₦airaland Forum

MaxInDHouse:
YES!
You!
If a gorilla suddenly knows how to talk surely it will insist on his opinion just as you're doing now. You know your ancestors that's why you feel we share the same ancestors simply because you can talk like me!

How about the gorillas going about with laptop bags trying to change my opinion all in the name of Jehovah witness?

Aemmyjah:
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
I laugh you in arabic spanish.
Are you familiar with these or you just copy and paste from the internet?
Are these natural or artificial mutations?
You're making me laugh real hard
Pls try again
I'm sure you've not even heard just one of these things you dropped. You should thank me for helping you learn more about mutations than you were taught in Israel
Or lemme say, you've won. I concede cos I can't mention ABCD and the eloquent mutation or WXYZ and the exquisite variant but I'm not saying you are wrong
Congratulations
Hahahaha

Dude, I am not an half baked graduate like you who learn science from creationist YouTube page

Aemmyjah:
Have you not said evolution is facts?

Yes, evolution is fact, theory of evolution is debatable.

Gravity is fact, theory of gravity is debatable

Atom is fact, atomic theory is debatable

Cell is fact, cell theory is debatable


Creation is not fact, there is even no theory to debate here

MaxInDHouse:
Now you're behaving like your ancestors!

Humans don't force their opinion on others!

Ofcourse, have you ever seen a gorilla forcing his opinion on you?

Even Jesus, who’s an ape tried forcing his opinion on all. It’s why you People go about preaching about your Ape god

Aemmyjah:
I now agree that most mutations are neutral
What about you who have been claiming that they are beneficial?

Yes na, some mutations are beneficial, while some are harmful.

No one really knows the percentage. Deal with it dude.

You assertion that most mutations are harmful is wrong.

Aemmyjah:
Right
Let's go!!!!

Hope you know that every time gene replication occurs, a mutation will happen that is not harmful, going by that we have 8billion in the world with mutations that are not harmful, you will have to provide 1billion harmful mutations to match that figure

Aemmyjah:
Examples of harmful mutations
1. Angelman syndrom
2. Canavan disease
3. color blindness
4. cri-du-chat syndrome
5. cystic fibrosis
6. Down syndrome
7. Duchenne muscular dystrophy,
8. haemochromatosis
9. haemophilia
10. Klinefelter syndrome
11. phenylketonuria
12. Prader–Willi syndrome
13. Tay–Sachs disease
14. Turner syndrome

I now accept that most mutations are neutral but if 'non-neutral', they tend to be more harmful than beneficial. Mr Tell Aviv biochemist. I may go to a third world school but I will give you FACTS.

more beneficial mutations

1. ACTN3 and the super-sprinter variant
2. hDEC2 and the super-sleeper mutation
3. TAS2R38 and the supertaster variant
4. LRP5 and the unbreakable mutation
5. CETP and the low-cholesterol mutation
6. BDNF and SLC6A4 and the super coffee-drinker variants
7. ALDH2*2: The super-flusher variant

Aemmyjah:
Shame on you
Is that too difficult to comprehend for you?
Ok, let's agree that mutations are shown to be mostly neutral
Now, the ones that are not neutral tend to be more deleterious than harmless and I think you should know what deleterious mean if you passed English in school.

for every one harmful mutations you mention, I will mention 8 non-harmful mutations.

You agree?

MaxInDHouse:
Naaaaaaaaaaaaa!

You're the one who said your ancestors were APES remember?
You don't speak for others Sir!

Even JESUS’s ancestors were apes.

Aemmyjah:
My God!
When did I ever say there are no beneficial mutations?!
Liar!
You want to hide your embarrassment to make me look stupid in this forum
Are you not the one preaching that mutations are beneficial?
If mutations are 95% neutral as you said. Then tell us, how many percent is harmful and how many is beneficial?

Whos keeping the record of how many percentage is harmful or beneficial?

You argument is that most mutations are harmful and that’s a lie. Deal with it.

