₦airaland Forum

chy22:
Those hydrogen and oxygen carry any genetic code?
Do they replicate?

Bwahaha... I just gave you the structure of Amino acid you thought was not divisible. Please...! You are going about a process that has other processes. At the end it all boils down to fundamental particles. . Did you get my point clearly?

all4naija:
Bwahaha... I just gave you the structure of Amino acid you thought was not divisible. Please...! You are going about a process that has other processes. At the end it all boils down to fundamental particles. . Did you get my point clearly?

all4naija:
Okay. It is completely clear god and religion are not required in the origin of the universe because both of them don't make sense.

chy22:
Lets do a quick look on the abstract of this article you provided

In the absence of the selecting drugs, chromosomal mutations for resistance to antibiotics and other chemotheraputic agents commonly engender a cost in the fitness of microorganisms. Recent in vivo and in vitro experimental studies of the adaptation to these “costs of resistance” in Escherichia coli, HIV, and Salmonella typhimurium found that evolution in the absence of these drugs commonly results in the ascent of mutations that ameliorate these costs, rather than higher-fitness, drug-sensitive revertants. To ascertain the conditions under which this compensatory evolution, rather than reversion, will occur, we did computer simulations,[/font][font=Lucida Sans Unicode] in vitro experiments, and DNA sequencing studies with low-fitness rpsL (streptomycin-resistant) mutants of E. coli with and without mutations that compensate for the fitness costs of these ribosomal protein mutations.

The results of our investigation support the hypothesis that in these experiments, the ascent of intermediate-fitness compensatory mutants, rather than high-fitness revertants, can be attributed to higher rates of compensatory mutations relative to that of reversion and to the numerical bottlenecks associated with serial passage. We argue that these bottlenecks are intrinsic to the population dynamics of parasitic and commensal microbes and discuss the implications of these results to the problem of drug resistance and adaptive evolution in parasitic and commmensal microorganisms in general.

From the article you can clearly see it talking about variations, this phenomenon I agree with. The study also used computational stimulation, which means if it did make any conclusion based on that it will become an assumption.

But the most important fact is you are mis interpreting this article, from their conclusion which I highlighted the made conclusions on drug resistance and micro-evolution. This paper clearly does not prove or even claim any thing about macro-evolution and they never showed that even E.coil developed to something that is not E.Coli. So basically you read this article and ignored their valid conclusion and made you own assumption. Disappointing I must say.

chy22:
No I did not get you point, because the genetic information those not exist in hydrogen and oxygen.
And where did the particles come from?

all4naija:
Hahaha... You are now talking a stand on erroneous approach. In the first case you asked for observable evolution process and that is the reason why a give you an example with bacteria. Most of my points on evolution have fostered the process of a long time without people really knowing it's happening either by chance or randomly. The fact that microbes are clear replica of the activities in our cells prove that this is happening in a scale you cannot see with you naked eyes as you expect it to be while excluding the time the time factor. In that regard micro evolution lays credence to Macro evolution.

The computational stimulation is for explanation purpose to explore all the possibilities of having those changes coming into effect during the mutation.

all4naija:
Bwahaha...Are you for real? Which theory are you talking about? Did you see the image of the expanding universe I posted earlier? The universe age is about 14 billion years after the first explosion.

all4naija:
Nonsense!

all4naija:
Dude! You can make use of Google to search for what you are asking for. Now let me discuss with people with brains.

[size=20]George Carlin on religion[/size]

When it comes to bullshît, big-time, major league bullshît, you have to stand in awe of the all-time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims, religion. No contest. No contest. Religion. Religion easily has the greatest bullshît story ever told. Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!

But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, you talk about a good bullshit story. Holy Shit!

But I want you to know something, this is sincere, I want you to know, when it comes to believing in God, I really tried. I really, really tried. I tried to believe that there is a God, who created each of us in His own image and likeness, loves us very much, and keeps a close eye on things. I really tried to believe that, but I gotta tell you, the longer you live, the more you look around, the more you realize, something is bleeped up.

Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed. Results like these do not belong on the résumé of a Supreme Being. This is the kind of shit you'd expect from an office temp with a bad attitude. And just between you and me, in any decently-run universe, this guy would've been out on his all-powerful ass a long time ago. And by the way, I say "this guy", because I firmly believe, looking at these results, that if there is a God, it has to be a man.

No woman could or would ever fück things up like this. So, if there is a God, I think most reasonable people might agree that he's at least incompetent, and maybe, just maybe, doesn't give a shit. Doesn't give a shit, which I admire in a person, and which would explain a lot of these bad results.

So rather than be just another mindless religious robot, mindlessly and aimlessly and blindly believing that all of this is in the hands of some spooky incompetent father figure who doesn't give a shit, I decided to look around for something else to worship. Something I could really count on.

And immediately, I thought of the sun. Happened like that. Overnight I became a sun-worshipper. Well, not overnight, you can't see the sun at night. But first thing the next morning, I became a sun-worshipper. Several reasons. First of all, I can see the sun, okay? Unlike some other gods I could mention, I can actually see the sun. I'm big on that. If I can see something, I don't know, it kind of helps the credibility along, you know? So everyday I can see the sun, as it gives me everything I need; heat, light, food, flowers in the park, reflections on the lake, an occasional skin cancer, but hey. At least there are no crucifixions, and we're not setting people on fire simply because they don't agree with us.
Sun worship is fairly simple. There's no mystery, no miracles, no pageantry, no one asks for money, there are no songs to learn, and we don't have a special building where we all gather once a week to compare clothing. And the best thing about the sun, it never tells me I'm unworthy. Doesn't tell me I'm a bad person who needs to be saved. Hasn't said an unkind word. Treats me fine. So, I worship the sun. But, I don't pray to the sun. Know why? I wouldn't presume on our friendship. It's not polite.

I've often thought people treat God rather rudely, don't you? Asking trillions and trillions of prayers every day. Asking and pleading and begging for favors. Do this, gimme that, I need a new car, I want a better job. And most of this praying takes place on Sunday His day off. It's not nice. And it's no way to treat a friend.

But people do pray, and they pray for a lot of different things, you know, your sister needs an operation on her crotch, your brother was arrested for defecating in a mall. But most of all, you'd really like to Bleep that hot little redhead down at the convenience store. You know, the one with the eyepatch and the clubfoot? Can you pray for that? I think you'd have to. And I say, fine. Pray for anything you want. Pray for anything, but what about the Divine Plan?

Remember that? The Divine Plan. Long time ago, God made a Divine Plan. Gave it a lot of thought, decided it was a good plan, put it into practice. And for billions and billions of years, the Divine Plan has been doing just fine. Now, you come along, and pray for something. Well suppose the thing you want isn't in God's Divine Plan? What do you want Him to do? Change His plan? Just for you? Doesn't it seem a little arrogant? It's a Divine Plan. What's the use of being God if every run-down shmuck with a two-dollar prayerbook can come along and Bleep up Your Plan?

And here's something else, another problem you might have: Suppose your prayers aren't answered. What do you say? "Well, it's God's will." "Thy Will Be Done." Fine, but if it's God's will, and He's going to do what He wants to anyway, why the Bleep bother praying in the first place? Seems like a big waste of time to me! Couldn't you just skip the praying part and go right to His Will? It's all very confusing.

So to get around a lot of this, I decided to worship the sun. But, as I said, I don't pray to the sun. You know who I pray to? Joe Pesci. Two reasons: First of all, I think he's a good actor, okay? To me, that counts. Second, he looks like a guy who can get things done. Joe Pesci doesn't Bleep around. In fact, Joe Pesci came through on a couple of things that God was having trouble with.

For years I asked God to do something about my noisy neighbor with the barking dog, Joe Pesci straightened that RoosterDrinker out with one visit. It's amazing what you can accomplish with a simple baseball bat.

So I've been praying to Joe for about a year now. And I noticed something. I noticed that all the prayers I used to offer to God, and all the prayers I now offer to Joe Pesci, are being answered at about the same 50% rate. Half the time I get what I want, half the time I don't. Same as God, 50-50. Same as the four-leaf clover and the horseshoe, the wishing well and the rabbit's foot, same as the Mojo Man, same as the Voodoo Lady who tells you your fortune by squeezing the goat's testicles, it's all the same: 50-50. So just pick your superstition, sit back, make a wish, and enjoy yourself.

