trendsvivi:

No need wasting my precious time and breath here, What little minded and myopic females we have here. Its no use. keep up the foolishness, bye

Its funny hw people cant take criticisms. U asked for feedback and U got them. Now U gon' walk around as if U have a chip on ur shoulder

I admit some of the criticisms were very vague, some mean and some not particularly objective but U should get the general picture. There is plenty of room for improvement.

I did not know what U were expecting, applaud U and call U the next Gucci or Versache?

~Sauron~:

These statistics are distorted. . . . . . .
The chances of students getting admitted in SE areas are almost 100%(Nobody wants to really school there).

Complete bunkum!!!!

I have seen a lotta of retarded threads , this one takes the cake.

Do U even understand the experiment that was done at all? 


This is getting so boring, so U cant even see there were two experiments done with two different probes and those two probes gave opposite results. Arrrrggggghhhhhhh!!!!

U are becoming a bore and an annoying one at that.

If U cant pick out the sticky points from a very straight foward abstract , then we should not be having a discussion in the first place. We are not having a Journal club so I am under no obligation to walk U thru it.

[b]Similarities in chromosome banding patterns and homologies in DNA sequence between chromosomes of the great apes andhumans have suggested that human chromosome 2 originated through the fusion of two ancestral ape chromosomes. A lot of work has been directed at understanding the nature and mechanism of this fusion. The recent availability of the humanchromosome-2-specific alpha satellite DNA probe D2Z and the human chromosome-2p-specific subtelomeric DNA probeD2S445 prompted us to attempt cross-hybridization with chromosomes of the chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes), gorilla (Gorillagorilla) and orangutan (Pongo pygmaeus) to search for equivalent locations in the great apes and to comment on the origin ofhuman chromosome 2. The probes gave different results. No hybridization to the chromosome-2-specifïc alpha satelliteDNA probe was observed on the presumed homologous great ape chromosomes using both high-stringency and low-stringency post-hybridization washes, whereas the subtelomeric-DNA probe specific for chromosome 2p hybridized totelomeric sites of the short arm of chromosome 12 of all three great apes. These observations suggest an evolutionary difference in the number of alpha satellite DNA repeat units in the equivalent ape chromosomes presumably involved in thechromosome fusion. Nevertheless, complete conservation of DNA sequence of the subtelomeric repeat sequence D2S445 inthe ape chromosomes is demonstrated[/b]


By the way, count me as one of  Hux's casualties if that makes U feel better. I am outtie.

I say kudos to the Enugu Govt.

If any State/City in Nigeria can boast of relative power supply, Enugu is on of those states (Unless if it has changed )

thi

Finally:

That's why even though some people who aren't educated in [molecular science and DNA research] still believe life emerged by chance, scientists simple don't believe it anymore."
Walter L. Bradley, The Mystery of Life's Origin

This is so true.

This might be my last post on this thread cos this is turning out to be more of a joke than a discourse. I would rather be in the Comedy section of NL than be here wasting my time.

[b]Similarities in the chromosome banding patterns and the homologies in DNA sequence between great apes and human chromosome suggest that human chromosome 2 originated by fusion of two ancestral chromosomes
[/b]

Does this support your position or does it rebutts it?    I get the funny feeling that you never really read these articles your cited, which would not surprise me in the least.  I call this "hoisting on your own petard"
[quote][/quote]

If U are in the habit of reading of scientific article(s) (or any article at all) , U would notice that the trend is to go from the known to the unknown. The introduction of any scientific paper is typically divided into three paragraphs

1) What is known.

2) What is unknown or controversial

3) Experiments designed to either rebut or support what is already known/ adding more to what is known.



Now what U quoted above was taken from paragraph 1 of the introduction of that article where the authors where stating what was supposedly known and they also cited the 1991 paper, thereby exonerating themselves from the claim. The paper now went ahead to test those reasons more rigorously and from their experiments they found that the basis for that assumption was wrong.

I now know that U might not be able to understand the methodologies used in both papers (some of them I find questionable) so I will just advise U to go down to the discussion section of the paper and U will at least get the conclusion made by the authors cos it is apparent u completely missed their own conclusion. However, I have to warn U that reading conclusions without really understanding how the experiments were done is very dangerous and it is becoming apparent that U are in the habit of doing that.

U see why I think this discourse wont do any of us any good. When I have to point out basic and fundamental issues like the ones above, it makes look like I am delivering a lecture rather than having some meaningful debate. And thats the reason why I wont even go into the Nature paper cos it gets even more  messy and complicated.