Love and bring another creationist lie for us to dismantle

Aemmyjah:
For it's definition and laws, gravity is a fact. Science is progressive. What are the scientific methods in establishing organic evolution as fact? We know that of gravity?

another poor science grasp, so since we have atomic theory and not atomic law, atoms are not facts.
Since we have cell theory and not law, cells are not facts. You are laughably ignorant

I gave you an example where a theory superseded a law, you still came up with this jargons. The Newtonian law of gravity is stale, the theory of general relativity superseded it.

If you know, why do humans wear clothes since we are all animals and all animals are exposed to all kinds of weather. Why do we feel ashamed of exposing our unclothedness. What has evolution said?

this question is strawman and has nothing to do with what we are discussing.
Face the topic and exhausted it before loading me with irrelevant questions.
You are yet to understand what we are discussing and you keep bringing more distractions

MaxInDHouse:
OK APE man no challenge!

Ape JESUS is your lord and savior

Aemmyjah:
Lol.
You were shouting that mutations ARE beneficial and mentioning some beneficial mutations. Now, you say that mutations - about 95% are neutral. Are you making sense at all?
Okay, I now accept I was wrong but which should I accept. Mutations are usually beneficial or neutral?
You seem to be the one adjusting your understanding of scientific facts. You're yet to thank me for that

Some beneficial mutations in humans

1. Lactose tolerance mutation
2. HIV resistance mutation
3. Increase bone density mutation
4. Malaria resistance mutation
5. Tetrachromatic vision mutation


What are you talking about that there’s no beneficial mutations?

All mutations are not harmful

Aemmyjah:
Lemme drop mine too
Maybe I was wrong in saying mutations are usually harmful. I am not like you that won't accept correction
From that shot, mutations tend to be more harmful than harmless if not neutral.
You were not taught at school

“Most non-neutral”
“Most non-neural”

Did you fail English in school too?

MaxInDHouse:
You don't get it my friend, this is not ATHEISM where you only trust what you can see, we talk based on what you can't see yet affecting your very existence.
Only 1 out of 1,000 people on planet earth takes our book (Bible) seriously that's why wars hasn't cease.
According to the Author among those taking the Bible seriously wars will cease! Isaiah 2:4; Psalms 46:9

So know today that only 1 out of 1,000 believe (trust) in the Bible!

Its 2 in 3.
Our of the 2, 1 don’t even know the Bible properly

Aemmyjah:
Well, you say evolution is fact like gravity. What arguments are there as to gravity?

you are very poor in science, there are many arguments about gravity. The most recent one was having Albert Einstein theory of general relativity replace Isaac Newton laws of gravity in early 1900 as the best model that explains how gravity works because Newtonian law breaks down while approaching the speed of light. Today, we have a lot of arguments about Albert Einstein theory of gravity because it seem not to be working at quantum state, so we need to work hard to develop a more encompassing model that will build upon this . This doesn’t mean that gravity is false, it only means that we don’t understand gravity enough, same applies to evolution. It’s the beauty of science, we keep arguing and in the process, we learn more.

It’s not religion that is not willing to change anything

There are heavy debates on evolution- from the factuality of it to the definition and others as well. What is reality about organic evolution? Even some atheists question some concept of organic evolution and some who were atheists later said they were brainwashed that evolution should not be questioned. Why should people especially scientist not question it? That will make it a scientific philosophy

There are arguments about everything in science, even about cells.
Why is that if evolution giving you so much concern?

Listen, I have a fellow biologist who is an atheist and always try to ask questions to make me say things against the Bible but never succeeded. One day, it was my turn. I asked him why humans wear clothes. He gave several reasons and the last was that, humans wear clothes to cover their shame. I gave him that grin. He understood what I did. If the bible is myth, can scientists explain why we put on clothes or undergarments to cover our shame. We are exposed to weather conditions as other animals but they are naked and they are not ashamed. Males flock with males. You can put a male and female goat in a pen. Humans, including little children tend to shy or hide or be embarrassed when they are seen naked. Infact, we consider those who expose their unclothedness as obscene. The Bible mentions why humans hide their shame. What has evolution said about that subject?