And for those of you who look to The Bible for moral lessons and literary qualities, I might suggest a couple of other stories for you. You might want to look at the Three Little Pigs, that's a good one. Has a nice happy ending, I'm sure you'll like that. Then there's Little Red Riding Hood, although it does have that X-rated part where the Big Bad Wolf actually eats the grandmother. Which I didn't care for, by the way. And finally, I've always drawn a great deal of moral comfort from Humpty Dumpty. The part I like the best? "All the king's horses and all the king's men couldn't put Humpty Dumpty back together again." That's because there is no Humpty Dumpty, and there is no God. None, not one, no God, never was.

In fact, I'm gonna put it this way. If there is a God, may he strike this audience dead! See? Nothing happened. Nothing happened? Everybody's okay? All right, tell you what, I'll raise the stakes a little bit. If there is a God, may he strike me dead. See? Nothing happened, oh, wait, I've got a little cramp in my leg. And my balls hurt. Plus, I'm blind. I'm blind, oh, now I'm okay again, must have been Joe Pesci, huh? God Bless Joe Pesci. Thank you all very much. Joe Bless You!

(Copyright 1999 by George Carlin. Printed without permission.)

anex4real:
A seventh magnitude star in the constellation
Libra, HD 140283 has always been seen as
unusual. For more than a century astronomers
have been ware of its fast motion across the
sky. It is speeding through our galactic
neighbourhood at a staggering 800 000 miles
per hour (1 280 000 km/h). This rapid motion
shows us that the star is just passing through
our region of space. Currently about 190 light
years from the Sun, it is endlessly circling the
Galactic Core in an orbit, vast in size and
duration, which carries it down through the
plane of our galaxy to the halo of ancient stars
that encircle the Milky Way. Halo stars are old,
dating back to the formation of the Milky Way
some 12.6 billion years ago. This suggests HD
140283 is an elderly star but when astronomers
used their tested techniques to calculate its age
they got a shocking result. HD 140283 appeared
to be 16 billion years old, more than two billion
years older than the rest of the cosmos
(measured to be 13.78 ± 0.037 billion years
old)!

Emmalot121:
Why not? Where in the Bible did it say the Earth is 6000yrs? I hope you read this with all openess, the gap theory has long being in existence before Darwin was born. http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution%20Hoax/gap_theorists_defended.htm

chy22:
I have searched and it is not there. But you insist it is there so where did you find it, or are just dreaming it happened.

all4naija:
The genetic information take place within the structure.Maybe the link below might help you to get to how the process operate.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/add_ocr_pre_2011/growth_development/genesrev1.shtml

chy22:
OK
What you showed me only helps prove the point that biological process has a particular purpose. But that it came from a stone.

vfactor:
People without Regilion like Joseph Stalin of USSR, Bento Mussolini of Italy, and the present North Korean dictator. Go and read what these atheists did and re doing and u'lll know that being bad has nothing to do with religion or no religion. It's human nature, which science can't explain.

all4naija:
Can I see the source of your citation,please?

unmask:
not to talk of the tower of babel.... Which I am still trying to understand till date.... Why did the construction stop, when it was obvious there was no way in hell they could build to the sky

all4naija:
What is wrong with you? You keep beating about the bush when you have no single idea of what I have been saying. I have just made you to understand that it all comes to the fundamental particles, as you find out in the Amino acid structure so it is for a stone structure.

chy22:
ok
Since you don't want to be civil with your evolution religion I will leave to it.

The bottom line is every thing you assume about things coming from nothing has not been proven.

My believe in GOD has not been proven.

That makes two of us.

chy22:
I do not know of any evolution based predictions that is not based on assumptions. Paternity test on the other side does not need evolution to be valid.

Europeans breaking up from Africa, pause and listen to your self, that is based on unproven assumptions.

If you disagree you can always point me towards a journal article that perfumed those initial experiments.