Ifyalways bu agbara nwanyi na proverbs.

U dont expect everybody to be the same , do you?

fromuk:



You have to improve faster and start writting proverbs like ifyalways.

ifyalways:

wtf
u did not "copy and paste" very well
agame. . . . .meaningless
ebu. . . .carry
adinma. . . .it cud be a name,it cud also mean "being good"
na. . . and
aju. . . .headpad or "to reject"
ka ihe o meani. . . .what does it mean
i[b] bu onye igbo ka i na anwu igbo [/b]

lol

The guy bu onye Kogi state

huxley:




And this is your response:

Your comments above show just how ignorant about this matters you are.  I sought to enlighten you by providing the view of a scientist (Donald Prothero) working in the field at the present time.  But you have NOT been able to engage with the information I provided. 

The current view is that less that 1 % of dead organism are able to form fossils.  The figure is even less amongst soft-bodied organism.  Can you show me any scientific arguments that contradict this position?   I want arguments and data,  NOT ramblings from your dogma.

I am getting sick and tired of ur musings. I dont usually go into long debates on NL , I use NL purely for recreation  but U drew my ire when U suggested that I was a Christian fundamentalist ignoramus. I went into this debate with U thinking that U might have something up ur noggin but I was wrong. The more U write , the more U strike me as somebody who is incapable of independent thinking. The manner by which U post long articles that makes no sense lays credence to the fact that U swallow a lot of garbage without trying to figure out if they make sense or not. Even worse, U expect everybody to jump in the ship with you.

I have taken out some time to call U out some  issues and I have even posted the primary literature(s) that dealt with some claims that U wrongly made for all to read and draw their conclusion. U conveniently ignore chose not to address those articles and yet U accuse me of lack of data to support my claims. I have even used simple biological, chemical and mathematical concepts to try and reason with U , yet u accuse me of being dogmatic.  Sighs!!! I thought I would have a more enlightening discussion with you.

Anyways, U are bringing up the soft-bodied tissue again as an excuse for the fact that a  whole set of "transistional organisms" went awol. I suggest U scroll back and read my response to that. The only places that fossil records are missing are in the most important places ----- "the links". U now tell me to just believe that these links went missing cos of lack of fossilisation. The "Evolutionist" accuse the "Creationist" of relying heavily on faith but it seems to me that U even need more faith to believe the the theory of evolution than U do for the Creationist version with the amazing data (or lack thereof) that goes contrary to evolution.

Darwin relied heavily on Science to prove him right. Mathematically (Probability), it does not seem possible. Simple laws of physio-chemistry (Thermodynamics) does not allow for evolution. Biology ( Mutation and the genome) suggests that U must be inhaling something other than oxygen to believe that a very simple organism mutated so many times to acquire the level of complexity humans have right now. Fossil records seem to become incomplete and insufficient when U start to ask for the most important clue for evolution--transistional forms. So , pray, tell me, what the hell are U guys basing ur beliefs upon? Faith? I thought that was the forte of the creationist.

There is no need for me to keep going in circles with u. U have made no sense ever since we started this and I doubt if U would ever make sense.

                                                       Ka Chineke mezie okwu 

No2Atheism:

, lol,  , yea right,
[color=#000099]
I am also a very good footballer and I'm better than ronaldinho,  , its just that i have not played enough for people to see me play at all,

lol Ol, boy me too oooooo. The problem is that no club gree sign me

@ Ola

Thanks for taking the time to compile those "quotes". However, I am afraid that U are just pouring water on a rock. I hope nobody other than Hux is decieved by this hoax called TTE.

All U need to disprove the theory of evolution is a little bit of back ground in elementary science. U dont have to look any further.

Just putting the "probabality issue" that I raised in my previous post into context.

"If you took all the carbon in the universe and put it on the face of the earth, allowed it to chemically react at the most rapid rate possible, and left it for a[b] billion years,[/b] the odds of creating just o[b]ne functional protein molecule[/b] would be[b] one chance in a 10 with 60 zeros[/b] after it. In other words, the odds for all practical purposes are zero. That's why even though some people who aren't educated in [molecular science and DNA research] still believe life emerged by chance, scientists simple don't believe it anymore."
Walter L. Bradley, The Mystery of Life's Origin

U said South in ur previous posts and last time I checked that was supposed to be the east and the western part of Naija.

