David's Exposé of DNA

[lucaspa]

A bit like electrophoresis, in which proteins are segmented, denatured and bathed in negatively-charged solution to give it a more negative charge. The proteins are then exposed to an electrical current which allows the human eye to distinguish between similar strands based on movement/size. This can, as scientists in the DNA fantasy world claim, be done on "DNA".

So, David, if proteins are real and are separated by this method, then when the method is used on DNA, why are the results not equally real?

You do realize, don't you, that you can cut out those bands, chemically break the bonds between nucleotides so that you dismember the DNA to its component nucleotides, and then show that the nucleotides are deoxyribonucleic acid?

The problem is when the vital force is affected by these processes.

Even if that were true, SO? You still have demonstrated the existence of DNA, and your claim was that DNA is a fantasy. So it still refutes your cliam.

Not all cells have similar vital forces, so when they perform these tests and see differences, they love to pin it on DNA, which is simply a lie.

This is a separate claim. Now you are claiming that differences in DNA sequences do not account for the differences between organisms. However, that claim too has been falsified because we can change the DNA sequences and see what happens to the organism. For instance, change one base in one gene, and you convert a multilegged organism into one with only six legs!

Or, if you insert DNA sequences into cells, you change the fate of the cells. For instance, inserting the Pax-6 sequence of DNA into the leg cells of flies. The result is eyes on the legs!
1a. http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature716_fs.html Hox protein mutation and macroevolution of the insect body plan. Ronshaugen M, McGinnis N, McGinnis W. Nature 2002 Feb 21;415(6874):914-7 Mutate one serine to alanine and change limb # from multiple limbs of crustaceans to 6 limbs of insects. "To test this, we generated mutant versions of Artemia Ubx in which C-terminal Ser/Thr residues were mutated to Ala. In the first such mutant (Art Ubx S/T to A 1–5), the first five Ser and Thr residues in the C-terminus are changed to Ala. This mutant Ubx has little limb-repression function, similar to wild-type Artemia Ubx (Fig. 3). However, the mutation of one additional Ser in a CKII consensus site (Art Ubx S/T to A 1–5 and 7) results in a Ubx that strongly represses embryonic limbs (Fig. 3)."
On the Path of the Primordial Eye Science 275, Issue of 28 Mar 1997, pp. 1885
" when the researchers engineered Drosophila fruit flies to express squid Pax-6, extraneous fly eyes sprouted in locations where the flies' wings, legs, and antennae normally grow. That's just what happens when the fly version of Pax-6, called eyeless, is activated in these areas." You can go to the article and see the pictures for yourself.

These are simply two of hundreds of examples.

The vital forces of similar samples will causes the processes to yield more similar results then the vital forces of dissimilar samples. It has nothing to do with "DNA". It is all basic logic.

Remember, you set the conditions here. Look above to the bold. Squids have very different eyes than fruit flies. The squid eye is a pinhole and camera eye like ours. The fruit fly eye is a compound eye. Yet put squid DNA in a fruit fly and you get fruit fly eyes, not squid.

Thank you, David, for being a good scientist and setting up a criteria to falsify your vital force theory. And now the theory is falsified.

 

[lucaspa]

Without a doubt, there are sex-linked genetic disorders, statistics don't lie. There are rather shady pictures and evidence of chromosomes, but the structures they are made of (DNA and histones in three different levels of folding/arrangement) remains unseen. It's just a guess.

1. It's not a guess. It's an inference from the evidence.
2. It is no longer "unseen" It has been seen via the electron microscope. The electron microscope can get down to that level of resolution.

1: Leblond CP, El-Alfy M. The eleven stages of the cell cycle, with emphasis on the changes inchromosomes and nucleoli during interphase and mitosis.Anat Rec. 1998 Nov;252(3):426-43. PMID: 9811221 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]2: Bartolome S, Bermudez A, Daban JR. Internal structure of the 30 nm chromatin fiber.J Cell Sci. 1994 Nov;107 ( Pt 11):2983-92. PMID: 7698998 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]3: Allen MJ, Dong XF, O'Neill TE, Yau P, Kowalczykowski SC, Gatewood J, BalhornR, Bradbury EM. Atomic force microscope measurements of nucleosome cores assembled alongdefined DNA sequences.Biochemistry. 1993 Aug 24;32(33):8390-6. PMID: 8357790 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Arguments from ignorance don't work when everyone has access to PubMed. You should start looking for the information yourself, David, before you embarrass
yourself with any more of these Arguments from Ignorance

 

[katherinethegreat]

wait so i jsut randomly inherited my father's eyes and my mother's big mouth? i think not..pick up a biology book you dofus

 

[Caylin]

Heathens are stuck in a perpetual state of confusion.

If you have something to say about us "heathens," say it.

 

[caravelair]

boy... this is one post i'm going to make sure to check back on. so amusing.

 

[monkenstick]

I thought that bruce guy with his dancing greenland hypothesis of plate tectonics was a shoe in for the 2004 "nutcase award" for being completely bonkers - but dave waffen has upped the stakes considerably

 

[Jet Black]

aah, but look at bruce's profile and he has bacteria sending their DNA to normal cells and causing cancer - the has 2 madcap theories, and David only has one so far. I wonder why David and Bruce don't slug it out over the existance of DNA. that might be an interesting argument.

 

[Sanguine]

O evidence where art thou?

 

[Drotar]

...or perhaps 30 seconds of illegal herbage...

Jet Black.



Have you been using "Vital Force"?