Fossils: I will assume you understand how radioactive dating works and should know that discrepancies remains a problem. But that will need another thread to discuss, perhaps you should open one on it.

But just remember that fossils proves noting, mainly because fossils can not tell you if bones had any children. If you understand the process by which fossils form you would know that represents a problem in the validity of radioactive dating results.

Oh you do agree it is a history, so just a story but not testable, then we have noting to argue about, after all BIBLE is a history. The difference between us is: while accept my believe in GOD is not science but religion, you fail to accept that your homoid history (story telling) non testable model is also not science but religion.

Now when you say evolution has withstood peer review I seriously think you are been dishonest. The evolutionists have long used embryology as a prove of evolution, even though this was clearly based on faked drawings they still cling to it.

Radioactive dating has shown discrepancies in many instances.
That is not without saying that there are quite a good amount of scientist if not 50% who objects to the workability of these theories.

Just because atheist always think that opinions of creations can be valid, those not mean they are not equally intelligent and their criticisms can not stand.

plaetton:
Perfect.
I am glad that you reached that conclusion yourself that humans are good or bad, irrespective of religious belief.
If you read all my posts, this is what I have shouting from the rooftop: that religion does not confer any virtues, any superior morality to those that practice it.
Simple.

vfactor:
Neither does atheism offer any moral value to humankind. Since atheism doesnt do any better than theism, let the those who feel they re accountable to a supreme, divine entity be.

Kay17:
But a natural process was responsible for the DNA transfer from parents to offspring along with the offspring's individual DNA footprint.

Zico0:
I like this thread and i'm glad that i get to share my opinion. I'm going to share an experience of a pastor. Note that this is not a fabrication, and i promise not to lie. It's very lenghty but it's interesting.

A pastor walks into my compound; i was doing my laundry. It's a sunday at 10am
Me: good morning
Pastor: morning
Me: do you want something?
Pastor: no
Pastor: are you a sport-person? I see you jogging some mornings
Me: no i do it for my health.
Pastor: so your not a sport-person.
Me: why are you asking if i'm a sport-person? Do you have a competition for me or are you trying to start a conversation?
Pastor: No. What church do you attend?
Me: my parents are celestians.
Pastor: i believe their service starts at 10am. Ok, so are you still going to church today?
Me: see! i just washed my garment.
Pastor: but you have another one na?
Me: i don't...
Pastor: why don't you want to go to church today?
Me: i don't want to talk, otherwise we'll start one big argument and i'm not ready. We'll need a pen and a book and place to seat and talk like educated people. You can see i'm washing, but you are prepared.
Me: i'd have said we pick one day when i'll come to your church and we can talk. But it's not important.
Pastor: why is not important?
Me: it dosen't lie in alignment with my interest.
Pastor: it dosen't lie in alignment with your interest?
Me: i'm an humanist. Do you know about humanism?
Pastor: no
Me: humanism is about solving your real problems as humans, and not offend whatever power is above us. What i'm trying to say is i will not put anything else before satisfying myself. I will not put christianity before my humanity.
Me: tell me one real thing you want.
(the pastor was going to talk about spiritual things), so
Me: do you know about Maslow heirachy of needs?
Pastor: yes (stuttering trying to list them, so i helped him)
Me: food, clothing and shelter; huuuh! security; relationship and so on.
Pastor: okaay!
Me: so do you have everything you want?
Pastor: yes
Me: you have everything you want!!!!!?
Pastor: no
Me: so what 're you doing about it?
Pastor: what am i doing about it. Eeeerm it's what i'm doing right now.
Me: it's what you're doing right now!!! Eeehn, it's what i'm doing right now too. So we are in correspondence; no wahala.
Pastor: but you have to know about...
Me: no, no, no; you have your method and i have my method. I will not let you impose your method on me.
Pastor: ok, i'm here to share a better method.
Me: ok! to know a better method, we'd have to compare circumstances, and then it'll be embarassing because i feel i'm a better person than you.
Pastor: it's what you believe; it dosen't mean it's true.
Me: we'd have to compare circumstances. First of all, your in my house. Why should you be in my house?
Pastor: because i have something you need.
Me: (getting upset by his gut) you have something i need!! Buyers don't chase sellers. I've to come to you for something i need. You come into my house and i decided listened to you. Don't you understand? You've given me the power.
Pastor: no i haven't given you the power. It's a privilege for you to listen to me.
Me: (already very angry) eehn!! Ok, i don't want to listen to you again.
(he kept on saying saying some things i cannot remember because i was already upset at this point).
Me: i'll pour you this water o
Pastor: i think you need Jesus. (this was the statement that got me infuriated)
Me: (i paused for a while. He thought he got to me.) I think you need to leave.
(but he did'nt leave. He kept on talking. I felt insulted by this.)
Me. Tolu(my neighbor) com' tell this guy. (Tolu walking to us, the pastor stepped around, leaving)
Me:I need Jesus, you self need jesus. Idiot! Mothef**ker. You think your a better person? You think your better than me? Have you eaten this morning? Better go and look for something to eat.

