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.
i dont think so:
"“What the Liu team found was that optimizing all the codons used by the fungal biological clock knocked the clock out, which was totally unexpected!"
so the designer probably know better than these scientists who think that the code is sub-optimal.
My point is that, while multiple codons may code for the same amino acid, differences in the way they affect the decoding machinery cause differing results in the cell (which is what the paper was about). So their 'functional meaning' is the same with respect to amino acids, but not the same in other respects. It would appear that evolution has found a way to use this to advantage."4" and "four" have the same functional meaning (in English) and that is not really any different from two (or is that 2?) codons that translate to the same amino acid. Prevailing style may prefer the use of one over the other, but the meaning is fixed.
Cats have four legs.
Cats have 4 legs.
Same meaning, different "codons".
("Cats have for legs." not a grammatically valid sentence.)
perhaps you should learn the meaning of words before you mock their usage.First you called evolution a fact then a theory, and one wonders why it is touted so highly.
Why would any chemical want to self replicate?
That would go against entropy and the trend toward disorganization.
I'm not a creationist. What was that about having clues?I love it when creationists use gotcha questions that shows they have no clue about anything they are trying to refute.
I'm not a creationist. What was that about having clues?
What was that about having clues?what are you then, you sure have the same mantra of one there.
I know the difference between a fact and a theory. Evolution is not a fact.perhaps you should learn the meaning of words before you mock their usage.
What was that about having clues?
I know the difference between a fact and a theory. Evolution is not a fact.
I know the difference between a fact and a theory. Evolution is not a fact.
I mentioned Abiogenesis because it was mentioned in the article.Sorry, failed source. If you want to know how something happened one applies the scientific method. To work at creation.com one must swear not to use the scientific method.
There is a reason that I am always offering to go over the basics with the uneducated. Do to your lack of education you keep referring to lying sources. Which means that even though you may not be lying yourself you are still breaking the Ninth Commandment since you are bearing false witness against your neighbor.
And you should not use lying sources. There is no lack of transitional fossils. When Darwin formed his theory paleontology was in its infancy. Of course there were huge gaps. Guess what, most have been filled. That is what this thread is about, another gap that got filled. And you are moving the goal posts when you ask about the origin of the genetic code. That amounts to an admission that you are wrong. Abiogenesis is a separate but related topic. Evolution does not rely on natural abiogenesis (though there is strong evidence for it and none for any other concepts). By shifting the topic to abiogenesis you admit that evolution is a fact.
The fact is that organisms change over time as they reproduce.
The theory is what explains how and why this happens.
You saying I don’t know the difference doesn’t make it so either; and just saying evolution is a fact doesn’t make it so.no you don't as was obvious from your response, but enlighten me about the difference? Evolution is a fact, your saying it's not doesn't change that. Nor does saying that prove anything, ironic to be saying that in a post about evidence for evolution.
I wasn’t referring to microevolution amongst organisms but macroevolution across species.The fact is that organisms change over time as they reproduce.
The theory is what explains how and why this happens.
Evolution always was a fact. Just as gravity always was a fact. Your question is poorly asked.You saying I don’t know the difference doesn’t make it so either; and just saying evolution is a fact doesn’t make it so.
When and how did the theory of evolution become a fact?
Macroevolution has been observed as well. Your sentence is poorly worded. Speciation is by definition macroevolution. We have observed speciation, in nature and in the laboratory. Therefore macroevolution has been observed.I wasn’t referring to microevolution amongst organisms but macroevolution across species.
So what? It was a failed source.I mentioned Abiogenesis because it was mentioned in the article.
When has evolution been tested and observed repeatedly?Evolution always was a fact. Just as gravity always was a fact. Your question is poorly asked.
When hasn't it been would be a better question.When has evolution been tested and observed repeatedly?
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?