If you want to talk about the Bible then bring it on, I will dissect it, tear it into shreds and make it worthless in front of you.

Advice you just avoid that discussion, because the Bible to me is just junk and nonsense stories by Bronze Age nomads who didn’t have any bit of idea how the universe works

MaxInDHouse:
Never mind my guy because only 1 out of 1,000 people knows the value of our book Bible so you're saying the mind of the majority!

yes, even in Nigeria, 1 out of 1,000 don’t because Nigeria has more Muslims than Christians.
So it’s shoukd be 2 in 3 people in Nigeria.

And about 2 in 50 in developed world

Aemmyjah:
Again,they are usually harmful
Besides, I have NEVER visited youtube for creationist ideas. I don't know any creationist page my whole life.
What causes cancers and gene disorders? Can you tell us?

If you read and understood that post you won’t still be asking me whether mutations are usually harmful.
Be ready to learn and change what you know, don’t be incorrigible in ignorance.

Okay, dont take my word for it

Aemmyjah:
I never said there are no beneficial mutations
I know what I said and you have not disprove it till now
Mutations are USUALLY deleterious. A higher percentage goes to it being destructive, then being neutral, a little percentage is beneficial

by percentage, about 95% (I am not sure about this exact figure) mutations are not destructive.

The most common form of mutation occurs during gene replication and this type of mutations are almost always neutral. They only help to create more diversity.

You are still wrong, mutations are not usually destructive.

There’s nothing wrong is being wrong, dropping your wrong notions and accepting facts.

It’s seem that you hardly learn anything new and that’s why you are still a creationist.

Aemmyjah:
A scientist from the best university keeps blabbing without proving his claims. Continue blabbing

I can bet that you didn’t even read what I explained there because you are dull.
Even you did, you cannot understand because you learn science from creationist YouTube pages.

Only extreme illiterates of science think that mutations are usually destructive. What nonsense talk is that?

Aemmyjah:
A scientist from the best university keeps blabbing without proving his claims. Continue blabbing

You are thick.

Just stop spreading junk science about mutations always being harmful when you don’t even know what mutations are.

You keep recycling the jargons you learnt from your creationist YouTube channel

MaxInDHouse:
True Christians knew this all along!

We know that you're not really interested in the evolution madness it's just a convenient way for you to oppose God's word: Bible.

I will even take spider comic more seriously.
What the hell is the Bible?

Aemmyjah:
Lol
Don't forget that mutations are usually harmful
Gene mutations are usually deadly

So, stop assuming and present SCIENTIFIC FACTS

You still have not learnt anything illiterate.

Mutations are not usually harmful.

Everytime you give birth to a baby, that baby must inherit a mutation. Every gas damn time.

Mutations happen everytime, you are an illiterate.

During every step of gene replication, mutations always happens because the enzyme responsible for replication is DNA polymerase, does genes proofreads but the proofreading is not 100% accurate hence a mutation will always occur as a result of little mistakes. This mutation is usually neutral not more harmful, sometimes it could be beneficial. It’s good because it helps the gene pool and makes sure that the genome of the offspring is not exactly 50/50 of that of the parent.

This mutation that develops from replaication is why we cannot seem to wrap our head around HIV, HIV reverse transcriptase enzyme is responsible for replication of its RNA. It’s very bad at proofreading hence creating many mutations, this mutations helps the virus collectively to elude our medicinal approach sufficiently.
So this mutations are on the average always beneficial to them.

You are blunt illiterate who keeps shouting about what he knows nothing about.


There’s no way you didn’t inherit a mutation from your patients, it’s impossible. So for the umpteenth time, mutations are not usually harmful, you don’t just know biology.