I want everyone: christians, humanists, atheists, whomever you are, to analyse this experience
and share their opinion. But i'll say some things:
first, pastors, when a person asks you to stop talking or leave, you must obey. I felt infringed on, and i was going to hit the pastor, but i saw he'd feel victimized for Jesus and i din't want to give him that feeling; as he was ready for me to strike him and i'd taken him down flat. I'll say the rest later.

Kay17:
But a natural process was responsible for the DNA transfer from parents to offspring along with the offspring's individual DNA footprint.

davien:
Assumptions of what?
So you are claiming the same method used to determine paternity suddenly becomes invalid when used for common ancestry?
I am referring to the migration of native africans to euroasia that would later become europeans that geological distribution have proven...the hardy weinberg equation coupled with differential equations cross-confirm the findings...
okay...this new journal still confirms this split..
It will be stupid of me not to agree that variations and mutations occur. But it becomes a different issue when you use that as a prove that macro-evolution occur.
[b]
[b] "They studied segments of genetic code
that have a mutation and are located closely on the same
chromosome and are often inherited together. This specific mutation
in SLC24A5, called A111T, is found in virtually everyone of European
ancestry.
A111T is also found in populations in the Middle East and Indian
subcontinent, but not in high numbers in Africans. Researchers found
that all individuals from the Middle East, North Africa, East Africa and
South India who carry the A111T mutation share a common
“fingerprint” -- traces of the ancestral genetic code -- in the
corresponding chromosomal region, indicating that all existing
instances of this mutation originate from the same person.
These findings were reported in the journal G3.
The pattern of proportions of people with this lighter skin color
mutation indicates that the A111T mutation occurred somewhere
between the Middle East and the Indian subcontinent.
“This means that Middle Easterners and South Asians, which includes
most inhabitants of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, share significant
ancestry,” Cheng said.
This mutated segment of DNA was itself created from a combination
of two other mutated segments commonly found in Eastern Asians --
traditionally defined as Chinese, Japanese and Korean.
“The coincidence of this interesting form of evidence of shared
ancestry of East Asians with Europeans, within this tiny chromosomal
region, is exciting,” Cheng said. “The combining of segments occurred
after the ancestors of East Asians and Europeans split geographically
more than 50,000 years ago; the A111T mutation occurred afterward.”
[/b]
http://news.psu.edu/story/299166/2014/01/02/research/studies-skin-color-gene-across-global-populations-reveal-shared[/b]
Often people read a paper and make their own interpretations without really paying attentions to what the researchers found. From that same link you showed the scientist where very honest about key facts and I will copy those honesty which you have clearly ignored:
While the genetics of skin color is largely unclear, past research using zebrafish by the College of Medicine’s Keith Cheng identified a key gene that contributes to lighter skin color in Europeans and differs from West Africans. In 2005, Cheng reported that one amino acid difference in the gene SLC24A5 is a key contributor to the skin color difference between Europeans and West Africans. I have a substantial rudimentary understanding of them.. (This article started with saying the genetics of skin colour is largely unknown, so how did you make a final conclusion even after. The article said it is a key contributor but never said that is the only variable)
2. Cheng plans to next look at more genetic samples to better understand what genes play the most important role in East Asian skin color. He will then use zebrafish to test those suspected genes. (The authors still accepted they need more experiment, so how are you making any conclusion)
Remember my argument is no prove exist that explains the evolution from Ape to human. Not variations within kinds.

