₦airaland Forum

Ilekeh:
No work today so I woke up at 4am to play several PS4 games.

Best day And best mistske ever!

You get Fifa yet?

samxylino:
hope say no b connection she use enter DAT post...

Worst job ever for nepotism. You either know how to fly a helicopter or you don't. There's no time to learn on the job.

richeso:
some people dey do like say na today things spoil.. guys things don spoil from time ago.
just that the new generation is finding solution to stop this things, but are using the wrong tools
that's why they get bad results.. even as we speak. some still dey wish to use the OLDEST TOOLS.
wonder which kind results dem go get.

mmmcheww!!!

"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies."

Groucho Marx

When you're caught with your hand in the cookie jar, you must assume that position or make up a revolutionary lie on the spot. I've been there, and I'm not a good liar.

"Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."

George Orwell

talibilm:
Why should your father beat you when you do drugs ?

because in Love. To be fair with the other siblings who are good & strive .

So God is LOVING & JUST TOO

See this one. What if your father decided to tie your hands and legs and throw you into the river? What message does that send to the other siblings? Will they not begin to FEEL ADOPTED?

Now consider the fact that a father who does that to his son is still one million times more loving than the one who puts his son in a fire and roasts him FOREVER.

Washing clothes is manual labor, probably even worse than farming. I wouldn't want my girl to do something like that. Plus, I have LOTS of DENIM outfits. How can you make your girl wash 20 Denim Pants and still convince her that you love her? This guy is the real Casanova.

For those interested in the meaning of branch lengths in molecular phylogenetics, do a simple Google search of "molecular phylogenetics, branch length." Apparently, this id.iot was too involved with the process of removing head from as.s to be bothered with the process. He claims that the length of the branch doesn't imply the number of evolutionary modifications, but yet won't provide what HE THINKS it means. Useless coward.

Close this useless thread, before you shame yourself into oblivion.

sinequanon:
lol, go and clean yourself up and calm down. You are clearly out of your depth.

Says the m.oron who expects ME to tell him why HE says that I'm WRONG. As)shole. You don't know jack sh.it about science and evolution.

I'm waiting on you to regurgitate another well worn creationist argument here, you ignorant slowpoke.

And while you're at it, try to find out what the length of the branches mean in molecular phylogenetics. St.upid mor)on.

netizenbuzz:
lol, the OP says her man feels it's westernization for them to get a washing machine

When my girl and I stayed together, it cost us about $25 to wash our combined clothes in a machine. We stayed in an apartment without a washing machine.

I suggest that the man hires someone to wash his clothes for about N3K and leave his girl alone. Handwashing is manual labor.

netizenbuzz:
I was taking your comment seriously until I read your last sentence. It is even more problematic to me if there's a washing machine and the guy still needs you to put his clothes in for him. Like it is a very easy thing to do or didn't he read the manual on how to operate it? It takes less than 5 minutes to put clothes inside an automatic machine so he should do that himself. I can only help him out with special clothes let's say whites. And he can take his suits to the dry cleaner #simple

Exactly. Putting the clothes in the machine is nothing, which is why you shouldn't mind doing it for your hubby. It's like lowering the toilet seat after we piss.

It doesn't take anything for a woman to lower the toilet seat herself, but yet we do it for women anyway. I've even washed my girl's clothes before, so that part is negligible.
Hand washing the clothes of another adult is a no no.

sinequanon:
You have to explain why "genome sequences in phylogenetic analyses NOT placed on short branches implies that there were numerous genome modifications between the fossil coelacanth and the extant ones." "What else does it mean?" is not a explanation or basis for a proof!

And sling around the term "distance matrices", while "impressive", does not impress me or explain anything. I suspect it isn't even their argument.





Maybe you can explain this. It seems that they are arguing that interbreeding between different populations explains low genetic variation!



Clearly, it is not practical to do an entire genome analysis!

You clearly are supposed to use as much data as possible to determine a systematic pattern. Your paper is arguing that it can pick a subset that would "systematically" point to a different result! What nonsense.