Aemmyjah:
I laugh you in Arabic language
If evolution is fact like gravity, are there debates as to whether gravity is fact today or that of cells?

there’s also no debate about evolution, it’s only a debate in religion where people don’t like reality

Scientists are the experts and they do not even agree on the definition of evolution or accept it as basis to the origin of life
Your claims of gravity and cells can be experimented in a lad which is the basis of scientific method. Is that the same of your evolution which you call a fact
When scientists stop arguing on it and have a wide accepted basis and make it passes scientific methods and not on assumption, we will call evolution a fact. The foundation of evolution that Darwin provided is already acknowledged by evolutionary biologist as obsolete. Have you been taught at school, Mr Tel Aviv biochemist?

scientist do not argue evolution itself, they argue the mechanism that led to evolution, they argue about this in every topic and not just evolution. It’s why is science, arguments are welcomed and not religion that cannot change or whatsoever with their lies.

You cant provide evidence as to your earlier claims of DNA and cells.

Imagine this, you say the Bible is full of jargons and you quoted the verse and showed all of us here a screenshot to prove your point. You even buried it with your definition of a serpent...

stop talking to me about the Bible, the Bible is a story book

That of DNA, no evidence for us
That of Bible saying earth is flat, no evidence
That of cell, no evidence
Is mutation beneficial? No. It is rarely beneficial and mostly harmful especially to genes. I am quoting facts for you sir

no sane person takes the Bible seriously, you got to realize this

You or the other guy said evolution does not discredit a Creator, that was wrong cos it does not tally with the organic evolution which shows that things were made by itself without outside a designer or outside plan.

evolution doesn’t discredit all creation stories. It obviously discredit that of the Bible.
We have many creation stories outside of the Bible, you are just ignorant of theme

Again, is mutation Always beneficial, OFTEN beneficial or RARELY beneficial according to sciences? The answer is the latter part, mutation is usually destructive. Besides it occurs by errors

is this junk science, mutation is mutation. The environment decides which is beneficial, destructive or neutral.

If you ask me, I would say that mutations are often neutral than destructive or beneficial.

oteneaaron:
I might have made a mistake.

But what you say about Lloyd Pye, have you studied any of his books to just wave him away as a conspiracy theorist?

I know him, he has poor grasp of science and a conspiracy theorist

oteneaaron:
Interesting.

I agree with you.

Altho, the Neanderthals aka Home Erectus are more of our closest relatives than the Primate family.

But indeed, we are all from one super family.

Just to digress, it quite fascinating to note that the story of creation as narrated by the ancient Sumerians, spoke of when Enki in an effort to create modern man - Homo Sapien, he had to do countless experiments by mixing the DNA of existing Primates with the genes of the Annunaki thereby creating the Homo Erectus and eventually, the Homo Sapien.

This book written by Lloyd PYE titled - Everything You Know is Wrong, is quite an eye opener.

In that book, he destroys some Darwinism and connects ancient history to the development of man from Homo Erectus to Homo Sapien.

For added research, here is a link to a video of his:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnRrGKYpnI4

Homo erectus are not Neanderthals, they are two different species. Homo neanderthalensis Aka Neanderthals and not Homo erectus.

Lloyd Pye is a conspiracy theorist that can only confuse anyone with bad science background.

MaxInDHouse:
Well at least we all know that monkeys are the closest families of APES not humans that can talk about invent new things!

Jesus and all humans are apes

Pastsoul:
Then what create the ape how where they form, where they just ape on the planet

Apes evolved from other primates, specifically Apes evolved from catarrhines

MaxInDHouse:
So your own ancestors are monkeys shey?

We have heard you!

dullard, who said anyone evolved from monkeys?

CoronaVirusRelo:
Like I stated, you will be learning a lot in 2023

Learning what?

Tinubu will lose. Deal with it

Moh247:
We shall know about that less than 100 days time

insha Allah

CoronaVirusRelo:
INEC can deploy BVAS, Satellite monitoring systems, Multifactor authentication or any other systems technology has to offer.

It still won’t deter His Excellence, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, from winning.

Some minions need to know that Asiwaju has the resources and brains to make anything work.

2023 will teach many the fundamentals of politics!

if he people don’t vote for him, go and make him the excellence of your village na