The human eye and the garbage "evolutionists" clai
-
There is no scientific evidence for evolution. If there is, as a biochemist and Molecular Biologist, I would be the first person to support it. Trust me there is no evidence for evolution. It is impossible for a cell to evolve.
There is evidence for evolution. As a taxonomist, I will point to the hierarchical nature of the classification of organisms as evidence for evolution. Also, the fossil record clearly points towards evolution and not separate creation.
Bacteria evolve. They are cells. Hence, cells can and do evolve.
-
Hi Andya,
Why use a magnifying glass if we got a microscope, and why use a microscope when we can use a confocal, and why use a confocal if we have the state-of-the art deltavision-deconvolving microscope, and why use this if we have the mighty electro-microscope lol ??????
All I am trying to say why don't we look at evolution from a biochemical-molecular biological point of view when we can? Why use the texonomical data when we have molecular biology and X-crystalography to pinpoint evolution (if it occurs)?
I do not see evidence for evolution, i totally reject it. I have asked for evolutionist (PhD) to debate with me, were are they?
-
Hi Sawtooth,
Adaptation of a virus is due to the fact that it already got the genetic information to adapt. The genetic information determin the variation/recombination in its gene. Such as a smallpox remain smallpox, it would never change to a flu virus..etc.
Peace
-
Hi phoenix1,
Bacteria evolve all the time, because it has got plasmid DNA apart from its genomic DNA. Plasmid can be transfer, which sometimes give bacteria resistant to other antibiotics. Give you an example, E. coli on your face remains E. coli for ever, it will never become another bacteria.
Peace
-
Hi Jonny,
My PhD thesis was Molecular Cloning and Characterisation of major proteins in Squid photoreceotor cells. The squid/octopus got polar vision, and the photoreceptors are completely different, i.e the signal trasnduction in these cells follow the general signalling pathway, using Phospholipase C (PLC) as the main enzyme, and they are arranged towards plane-polarised light, wereas in vertebrate, like us, the photoreceptors are not and there is a reson for that. First they use Phosphodiesteriase (PDE) as the main enzyme for phototransduction. Seconday they are indeed arranged away from the direction of incomming light because 1) they can be protected and 2) there is shedding of the disc membrane at the tip of the outer-sagment of these cells (in squid photoreceptor there arn't any disc membrane, they have microvilli where the photoreceptor-rhodopsin is situated), the sheeded membrane is disposed by the cells that surrounds them.
Peace
-
Peace "phoenix1",
and JK, give it up. You've been proven wrong again and again. Soon, you'll leave this thread too (once you are presented with questions you or khalifa cannot answer) and start a new topic bashing evolution (which you're eventually going to leave again).
JK- Ill NEVER GIVE UP, NEVER x, AS LONG AS GOD WILLS. GOD Bless!
-
Peace "andya",
Any evolutionist (PhD) here, I want to join some people to issue a "FATWA" against evolution lol Because it is rubbish!
My my, wasn't it you who was riling against the priesthood of traditional Islam?
JK- He used that ironically. Doesnt the smiley tell you that? GOD Bless!
-
Peace bro "bmbmm",
Hi Jonny,
My PhD thesis was Molecular Cloning and Characterisation of major proteins in Squid photoreceotor cells. The squid/octopus got polar vision, and the photoreceptors are completely different, i.e the signal trasnduction in these cells follow the general signalling pathway, using Phospholipase C (PLC) as the main enzyme, and they are arranged towards plane-polarised light, wereas in vertebrate, like us, the photoreceptors are not and there is a reson for that. First they use Phosphodiesteriase (PDE) as the main enzyme for phototransduction. Seconday they are indeed arranged away from the direction of incomming light because 1) they can be protected and 2) there is shedding of the disc membrane at the tip of the outer-sagment of these cells (in squid photoreceptor there arn't any disc membrane, they have microvilli where the photoreceptor-rhodopsin is sutuated), the sheeded membrane is disposed by the cells that surrounds them.
Peace
JK- Thankyou for this information. GOD Bless!
-
I do not see evidence for evolution
the fact that animals can go through very different stages is a good indicator of evolution. But i dont belive in random evolution, only random mutation.
Frogs is a good example, they breed underwater using geels, and then later develope lungs. This does not mean that they are without air for a period inbetween.is it evidence? not really, but then again, what is?
-
Hi,
Frog gills turning into lungs is genetically determined. Its just the shutting down of some genes (i.e. for gills) and turning on others (i.e for lungs).
Peace
excactly. what else would you think evolution or mutation is, if not just shutting down or turning on genes? We can observe how certain birds have longer beads within its own sepcies depending on the erea and need they have. this is mutation, and if mutation goes on for long enough, eventually the species will be so seperated from eachother that you can rightfully claim its a new species.
i know the relegion of evolutionism, and im no supporter of that either, but neither do i wish to blind myself into thinking that there are no such thing.
Its just their method. They find a dino fossil that has parts resembling a bird, and conclude they are one and the same. I dont know. but it is to me like claiming we come from the cave salamander as it has 5 fingers and toes that looks like their human counterpart.I have not made up my mind fully on this subject yet though
-
-
Hi Magi,
I am reproducing the following from "Reson and Revalation" I hope you find it useful.
A particular cellular function goes from DNA>RNA>mRNA>Protein. It does not go from the other way, such as Protein>mRNA>RNA>DNA. If evolution has to occur this has to be achieved, and its not. Why not? Because its not as simple as that; the DNA is translated faithfully by a machinery of proteins to a piece of RNA in the nucleus. It is then transported to the cytoplasm by a machinery of proteins through the pores of the nucleus. This RNA is processed by a machinery of proteins, were the Introns are removed and the Exons are jouined together. After joining it become mRNA (messenger RNA), which is edited further by a machinery of proteins, and a poly A tail is addded to its 3' end and its 5' end is Capped to stabalise it. This mRNA is then translated by a complicated machinery to produce protein, which at the same time pushed in to the ER by a machinery of proteins, where it take its functional shape in a split second! Some of these proteins are then further processed by a machinery of proteins, such as N-terminally blocking it, for stability.
What evolution is saying that all this has evolved, I want to know how? There is not a single scientific fact about it .
-
ok PULEEZ don't get into the we are from apes garbage. that is THE most outdated theory on evolution. It is believed in some circles that ALL life evolved form single celled organisms but it is NOT believed anywhere anymore, that humans are evolved from apes. It is accepted now that we are our own species and may have paralleled the primates but have never branched FROM them. if anything we are two different branches of something else. The first recognizable human is believed to be around Australopithecus (not quite human but an early ancestor NOT apes) It bothers the HELL out of me when creationists try to use the apes crap as an argument. Creationists are the ONLY ones to use that theory. just wanted to make that point. If you are going to argue against evolution at least use a reasonable argument.
-
the apes crap was assumed early based on similarities in physical structure, but has since been tossed out the window based on known dates of existence and over all basic physiology. it is now believed that humans and primates have evolved parralell but completely seperate. tere are some groups that believe other human like species had evolved from primates but failed.
-
the apes crap was assumed early based on similarities in physical structure, but has since been tossed out the window based on known dates of existence and over all basic physiology. it is now believed that humans and primates have evolved parralell but completely seperate. tere are some groups that believe other human like species had evolved from primates but failed.
Humans are primates, by the way. The similarities are too great--even the genetic mistakes are the same. For instance, all primates share a defective gene that in other mammals produce vitamin C. Most primates also have colour vision whereas all other mammals are colourblind.
If humans evolved separately, then the creator go to great lengths to mimic the common ape form while creating the human body, although this is supposedly not the case. I call that view the Deceiving Creator theory.