judaism's Torah. So what's your point?

You see the difference between us? We are open-minded and we are ready to make new findings because we are interested in how we got here. But you, no, open ke, for where? God molded clay and breathed into it, no be so?

Keep basking in the euphoria of your enormous ignorance, it must be fun for you.

Wilderman:


Ignorance is surely bliss, no wonder you are basking in its euphoria. I'm very sure that once again, you didn't take the pleasure to read through the articles. Don't worry, while you couldn't control the urge to read through and learn, I have helped you.



From your link :

"The researchers told the journal Scientific Reports that clay acts as a breeding laboratory for[b] tiny molecules and chemicals[/b] which it 'absorbs like a sponge' and over billions of years the chemicals react with each other to form proteins, DNA and, eventually, living cells."

Nothing in this article shows that clay alone is responsible for life. The title even reads "humans EVOLVED." In fact, the claim here is the importance of clay in conjunction with biomolecules to form the first organism. Not the molding of clay to form man. Don't be stupid, brother.



Same content.




Same content.

When are you going to be wise, you are really perishing because you lack knowledge. The experiment is true for life even at the basic level.

There was no claim that man is wholly clay. Even bacteria too is included. The claim is about "LIFE" which includes everything that has a life.


Same content as the rest

Of course, chemicals MAY have combined with clay to form the first organism we all evolved from. I agree with that, but I do not agree that man was formed from clay alone. Nobody molded clay to form man. We are biomolecules, all living things. And the experiment is true for all organisms and not only man. Be wise.



from your link :

“We propose that in early geological history clay hydrogel provided a confinement function for biomolecules and biochemical reactions,” explained senior author Prof Dan Luo from the Cornell University’s Kavli Institute."

Your lack of understanding and comprehension is playing a major role in your life, at least it is making you more ignorant daily. Nowhere in the article did they mention that clay was molded. If you can see clearly, they mention biomolecules, that's what we are, not clay



Other animals also have elements found in the earth's crust, and we evolved from there. As expected, you did not read through the articles again, or maybe you found it difficult to comprehend. Whichever, I have thrown some light on your ignorance. The scientific research discovered something entirely different from what your tiny imaginations concluded. You need to read through again. It doesn't confirm your fairytale stories.

Nobody ever said our ancestors were Chimps, you lack intellect, I swear. How do you do it? You are amazingly retarded_ We share ancestors with Chimps, the ancestors which must have also have a history with clay helping their biomolecules evolve.

Without scientific knowledge, your biblical delusional writers said God molded clay, same with Hindu book writers, same with Islam's Quran, same with Judaism's Torah. So what's your point?

You see the difference between us? We are open-minded and we are ready to make new findings because we are interested in how we got here. But you, no, open ke, for where? God molded clay and breathed into it, no be so?

Keep basking in the euohoria of your enormous ignorance, it must be fun for you.

LMAO so much ignorance on display. I read the articles and sighting the word Evolution or chemical reaction and then clay simply shows you that the path to truth has been laid already and slowly but surely it will unravel itself THANKS TO THE SAME SCIENCE WHICH NOW AGREE THAT CLAY WAS NEEDED FOR LIFE FORMATION and I suppose man is a dead thing right?

The Bible clearly declared that man came from clay. There would be no lasting reaction without the stable nature of clay (something unscientific men who wrote scriptures SOMEHOW KNEW).

Slowly but surely science is proving the scriptures to be very correct. Clay is nothing without water. In fact clay holds more water than dirt so it's only proper to chemically find water and other reactants in clay but THE CHIEF COMPONENT WHICH BINDS ALL IS CLAY.

Science is about to hit a major bump on the road and so are you.

Now that science knows this they should try replicating the process and see if LIFE would emerge

You can go ahead and attempt this and win a major Nobel Prize

dalaman:


All this meaningless talk simply because you were caught plagiarizing. You pointed errors in the fossil records and you haven't won a Nobel peace price for your work abi? Seems your mental illness is fully back. You have scientific knowledge so much so that it's always when scientific discussion are going on that you are always caught engaging in plagiarism. Hide your head in shame and be quiet.

Scientific knowledge that is giving you migraine for having zero comprehension

butterflyl1on:



LMAO so much ignorance on display. I read the articles and sighting the word Evolution or chemical reaction and then clay simply shows you that the path to truth has been laid already and slowly but surely it will unravel itself THANKS TO THE SAME SCIENCE WHICH NOW AGREE THAT CLAY WAS NEEDED FOR LIFE FORMATION and I suppose man is a dead thing right?

I really do marvel at your IQ, seriously.