I told you what it means. You denied that it meant what I said. This is not a molecular biology class. I'm expecting you to provide information why you think that I was wrong, otherwise you shut the fck up and enroll in a molecular biology class. Don't tell someone they're wrong if you know absolutely nothing about the subject outside of what you can glean from creationist articles.

How st.upid can someone get. I tell you that Pichichi implies the highest goal scorer in Spain. You waltz in and say that's not what it means and then shut the fck up without saying anything else. Go fck yourself, you arrogant jerk. Don't waste my time trying to act like you know ANYTHING about the topics you lift from your creationist websites.

Babalakin:
hahahahah. ..sukkot and the rest Don run...Looool. ....clones

Trust me, they abandoned the idea of shame a long time ago. They're not going anywhere.

Depends on whether the clothes are washed by hand or machine.

If you wash by hand, then you're a big fo.ol. A grown man should be able to wash his own clothes without asking his wife to mess up her hands with laundry soap.

However, if all you have to do is sort the clothes and throw them into a machine, then may God punish you for complaining.

Here's a list of some more creationist ideas. I have no doubt that you're planning to open another thread about one of these ideas soon.

Moles Can Smell in Stereo
'Talking' Ants Are Evidence for Creation
Deer in Black and White
Muscle Motion Discoveries Challenge Evolutionism
Scientists Discover Secret to Fast Swimming Penguins
Scientists Discover the 'Anternet'
Organ Discovery Shows Why Whales Didn't Evolve
Why Dogs Don't Need Snow Boots
Paddlefish Are Tuned to Eat Only Plankton
Scientists Discover New Clue to Geckos' Climbing Ability, 'Relatively Simple'
Genetic Stop Sign Halts Evolutionary Explanations
Embryonic Tissue Development Needs More than Just DNA
Did Flower Study Catch Evolution in the Act?
Towers of Hanoi No Match for Puzzle-Solving Ants
Where Did the Mimic Octopus Get Its Amazing Abilities?
Beetle Larva Bifocals Are Better than Manmade
Seal Whiskers Track Fish Trails
Specialized Communication Enables Dolphin Diplomacy

http://www.icr.org/article/coelacanths-evolutionists-still-fishing/

wordcat:
Oh yeah, we are talking about the god whom his beloved son is sitting at his right hand side. They both watch how the TALIBAN planned and executed the killing of 132 school children and 10 others in Pakistan.

Those children were not Yahweh's problem but Allah's. Allah needs to watch his property more closely.

sinequanon:
It doesn't imply that at all!

We also have to be more precise about "numerous". This has to be measured against other species. 10,000 can be few if 1000, 000 is typical.




This is equivocation. If you are looking at systematic bias, you consider everything, NOT your preferred selection depending on your choice of analyzed sequence.



So what? They keep talking in negatives. They have to address the analysis for which the data was prepared, or generate their own data for their particular analysis.



You are contradicting yourself.




Their argument is weak. They use small population to argue for low diversity. Then they talk about some amalgamated large population to explain low differentiation. They have to be consistent.



Fair enough.

You said that a short branch on a phylogenetic tree comparing genes does NOT imply that there were few modifications. What does it then mean? You can't just refute something with an empty declarative statement. Distance matrices are commonly used tools in molecular genetics. What does the length of the branch indicate, since, according to you, it doesn't indicate modifications.

I didn't see where the authors used a large population to argue in favor low differentiation. A simple copy paste would be nice.

Speaking of systematic bias, you're the one relying on the analysis of a few HOX clusters, not even all, to define what you THINK is going on. Your position is not based on whole genome analysis, but only a few genes.

sinequanon:
Sketches are not very scientific.

What is important is the evolution of the coelacanth relative to other species, and explaining why it is so significantly slower.

But this is not true. Only certain genes can be said to "evolve slower" compared to those same genes in other species. Does this mean that the overall genome follows the same trend?

Genesis to Revelation, with the possible exception of some parts of Proverbs.

mynairatime:
IF an engineer creates a car & the car doesnt give him result he wants what doest he do with it? He disembles the car into piecer, break it and load all the iron/steel ruba into fire. likewise a mam sculptures an object & the object doesnt give right rusult then he would hav to disolve the clay...anyway there is no god.