I did not see the "west" in ur last post. Now I see it. I apologise.

tpia:





mainly the west. My friend told me rice was common in Ibadan and Lagos, but going by the general picture  most people in the rural areas didnt eat rice except as tuwo, which was a northern food. Thats for the few non-northerners in the south who even ate tuwo.

Stop saying that


Rice was and is still cultivated in Abakiliki, some parts of Enugu and Anambra state.

Just like Bawo implied, why bother with Agriculture when we have Oil. Thats the sorry state of Naija for U.

Most Scientists think they can just interpret data however they want to and then shove it down the throat of people. 

U suddenly want me to believe that Chromosome 2 originated from Apes just based on an article that U read. Tsk, tsk, tsk.


I read somewhere in ur post where U claimed that evolution should not neccessarily be a directed and purposeful event. I dont have the time to deal with that issue now (I might later) but let me tell u right away that it is just complete bunkum!!!!
However, I want U to really think about these concepts (very deeply) and then review ur knowledge of evolution

1) The human genome has about 30,000 genes (and still counting). The average gene has about 3000 base pairs (with incredible variation) and each base pair is capable of undergoing mutation.  If evolution is all left to chance and random mutation like U are postulating, what are the chances of us evolving into the highly articulate and intelligent  being that we are today.

2) This is connected to Number 1.  Davidlyan brought up an issue that U typically avoided.  U guys make it sound as if mutation is neccessarily a good thing. For every one beneficial mutation , there are about 10,000 very deleterious ones. Again , for the mathematically inclined , the issue of probability makes evolution highly suspect.

3) Related to number 2. The fact is that organisms are inherently built to resist change. No biological system likes to undergo mutation. This is evident in the fact that even the most simple organism is equipped with a mechanism that back tracks and makes sure that no mistake is made during DNA replication, a process known as DNA proof-reading. Now why would a very simple organism like yeast and E.coli have a system like that if they are supposed to serve as the template from which man evolved?
  Just an aside, the guy that perfected the art of introducing mutations in organisms , worked on it for about 12 years. U know what his biggest constraint was? The ease at which  cells reject foreign DNA. The way evolutionist argue their point one would think that organisms actually like to mutate.

4) The last thing I want U to think about is thermodynamics. Second law to be precise. Read that and think about that carefully. Then try and put that in the context of evolution, especially ur own version of evolution that happens by chance and not directed and tell me if ur kind of evolution is not even more absurd than Darwin's version.

Have a nice day.

Why U insist on a lot of mumbo jumbo to conceal simple facts beats me ? 

The argument was not weather or not all organisms were fossilised. That is not the bone of contention. The problem is that there is a missing link between the pre-Cambrian and the Cambrian period where we suddenly went from Unicellular organisms to diverse  and highly complex organisms in the Cambrian period which is contrary to the "gradual and transient" manner of evolution according to Darwin.

U came up with a ridiculous explanation positing that those organisms (a whole group of transistional organisms ) were not fossilised and U gave even more ridiculous reasons why U think they were not fossilised. Those were the issues I addressed.

And ur argument sounds hypocritical to me. U are willing to speculate  that "the missing link" between the pre cambrian and the cambrian period was as a result of non-fossilisation of those life forms and yet U keep asking me why do we not see dinosaurs fossils during those periods. U really want me to answer that?  Oga ooo!!!!


[font=Lucida Sans Unicode]What do you mean by sudden?   Can you quantify that in terms of years?[/font]
When I say sudden , I mean some features and some animals suddenly showed in the evolutionary tree with no relation to the features of the animals supposedly came before and after it. An eaxample I have given is that of the Shark and its ability to regenerate its teeth. It just seems that the animal suddenly decided to develop that feature without warning and then hog it.

@ Hux

I found one article on the Trilobites. Not the exact one I am looking for , cause this one is not very descriptive, but it is ok for the purposes of this thread.

Journal of Paleontology 75(2):346-350. 2001
doi: 10.1666/0022-3360(2001)075<0346:TEOTET>2.0.CO;2

THE EYES OF THE EARLY TREMADOC OLENID TRILOBITE JUJUYASPIS KEIDELI KOBAYASHI, 1936
G. U. I. L. L. ERMO F. ACEÑOLAZAa, M. FRANCO TORTELLOb, I. S. A. B. E. L. RÁBANOc


Some excerpts from the article :

OLENID TRILOBITES are especially abundant in the upper Cambrian and lowermost Ordovician (Tremadoc), being very common throughout the Baltic province, with isolated occurrences elsewhere. Many authors have pointed out their biostratigraphic importance, basing accurate stratigraphic schemes on them (e.g., Westergård, 1922; Henningsmoen, 1957; Harrington and Leanza, 1957).


