Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
AV1611VET said:You guys do know that scientists have concluded that evolution does not exist, by analyzing random diarrhea samples, don't you? They concluded that it's all in the jeans. The samples came from various participants.
AV1611VET said:You guys do know that scientists have concluded that evolution does not exist, by analyzing random diarrhea samples, don't you? They concluded that it's all in the jeans. The samples came from various participants.
Mincus said:It would be nice if you'd post something relevant or not bother, please.
Mincus said:Some people are trying to take this forum seriously even if you're unwilling to.
supersport said:all you acknowledge was that I was an idiot for not knowing that all genes code for proteins.
But actually...what is it??? 5%? LOL!
rmwilliamsll said:ALL genes code for protien
there are at least some genes that encode for regulatory RNA sequences, these RNA molecules are not normally translated into proteins, but rather act as transcription factors on the regulatory areas of other genes.
see:
http://doegenomestolife.org/science/generegulatorynetwork.shtml
for example.
Gracchus said:Oh let AV1611VET alone. He is having so much fun playing with the stuff he found in his diaper.
notto said:Thanks, just trying to clarify the error in logic by categorization that supersport is basing his conclusions on.
ALL genes are made of DNA (Duh!)
ALL DNA does not exist as genes. (only 5% does)
ALL dogs are mammals
ALL mammals are not dogs.
No, 5% of DNA. Don't you read your own sources.supersport said:all you acknowledge was that I was an idiot for not knowing that all genes code for proteins.
But actually...what is it??? 5%? LOL!
me said:Regulating sequences. A little part of the DNA is genes, these genes encode for proteins. When the proteins are produced and in what amount is regulated by the regulatory regions of the DNA, which are before and after the genes. Fifth time I've said this now. Do you understand it this time, or do I have to repeat myself a sixth, seventh and eigth time, supporting my statements with the quotes you supply? I'll do it if necessary, but it is much easier if you just try to understand now.
Explained in the link you give:supersport said:how does gradualistic neodarwinism explain this? I thought traits were related to specific genes:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/05/24/national/a100226D49.DTL&feed=rss.news
It's an interesting study, as apparantly not only DNA is passed on to the offspring, but in this case also RNA, which is a translator molecule between DNA and RNA. It is unexpected, yes. Groundbreaking even. But still completely in line with how evolution would function.article said:How can this be? Researchers focused on sperm, which is simpler to analyze than an egg, and found evidence that RNA molecules there were carrying the hereditary signal. For example, when RNA from mice bearing the aberrant gene was injected into early embryos, about half the resulting mice showed the distinctive white tail tip.
supersport said:how does gradualistic neodarwinism explain this? I thought traits were related to specific genes:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/05/24/national/a100226D49.DTL&feed=rss.news
How can this be? Researchers focused on sperm, which is simpler to analyze than an egg, and found evidence that RNA molecules there were carrying the hereditary signal. For example, when RNA from mice bearing the aberrant gene was injected into early embryos, about half the resulting mice showed the distinctive white tail tip.
Actually, I am wondering myself but I think we are looking at a manic phase with delusions of grandeur. The alternative I think is the more consistant Quack and I don't exactly know how to characterise that.TheBear said:What the hell are we dealing with here, a 10 year old?
supersport said:http://www.neurologyreviews.com/jan00/nr_jan00_visionrestored.html
Evidently the human brain can build new vision pathways if the old ones are destroyed by disease.
how do you evolutionists explain this if there is no intelligence in the genome?
Geez, supersort, it's painfully obvious you have no idea what evolutionary theory says. Your "examples" don't even begin to make sense.supersport said:http://www.neurologyreviews.com/jan00/nr_jan00_visionrestored.html
Evidently the human brain can build new vision pathways if the old ones are destroyed by disease.
how do you evolutionists explain this if there is no intelligence in the genome?
Lucretius said:It is the result of selection; obviously those whose brains allowed such things managed to survive. Besides if you read the whole article the eye that was unaffected by demylenating disease was still re-routed (though not to as full of an extent) through extra-occipital passageways. Why would the intelligent designer require the re-routing of an unaffected eye?
supersport said:Well the genome has 6 billion nucleotides...how many do you think NS would have had to sort through via survival of the fittest to accomplish this feat?
Get real; your theory is pathetic
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?