The Blind Watch-Watchers or Smell the Cheese

bmbmm

But what we have so far suggests that coelacanth fishes did not coexists with amoebas from the begining

Well may be it did my humble LoteTree, we don't know D
What we know is the impossibility of the geneflux in this direction protein>RNA>DNA, and how can/we deny this you holyness LoteTree D

By the way between 1-100 points what will you give fossil records (technique lol ) and to the advance Molecular Biology technique in finding out the truth behind any biological entity? Me personally will give the fossil record 1 and Molecualr Biology 100. What about you?

unknownuser

But what we have so far suggests that coelacanth fishes did not coexists with amoebas from the begining

Well may be it did my humble LoteTree, we don't know

Well Dr. bmbmm Phd if you can show us that this is the case then I am sure you will be rewarded the Nobel Prize in Science now!!!-) and you would have upturned 200 hundered years of scientific research in one fell swoop. And just like Einstein proved Newton wrong, you can prove Darwin wrong!!! Isn't that something Doctor? What an achievement will that be for you!!-)

But empirical science my Dear Doctor does not work with "MAY BE's" and you should know that! but on available observable evidence and the evidence we have is the fossil record, and in that record there are no coelacanth fishes swiming with amoebas. Fossils record may be incomplete but rock layers are not. Rocks are our time keepers. Rocks don't lie wink

You, Dr. bmbmm Phd may not want to account for the fossil record and that is upto you. You can IGNORE it and perhaps that is your limitation as a scientist who knows...

But account for the Fossil record my good Doctor not with MAY BE's but what you can observe from the fossil records or you can ignore it. wink

Regards,

bmbmm

Hi LT,

I have decided to ignore ROCK studies. You can carryon lol I can only show you the most advanced knowledge that we have to reject evolution. You are not know, as I have debated with Professors about this. Good luck with your qust with rock-science

By the way between 1-100 points what will you give fossil records (technique ) and to the advance Molecular Biology technique in finding out the truth behind any biological entity? Me personally will give the fossil record 1 and Molecualr Biology 100. What about you? ?

unknownuser

Hi LT,
I have decided to ignore ROCK studies.

Because you can't account for fossil record can you Dr. Bmbmm Phd? wink So whether you ignore it or sit on it, thats upto you Doctor -)
But Scientific research will continue without you -)

You are not know, as I have debated with Professors about this.

Appealing to your past professors will not help you here Doctor wink

Account for the fossil records Dr. Bmbmm Phd or stand aside let others continue their proper empirical scientific work.

Good luck with your quest with rock-science.

And good luck with your search for finding coelacanth fish amongst amoebas in the fossil records wink I am sure scientific community will be waiting with baited breath for such a breathrough from yourself!!! -)

Advance Molecular Biology technique in finding out the truth behind any biological entity?

Molecular biology? -)

OK. So tell me Dr.Bmm Phd, how do you account for the beta hymoglobin
gene in Apes to have 100% match with Humans?

Regards,

bmbmm

By the way between 1-100 points what will you give fossil records (technique ) and to the advance Molecular Biology technique in finding out the truth behind any biological entity? Me personally will give the fossil record 1 and Molecualr Biology 100. What about you?

Just to remind you the top question.

Hey is that all you got ops ?

By the way there is also a 100% sequence homology of Octopus rhodopsin kinase and Squid rhodopsin kinase that I cloned! Also you know the hydrogen in the sun is 100% identical to hydrogen on earth.

beta hymoglobin??? Are you talking about beta globulin or haemoglobin?

unknownuser

By the way between 1-100 points what will you give fossil records (technique ) and to the advance Molecular Biology technique in finding out the truth behind any biological entity? Me personally will give the fossil record 1 and Molecualr Biology 100. What about you?

Just to remind you the top question.

Above question is irrelvant to what we are discussing.

Hey is that all you got ops ?

I got nothing. You are the one with Phd wink

beta hymoglobin??? Are you talking about beta globulin or haemoglobin?

If you knew this then you would have guessed from my bad spelling.
beta haemoglobin -)

So Dr. how do you account for it?

Regards,

bmbmm

95.2% identity in 147 residues overlap; Score 746.0; Gap frequency 0.0%

UserSeq1, 1 MVHLTPEEKSAVTALWGKVNVDEVGGEALGRLLVVYPWTQRFFESFGDLSTPDAVMGNPK
UserSeq2, 1 MVHLTPEEKNAVTTLWGKVNVDEVGGEALGRLLVVYPWTQRFFESFGDLSSPDAVMGNPK

UserSeq1, 61 VKAHGKKVLGAFSDGLAHLDNLKGTFATLSELHCDKLHVDPENFRLLGNVLVCVLAHHFG
UserSeq2, 61 VKAHGKKVLGAFSDGLNHLDNLKGTFAQLSELHCDKLHVDPENFKLLGNVLVCVLAHHFG

UserSeq1, 121 KEFTPPVQAAYQKVVAGVANALAHKYH
UserSeq2, 121 KEFTPQVQAAYQKVVAGVANALAHKYH

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------40.0% identity in 20 residues overlap; Score 40.0; Gap frequency 0.0%

UserSeq1, 59 PKVKAHGKKVLGAFSDGLAH
UserSeq2, 125 PQVQAAYQKVVAGVANALAH

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------35.0% identity in 20 residues overlap; Score 32.0; Gap frequency 0.0%