Trilobite eyes are considered to be[b] one of the oldest visual systems[/b] found in the geological record. These early “windows to the external world” are very similar to the eyes found in modern arthropods (e.g., Fordyce and Cronin, 1993).

huxley:


 


What you have done here is called quote-minding.   Can you present it in its full context?   Darwin raised it as a possible problem, only to provide the answer later in his discuss.  But quite-minders like yourself, dishonestly never present the full context.

Stop looking for a cheap way out    If u think I put Darwin's words outta context, all U can do is to put it back in context. U did none of those.

Darwin raised not only that question but a whole lot of other questions in his book. Matter of fact , he devoted a whole chapter of his book to the problems and questions his theory elicits. And just like any other scientist, he speculated on various possibilities which does not even make sense to him cause the more he speculated the more he met a dead end.

If U think that Darwin answered his own questions definitively, then post his answers to the above questions so that I can read too. I have a feeling that Darwin's answers exist only in ur own version of "The origin of species".

huxley:



Can you provide evidence of the data you are siting for the trilobite ocular systems

I want to assume that U can find generic info littered all over the internet. But if U cant just let me know and I will try and dig up the article that descibed the tribolites ocular system. I read that stuff sometime ago and so it might take a while for me to dig up the primary article.

huxley:


Fossilisation is an extremely rare event and most dead animals who decompose or be scavenged before the get the chance to fossilise. Further soft-body animals have very little chance of being fossilised. The pre-cambrian (and possibly the cambrian) was dominated by less complex soft-body animals that stand very little chances of fossilising. That is why very few fossils from this period have been found.

More hand waving explanations. No substance at all.

First off all, fossils of unicellular animals (the most simple of all) have been found. Why do U now want me to believe that the gap between the pre-cambrian and the cambrian period can be explained by lack of fossilisation of subsequent organisms that "evolved " from these unicellular organisms.

Secondly, if a jellyfish can be fossilised , I find it hard to buy the argument that the reason behind organisms not being fossilised is as a result of their soft body tissue. Not many organisms can boast of being more soft-bodied than a jelly fish.

Thirdly, why are U bringing up scavengers in the pre-cambrian and cambrian period Thats some hilarious shit!!!. Following Darwin's train of thought, U should not expect to find scavengers in those era cos organisms should have not acquired that manner of complexity. Matter of fact, those periods should be periods with the highest amount of fossilised organisms.

huxley:



Because that is exactly the definition of evolution - Descent with modification.    Looks like you don't even understand what you are trying to critique.

With all due respect, Sir, I think U are the one who really dont understand the theory of evolution. The mere fact that U admitted some horses went from a small size to a bigger size and then back again to a smaller size puts U at odds with Darwinism. Sometimes I wonder if U are still talking about Evolution or Devolution. 

Chromosome 2 again, kwa 

The earliest paper that claims that chromosome 2 originated from a fusion of two ancestral ape chromosomes based their claims solely on similarities in chromosome banding pattern and hybridisation homology, something that was determined by ur run of the mill restriction digests.

Origin of human chromosome 2: An ancestral
telomere-telomere fusion
J. W. IJDO*t, A. BALDINIt§, D. C. WARDt, S. T. REEDERS**, AND R. A. WELLS*¶
*Howard Hughes Medical Institute and tDepartment of Genetics, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT 06510
Communicated by Alan Garen, July 8, 1991

Another paper came out 7 yrs later and this time used the more specific DNA satellites as a probe for the hybridization experiments. The long and short of it is that even after LOW STRINGENCY POST HYBRIDIZATION washes the probe did not hybridise to the presumed homologous chromosomes of the apes.

Origin of human chromosome 2 revisted (Rea Samonte et al 1998, Journal of Genetics , pg 44 to 47)

I give U those two papers to read, compare , contrast and draw ur own conclusions.

U and ur "copy and paste" syndrome

@ Kobo

It depends on the guy and which culture he wants to lean to. He might have lived in the US for a million years but if he decides to be seen as a Nigerian, then there is nothing anybody can do. Obama is part white, part black (raised by white folks) but he decided he wants to see himself first and foremost as a black man. Tiger woods is part black but he prefers to be more associated with the Asian community. Whateva floats ur boat.