Did you watch the new Billy Burr special on Netflix? He does the car analogy.

joseph1013:
A lil rant (3)

GOD CURES CANCER BUT CANNOT BOIL AN EGG

Religious people think God can create a universe from nothing but they know he can't mow a lawn. He can cure cancer but can't boil an egg.

I sometimes wonder why people think God can do impossibly hard things when they know he cannot do the simplest things a child can do. Why do we think God can do some things but not others?

It seems that God CANNOT do anything that has a fully predictable outcome. We know how to boil an egg but leave the egg, saucepan and water out for God to do the job and it will never happen.

However, we do not know how to cure a common cold. Colds almost always get better but we cannot predict exactly when you will recover. That is where God comes in.

There is a place for God in any process that we do not fully understand or that has an outcome that can be predicted only as a probability. There's a great probability of driving safely from Lagos to Ibadan so that's a job for God. And guess what? God takes care of you 99.98% of the time. Perfect, God works!

No, God does not work. God is self-deception on an industrial scale.

Faith healers usually avoid amputees and the blind, choosing instead to heal people with diabetes and arthritis in front of the congregation. That ties into what you're saying.

She has diabetic ankles. Probably has HBP too. Yes, she pretty, but she needs to watch her weight.

Here's a bigger picture showing the phylogeny of Actinistia, in terms of body outlines and approximate lengths. It looks like the morphology changed to me. The modern one at the bottom looks significantly different from the fossil ones.

sinequanon:
It is the same article I mentioned earlier. If you read it critically, you can see it is a heap of rubbish. I have already pointed out some errors.

On the one hand they acknowledge slow morphological and molecular evolution. On the other hand, they use obfuscating language to deny it, conflating it with substitution rates and using the fallacious argument that absence of environmental pressures significantly reduces mutation rates. It doesn't. Mutation rates are random, and the main effect of environmental pressures in ToE is to cull the mutations, allowing only the 'fittest' to survive. Fewer pressures only means that a more diverse population survives, which is the opposite of what is observed in coelacanth populations.

They acknowledge that some genes evolve more slowly than others. However, the most significant finding is that coelacanth genome sequences in phylogenetic analyses are NOT placed on short branches. This implies that there were numerous genome modifications between the fossil coelacanth and the extant ones.


Analyses of three nuclear genes (protocadherin clusters 18, vitellogenin genes 19, and nuclear-encoded recombination activating genes 19, 20) and two of the whole mitochondrial genome 21, 22 are often quoted in support of the hypothesis of slow evolution. However, a closer look at the data challenges this interpretation: depending on the analysed sequence, the coelacanth branch is not systematically shorter than the branches leading to other species. In addition, most phylogenetic analyses – including analysis of Hox sequences 23–26 – do not support the hypothesis that the Latimeria genome is slow evolving, i.e. they do not place coelacanth sequences on short branches nor do they detect low substitution rates 24, 27–31. The clearest example, which involves the largest number of genes, is a phylogeny based study of forty-four nuclear genes that does not show a dramatic decrease, if any, in the rate of molecular evolution in the coelacanth lineage.

Secondly, the article doesn't suggest mutation rates are low because of the absence of environmental pressures. That argument comes from the people who assume that the extant coelacanth is a living fossil. This is what the authors said, from the abstract.

(i) low intra-specific molecular diversity does not imply low mutation rate,

Nothing was said about the rate of mutation in coelacanths. They're talking about the fact that there is a low amount of allelic differentiation among populations of coelacanths. It could be caused by a low mutation rate, the lack of genetic drift, or other factors like population size.


Interestingly, although the two available analyses of L. chalumnae natural population genetics both detected low allelic diversity and low levels of geographic differentiation, they came to different conclusions. The first study 11 concluded that the low allelic diversity is the result of a small population size and the absence of strong geographic isolation, as has been concluded for similar findings in other species 14. In contrast, the more recent study, Lampert et al. 7, rejected these straightforward hypotheses. On the assumption that coelacanths are ‘living fossils’, the authors concluded that their data ‘confirm the assumed slow rate of molecular evolution in coelacanths’.