UserSeq1, 125 PPVQAAYQKVVAGVANALAH
UserSeq2, 59 PKVKAHGKKVLGAFSDGLNH

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------41.2% identity in 17 residues overlap; Score 30.0; Gap frequency 0.0%

UserSeq1, 18 KVNVDEVGGEALGRLLV
UserSeq2, 96 KLHVDPENFKLLGNVLV

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------41.2% identity in 17 residues overlap; Score 29.0; Gap frequency 0.0%

UserSeq1, 96 KLHVDPENFRLLGNVLV
UserSeq2, 18 KVNVDEVGGEALGRLLV

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------33.3% identity in 21 residues overlap; Score 24.0; Gap frequency 0.0%

UserSeq1, 10 SAVTALWGKVNVDEVGGEALG
UserSeq2, 50 SSPDAVMGNPKVKAHGKKVLG

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------38.9% identity in 18 residues overlap; Score 23.0; Gap frequency 0.0%

UserSeq1, 46 FGDLSTPDAVMGNPKVKA
UserSeq2, 119 FGKEFTPQVQAAYQKVVA

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------50.0% identity in 6 residues overlap; Score 21.0; Gap frequency 0.0%

UserSeq1, 2 VHLTPE
UserSeq2, 97 LHVDPE

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------50.0% identity in 6 residues overlap; Score 21.0; Gap frequency 0.0%

UserSeq1, 97 LHVDPE
UserSeq2, 2 VHLTPE

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------35.3% identity in 17 residues overlap; Score 19.0; Gap frequency 0.0%

UserSeq1, 3 HLTPEEKSAVTALWGKV
UserSeq2, 118 HFGKEFTPQVQAAYQKV

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------36.4% identity in 11 residues overlap; Score 19.0; Gap frequency 0.0%

UserSeq1, 77 AHLDNLKGTFA
UserSeq2, 63 AHGKKVLGAFS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------42.9% identity in 7 residues overlap; Score 18.0; Gap frequency 0.0%

UserSeq1, 5 TPEEKSA
UserSeq2, 124 TPQVQAA

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------60.0% identity in 5 residues overlap; Score 18.0; Gap frequency 0.0%

UserSeq1, 91 ELHCD
UserSeq2, 96 KLHVD

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------60.0% identity in 5 residues overlap; Score 18.0; Gap frequency 0.0%

UserSeq1, 96 KLHVD
UserSeq2, 91 ELHCD

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------33.3% identity in 18 residues overlap; Score 18.0; Gap frequency 0.0%

UserSeq1, 119 FGKEFTPPVQAAYQKVVA
UserSeq2, 46 FGDLSSPDAVMGNPKVKA

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------60.0% identity in 5 residues overlap; Score 18.0; Gap frequency 0.0%

UserSeq1, 142 LAHKY
UserSeq2, 115 LAHHF

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------35.7% identity in 14 residues overlap; Score 18.0; Gap frequency 0.0%

UserSeq1, 57 GNPKVKAHGKKVLG
UserSeq2, 17 GKVNVDEVGGEALG

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------41.7% identity in 12 residues overlap; Score 18.0; Gap frequency 0.0%

UserSeq1, 126 PVQAAYQKVVAG
UserSeq2, 59 PKVKAHGKKVLG

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------60.0% identity in 5 residues overlap; Score 18.0; Gap frequency 0.0%

UserSeq1, 115 LAHHF
UserSeq2, 142 LAHKY

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------28.6% identity in 14 residues overlap; Score 17.0; Gap frequency 0.0%

UserSeq1, 79 LDNLKGTFATLSEL
UserSeq2, 76 LNHLDNLKGTFAQL

Here you go holytree! Top sequence is Human and Bottom sequence is Ape. Buy the way where did you get 100% similarity? Now convince me how good the stone-record is. And please give it a score between 1-100.

bmbmm

Hi Tree,

The squid rhodopsin kinase that I cloned has 100% sequency homology with the octopus rhodopsin kinase. The take home message for you today is we cannot say one is evolved from the other with this data or the stone data lol lol . What we can see here is God found it appropriate to use the same peace of information (DNA) for both species wink

unknownuser

Here you go holytree! Top sequence is Human and Bottom sequence is Ape. Buy the way where did you get 100% similarity? Now convince me how good the stone-record is. And please give it a score between 1-100.

Sorry Doctor I am not a biochemist like yourself. So gene sequence post does nothing for me. There is a 100% match of DNA sequences in the pseudogene region of beta-globin between apes and humans - how do you account for that Doctor?

Regards,

bmbmm

No more comment.

unknownuser

No more comment.

Why my Good Doctor? Has the 100% match of DNA sequences in the pseudogene region of beta-globin between apes and humans - made a monkey out of you? wink -)

How do you account for it?

Regards,

bmbmm

Oh ya I am a monkey now, since you know better about science. I think I might need to do another PhD. Hence, I wil reply when I got my second doctorate. You can have my future Nobel prise for free roll

sawtooth

The style of that article sounds more than familier. I do believe I may have come across your work in college. very interesting but hard to finish in one sittling in front of a computer screen.

unknownuser

Oh ya I am a monkey now, since you know better about science.

Dear Doctor I think you missed the joke in my comments. The 100% match between apes and human suggests that we have shared same ancestor in the past. This indeed does make a "monkey" out of us wink -)

Molecular studies shows that all life forms on Earth share a common ancestor. Even the leading creation scientist Dr Micheal Behe (his a biochemist) agrees with this view.

Regards,