can you answer if you consider transitional forms plausible and why?
No I do not believe there is anything like transitional forms because that is based on the assumption that macro-evolution occurs. That clearly is the wrong question to ask. Before you talk about translational forms you need to prove change from one kind to another, therefore what ever physical things you observe remains open for interpretation. Just say it this you assume that translational forms occur but can not prove the change from one kind to another, what if it was because a creator made all of them and as the creation process goes organs move in particular directions. Now both of them are possible explanations but no prove exists that either one of the is truth, hence both remains assumptions and a belief.

Paleontology identifies creatures by anatomical structures so indeed children of fossils can be known by studying the fossils dentition,anatomical framework and even the genetics..
In order for a fossil to form, the body must not be eaten or destroyed. Preservation would most likely occur if the organism were buried quickly and deeply. In most environments, soft body parts, such as skin, muscle, fat, and internal organs, deteriorate rapidly and leave no trace.
Fossils remains or traces of ancient organisms including footprints, burrows, or casts of bodies with nothing else surviving.
Now this explanation of fossils means only if there is somebody there when the event occurred can you be able to tell the full story. These fossils has not show any organism that is it not whole, or in part half one kind half the another kind. Now to my original argument these fossils can not tell if they had offsprings and if their offsprings had offsprings. Neither would it tell you that their offspring was a different kind. Just put it this way, have you seen dog give birth to a goat? Now if you have not and nobody has how is that when you make assumptions stating that it is how it occurred you fail to recognise it as belief that it most have happened?

Past radiometric dating methods were expressed differently....even dated objects in actual carbon years...lol
Have you seen the standard deviation put on those dating estimates, sometimes you get up to plus or minus 800 million years. Also have you not seen many over estimations using radioactive dating in objects or things with known age? If you have not I will provide you with instances.

150 years of peer review in the scientific community is what I discussed not fairy tales(stories)...
150 years of scientific activities has not proved how a kind can give rise to another kind, and has not proved how consciousness evolved, so to me it is more or less a fairy tell.

You are still employing kent hovind's creationist assertions that "evolution is a religion"..
Tell me how evolution is a religion.
Science is when you can observe, you can record, and you no exactly what happened and can always repeat that event to get same results. Now when you tell somebody that Ape gave rise to humans without observing it or even performing an experiment to observe it, Is that science or a belief?
If it is a belief then what difference those it have with other religions that believe in things that can not prove.

heckhels drawings were a known fraud.....
Evolution were never based on his drawings....but are based on modern embryological depictions that are used to only portray evolutionary development..
I am happy you recognised that, now modern embryological illustrations does not show that fish, chicken and humans have similar embryos, so how do you say it can be used as evolution prove, is that not delusional?

where did you get your "50% of scientists object to" claim from?....
I will find you a link to surveys about scientific opinions in this topic later.

Even still,its funny how you can claim a substantial amount of scientists agree with you and yet be appalled when told the same by people in the case for evolution
The difference between us is that I really do not care who agrees with me or not, what I am saying is that believe of evolution or no evolution can go either way, and should be respected.

And do you know that different objects require different dating methods?
Different dating methods can be applied for different cases, but every radioactive dating depends on the radioactive decay of a particular element and all has flaws due to heavy assumptions about the initial start time of the decay. That is why discrepancies have been reported in all radioactive methods.

I really want to see a non-creationist peer-reviewed journal demonstrating creationism hypothesis or fulfilling a prediction of it...if indeed it is testable.
The truth is I do not need to show you a scientific paper claiming the creationist hypothesis, because they never said it is science nor proven. Just like I made it clear it is only a belief because it is not proven, and that is the reason for saying evolutionist should also be open about their assumptions not been proven.

UyiIredia:
No it isn't. You simply assume its natural because its physical . Not all physical things are explainable by 'natural laws'. Some are immaterial constructs eg love.