Before we go any further I would first like us to agree or disagree on WHAT was discovered. It would help to eliminate the circles, if you know what I mean. I found one, feel free to add yours.

1.
Extant coelacanths show a low allelic differentiation among existing populations.

sinequanon:
[size=18pt]THE COELACANTH[/size]

Daubed "the living fossil" because of its relative lack of evolution over 400 million years, scientists are desperately now trying to back-pedal.

A creature with such lack of diversity and evolution over 400 million years deals a body blow to the Theory of Evolution.

(I await some halfwit to try to explain, with their infant school biology skills.)

https://homepages.abdn.ac.uk/nathist.museum/images/coelacanth.jpg

Depending on who you ask, extant coelacanths are different from their fossil ancestors morphologically and genetically.

[b]Latimeria was first labelled as a ‘living fossil’ because the fossil genera were known before the extant species was discovered, and erroneous biological interpretations have grown and reports still show little morphological and molecular evolution. A closer look at the available molecular and morphological data has allowed us to show that most of the available studies do not show low substitution rates in the Latimeria genome, and furthermore, as pointed out by Forey 3 long before us, the supposed morphological stability of coelacanths from the Devonian until the present is not based on real data. As a consequence, the idea that the coelacanth is a biological ‘living fossil’ is a long held but false belief which should not bias the interpretation of molecular data in extant Latimeria populations. The same reasoning could be generalised to other extant species (such as hagfish, lamprey, shark, lungfish and tatuara, to cite few examples of vertebrates) that for various reasons are often presented as ‘ancient’, ‘primitive’, or ‘ancestral’ even if a lot of recent data has shown that they have many derived traits."[/b]

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.201200145/full

frosbel:
Programmed mode on , lol. These religious people sef.


If Jesus is GOD , then he must have been schizophrenic because he :

1. Prayed to himself
2. Pleaded in the garden of Gethsemane to himself
3. Asked his spirit to be received on the cross to himself
4. Said he was greater than himself
5. Said that no one knows the end of the world except God, even he does not know
6. Attributed all his works to God which was really himself

Didn't you read where the man was walking on top of the ocean wearing no flotation device whatsoever? This is not a regular person. Why is it hard to believe that the man could have been in two different places at once? It's only keeping in line with the other remarkable qualities that he possessed, like the ability to levitate.

malvisguy212:
God design the law to guide us so that man will live in harmony with one another,but man chose to break this law. Those who go to hell make the choice by there own self, God say don't kill, don't steal ,don't commit adultery , is this to much to ask for?if you obey this law is for your own good,the world will be a better place to live, but people don't want to abandon there favourite sin. You chose hell or heaven,it a choice.

Which one is God 's own will? Because humans seem to override it effortlessly.

Who recorded the conversation? Someone in the psych ward, no doubt.

Africans being judged by white people, here and after death. I reject it on principle, until my dying day. Are there no African Gods in the universe? God sent his son down to earth disguised as a Caucasian male? F.ck all of you who believe this propaganda. Joseph Goebbels himself couldn't design a better one.

ChiDalu1:
Christianity is a life of faith. It cannot be discerned with the human senses, you stumble at it when you try to grasp it with ur mind. Just believe what God says in His word & u'd be fine

The Taliban is using that attitude to murder children now. You're among formidable company. Just believe and don't ask questions, like Abraham with the kitchen knife.

ifeness:
Why give a child a gun if you don't want the child to shoot? Why create humans at all if you want none of them to go to hell? Unless "God" had a selfish reason for creating humans and probably derives joy watching people begging and crying in hell. What you are say doesn't make one atom of sense.

Comedian Bill Burr does a funny joke about this in his new Netflix special. Apparently he resents being judged by someone who may have CREATED him. Only one person could be responsible for ALL the fu)ck ups, the creator.

Mandatory friendship. You must be the friend of the deity or be roasted for eternity.

Either the deity is mad or its followers are.
Even Hitler doesn't deserve eternal roasting. 1 billion years should be enough for less than 50 years of transgressions.