Now back to ur horse thingy which is a classic bulwark for proponents of Darwinism (and the only one if I may add  )

I assume U have seen the evolutionary tree. Can U point out to me what is percieved as a non-horse ancestor of the horse. From Darwin's theory there has to be a some other form of animal that GRADUALLY over time turned into a horse. U have evidence for that non-horse ancestor?

It is funny U raised the issue of toes  and size in ur post. Another classic evolutionary BS. How does losing a toe or changing sizes reflect evolution?    If a horse changes from being one 3 toed to one toed it is still a horse , innit? It did not suddenly become a moose or a fox just because it lost the ability to make three toes :-

Apart from that, Molecular biology have already shown how that cn happen. Most of those horse still have the ability to make three toes. The only difference is that the information t make three toes in these animals have been repressed and this repression can be genetically linked, epigentically linked or even envirionmental. The case of the toes is a classic case of adaptation rather than evolution.

Still on the toe,
Darwin theory focused on gradations from the very simple to complex. Horses should have started out one -toed and then progressively evolved into some multi -toed animal but it seems the reverse is the case. Does not fit to the Darwin model.


And remember, the horse is the best piece of evidence that proponents of Darwinism can come up with. Even at that it is still full of holes and very incomplete as acknowledged by Soper (1997, Biological Science p 890) :

The history of the horse does not show a gradual transition regularly spaced in time and locality, and neither is the fossil record totally complete.

@ Huxley

I chuckled at how U chose to ignore a host of issues that I raised up in my previous posts only to throw out the horse, which by the way is the only supposedly strongest fossil records supporting TTE today as weak as it is. Molecular biology is just beginning to explain whatever misconception(s) that have been made in some hasty attempts to justify evolution in the equine family.

However, before I go into that let me remind u of some of the issues which i raised that were so not consistent with Darwin's thory of evolution.

1) U never addressed the disconnect that is so obvious between the pre-cambrian and the cambrian period. The fact that there was a sudden appearance of not only a diverse but also numerous multicellular organisms in the cambrian period that looks nothing like the unicellular organisms found in the Azoic and Proterozoic era.

2) U also chose to ignore the fact that an organism (tribolites) which was 530 million years old by carbon dating already have a very complex ocular system altho they were found to have lived in the cambrian period. Also, the fact that there was no organ that looks like a vestigial/rudimentary eye in all the organisms that came before the Tribolites something U would predict from Darwin's theory.

3) I told U a story of the shark that suddenly appeared in the Tree of life (that was composed by evolutionist by the way) without any relationship to the phyla above or below it. The sudden appearance of the shark ( a la most other animals) and its unique ability to regenerate its teeth ( a trait that was not seen in other phlyas close to it) is not something Darwin's model would predict.

4) What about the fact that some animals have lived on this planet for so many years without ever EVOLVING. For instance the dragon fly has been on this earth close to about 300 million years and fossil records showed that the dragon flies inhabiting the earth look the same like the ones that lived 300 million years ago. How come they were already complex in a time where U would predict from Darwin's model that most animals would still be in thier rudimentary form.

There are many more questions that throw big holes in Darwin's account of evolution. Even at the time of Darwin published "The origin of species" he knew that his theory raised more questions than answers. He even posed some of the questions himself and I will give one example copied directly from "The origin of species":

Firstly, why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?
Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?"
Charles R. Darwin, The Origin of Species: p. 205

That was a scientific mind at its finest, questioning the validity of his own theory. Darwin raised those doubts even without the luxury of all the scientific discipline that we have today. If Darwin had lived to this age of Molecular biology and genetics plus all the fossil records , he woulda have been the first to call his theory to question.

To put my assertion that Darwin might dramatically change his mind if he had the information that we have today into context (and also bringing up the evolution of the horse) , I would leave U with these two quotes from a Paleontologist and an Evolutionary biologist

‘The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be modified or discarded as a result of more detailed information. What appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and less gradualistic. So Darwin’s problem has not been alleviated.’ D.M. Raup, ‘Conflicts between Darwin and paleontology,’ Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 50:22, 1979.

and

"Instead of revealing a multitude of transitional forms through which the evolution of the cell might have occurred, molecular biology has served only to emphasize the enormity of the gap. We now know not only of the existence of a break between the living and non-living world, but also that it represents the most dramatic and fundamental of all the discontinuities of nature.
Dr. Denton, Ph.D (Molecular Biology)
This guy is a researcher in Sydney, Australia. U can google him up and read his articles.