Scientists have never disputed that particles brought forth everything. Clay MAY only serves as a catalyst for reactions. That truth has been laid down even before you were born. Even dogs and cats must have also had clay's support. All organisms did according to that research. Why are you euphoric about it? It doesn't prove God an inch

butterflyl1on:

The Bible clearly declared that man came from clay. There would be no lasting reaction without the stable nature of clay (something unscientific men who wrote scriptures SOMEHOW KNEW).

Slowly but surely science is proving the scriptures to be very correct. Clay is nothing without water. In fact clay holds more water than dirt so it's only proper to chemically find water and other reactants in clay buy THE CHIEF COMPONENT WHICH BINDS ALL IS CLAY.

Science is about to hit a major bump on the road and so are you.

The Bible clearly declared that God molded clay and breathed into it. It is a very different process to what science is saying.

The men who wrote the Quran also knew it, the men who wrote the Torah also knew it. The men who wrote the Ifa also knew it. I asked again, what's your point here? Even Judaism is the oldest religion on earth, it came first, so their God must be truer than your God.

Science is not proving the scriptures to be correct on any account. Science is not going to hit any bump, you just find it amusingly hard to comprehend. You can't tune science for your needs, it is what it is.



Creationists should go ahead. mold some clay and breathe into it, let's see if the clay will start having dominion

butterflyl1on:


Scientific knowledge that is giving you migraine for having zero comprehension

Where did I display any lack of comprehension? You have so much scientific knowledge that you are always plagiarising when it comes to scientific discussion. Well done. Shameless akuya.

Wilderman:


I really do marvel at your IQ, seriously.

Scientists have never disputed that particles brought forth everything. Clay MAY only serves as a catalyst for reactions. That truth has been laid down even before you were born. Even dogs and cats must have also had clay's support. All organisms did according to that research. Why are you euphoric about it? It doesn't prove God an inch



The Bible clearly declared that God molded clay and breathed into it. It is a very different process to what science is saying.

The men who wrote the Quran also knew it, the men who wrote the Torah also knew it. The men who wrote the Ifa also knew it. I asked again, what's your point here? Even Judaism is the oldest religion on earth, it came first, so their God must be truer than your God.

Science is not proving the scriptures to be correct on any account. Science is not going to hit any bump, you just find it amusingly hard to comprehend. You can tune science for your needs, it is what it is.

Everyone knows the quran is a MAD COPY of the Bible with removed and altered contents so no surprise there that it also copied that man came from clay.

However when did science emerge and when did this your "THE TRUTH HAD BEEN LAID DOWN EVEN BEFORE I WAS BORN" come from? Was I born a little over 2000 years ago?

I must be that old for the Bible and science to confirm clay as a major component for life of which humans are Chief

Is modern science a little over 2000 years old? This discovery is in modern science era so say something less dumb next time.

The Bible was SPECIFIC when it said CLAY. it did not say SILT OR HUMUS OR LOAMY OR ANYTHING ELSE BUT CLAY. why this specification? That's a very direct declaration and here we have modern science confirming an over 2000 year old UNSCIENTIFIC declaration.

Go figure.

sinequanon:


In the sense Richard Dawkins (for one) uses the term "undirected" it means "with no foresight or purpose". In fact, he stresses that the word "selected" is unfortunate and should not be construed as implying "directed".

Okay, now that you've defined "undirected" more clearly to mean "with no foresight or purpose", then yes, this presupposition is justified, and should be the natural starting point, following the principles of Occam's razor. Let me invoke just one reasons why evolution seems purposeless to an objective observer: Now, bear in mind that current evidence puts the percentage of extinct species at around 99% (W. E. Kunin and K. J. Gaston, 1997). This extent of wastefulness does not exude any sense of purpose. You may be tempted to argue that the wastefulness is justified if this is a self correcting process that iteratively produces better results, however such an argument does not take into account that the phenotypic pressures that cause any particular species to be well-adapted to its environment are dynamic and ever changing, so today's optimally adapted species can quickly become tomorrow's fossil record (if they are lucky enough to fossilise, that is). From this observation, the only thing that can be inferred is the absence of purpose. Now, since a strong causal link is established between environmental factors and evolution of species, one would have to: (1) Demonstrate that there is purpose in environmental dynamism and that (2) the consequences of this dynamism were intended; in order to argue for direction (as defined by you).

You are saying two different things.

The theory is sometimes stated including the idea of "undirectness", sometimes not. So whether it is required or not cannot be determined, until the equivocation is resolved.

Can you specify examples of both definitions, and cite their sources. I need context to better understand the equivocation you're referring to.

Not at all.

So you don't accept that something which is pointless has no purpose?