FlyingTeaPot
Irrational Rationalist. Educated Fool.
Polyhedral said:
newhope101 said:
That made me lol
Its hard for me to take newhope seriously after this. I get the distinct impression she does not know what she is talking about.:no:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Creationists, please provide evidence
- Thread starter evolved yet?
- Start date
That made me lol
Its hard for me to take newhope seriously after this. I get the distinct impression she does not know what she is talking about.:no:
evolved yet?
A Young Evolutionist
FlyingTeaPot
Irrational Rationalist. Educated Fool.
BTW newhope, you are agnostic and a creationist? Thats kinda weird. If you don't mind me asking, could you elaborate on that?
Last edited:
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
newhope:
1. You are a known, exposed liar. You have completely ignored this accusation, as though it had no relevance to the debate. You are a bigger liar than most YECs, which is actually difficult to accomplish.
2. Did I or did I not give an accurate statement of your hypothesis? It's a yes or no question.
Until you have a hypothesis, you cannot even figure out what evidence might be relevant.
1. You are a known, exposed liar. You have completely ignored this accusation, as though it had no relevance to the debate. You are a bigger liar than most YECs, which is actually difficult to accomplish.
2. Did I or did I not give an accurate statement of your hypothesis? It's a yes or no question.
Until you have a hypothesis, you cannot even figure out what evidence might be relevant.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
EHow--that's newhope's idea of a good scientific source. :biglaugh:
evolved yet?
A Young Evolutionist
She reminds me of Kent Hovind.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
Hey...
Maybe she can get one of them little award medals next to her avatar for it...?
McBell
Admiral Obvious
¡sןɐqnɹɟ
newhope101
Active Member
Most of you remind me of victims on a steadily sinking ship all scarpering for the life boats. The Titanic did sink. If you were not so ignorant you would know there are many scientific papers that say the same as my chosen articles. You're being petty and ignorant of the holistic body of evidence. It is rather idealistic to ignore all the research. It's called arguing with blinkers on.
Re utube video evidence...and still scientists do not know what they are looking at if you read the info below ... I expect you'll find the same similarility in a sponge if you look hard enough!!!! Various species can be infected by similar virus as the last article here shows. It does not necessarily mean anything. Next please....
Retrovirus Replication Process Different Than Thought
ScienceDaily (July 15, 2010) — How a retrovirus, like HIV, reproduces and assembles new viruses is different than previously thought, according to Penn State College of Medicine researchers. Understanding the steps a virus takes for assembly could allow development of a way to prevent the spread of retroviral diseases.
The start of the replication process is the production by the retrovirus of a protein called Gag. Prior to this study, it was thought the building process happened outside the nucleus in the cyctoplasm -- the material that fills the cell -- and then Gag protein was sent to the plasma membrane -- the outer boundary of the cell. The researchers discovered, however, that Rous sarcoma virus takes a detour through the cell nucleus before going to the cell membrane.
The Gag protein has a signal, which tells a receptor to take it into the nucleus. Once in the nucleus, Gag binds to the viral RNA. The viral RNA alters the structure of the protein, changing the way it folds. This new configuration triggers a different signal that allows the Gag to move out of the nucleus.
"There's a sequence of events that has to happen in a very specific order," Parent explained. "The Gag protein has to find its own RNA, build a virus particle around it, and then release it from the cell." Finding the viral RNA is the first committed step in the assembly process. By focusing on regulatory processes in assembly, researchers are looking for key events that, if disrupted, could stop the virus from spreading.
"We want to understand the smallest building blocks of the virus particle," Parent said. "If we interfere with the first step, the virus will never be released from the cell. Cells are complex, so we use the key elements in a test tube to figure out how Gag and the RNA interact."
This study built on a 2002 paper, which proposed a model for the Gag protein's entry into the nucleus. The researchers reported in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that Gag does travel in the nucleus. Further study will examine how the Gag complex travels from the nucleus to the plasma membrane.
Human Cells Can Copy Not Only DNA, but Also RNA
ScienceDaily (Aug. 10, 2010) — Single-molecule sequencing technology has detected and quantified novel small RNAs in human cells that represent entirely new classes of the gene-translating molecules, confirming a long-held but unproven hypothesis that mammalian cells are capable of synthesizing RNA by copying RNA molecules directly. The findings were reported in Nature by researchers from the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Helicos Biosciences Corp., Integromics Inc., and the University of Geneva Medical School.
"For the first time, we have evidence to support the hypothesis that human cells have the widespread ability to copy RNA as well as DNA," said co-author Bino John, Ph.D., assistant professor, Department of Computational and Systems Biology, Pitt School of Medicine. "These findings emphasize the complexity of human RNA populations and suggest the important role for single-molecule sequencing for accurate and comprehensive genetic profiling."
Scientists had thought that all RNA in human cells was copied from the DNA template, Dr. John explained. The presence of mechanisms that copy RNA into RNA, typically associated with an enzyme called RNA-dependent RNA polymerase, has only been documented in plants and simple organisms, such as yeast, and implicated in regulation of crucial cellular processes. Since thousands of such RNAs have been detected in human cells and because these RNAs have never before been studied, further research could open up new fronts in therapeutics, particularly diagnostics, Dr. John said.
In the study, the researchers profiled small RNAs from human cells and tissues, uncovering several new classes of RNAs, including antisense termini-associated short RNAs, which are likely derived from messenger RNAs of protein-coding genes by yet uncharacterized, pervasive RNA-copying mechanisms in human cancer cell lines.
"This class of non-coding RNA molecules has been historically overlooked because available sequencing platforms often are unable to provide accurate detection and quantification," said Patrice Milos, Ph.D., chief scientific officer at Helicos Biosciences. "Our technology provides the platform capability to identify and quantify these RNAs and reinforces the potential clinical advantages of our single molecule-sequencing platform."
ScienceDaily (Oct. 12, 2007) — According to paleontologic and molecular studies, the chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) is the closer relative to the humans (Homo sapiens) and that both lineages had a common ancestor at 5 to 7 million years ago.
Moreover, the human-chimp lineage split from that of the rhesus monkey (Macaca mulatta) around 25 million years ago. However, by studying the population dynamics of complete copies of primate endogenous retrovirus family K (ERV-K) in the genomes of humans, chimpanzee and rhesus monkey, a surprising pattern was observed.
The study by Romano and colleagues being published this week on PLoS Onerevealed that human ERV-K had a similar demographic signature to that of the rhesus monkey, both differing greatly from that of the chimpanzee. The data suggested that the humans and rhesus have been purging ERV-K copies from their genomes while the chimpanzee ERV-K population kept the signature of increasing numbers of ERV-K amplification in the genome of ancestral primates during the last 20 million years.
Identification, characterization and comparative genomics of
chimpanzee endogenous retroviruses
Nalini Polavarapu, Nathan J Bowen and John F McDonald
Abstract
Background: Retrotransposons, the most abundant and widespread class of eukaryotic
transposable elements, are believed to play a significant role in mutation and disease and to have
contributed significantly to the evolution of genome structure and function. The recent sequencing
of the chimpanzee genome is providing an unprecedented opportunity to study the functional
significance of these elements in two closely related primate species and to better evaluate their
role in primate evolution.
Results: We report here that the chipanzee genome contains at least 42 separate families of
endogenous retroviruses, nine of which were not previously identified. All but two (CERV 1/
PTERV1 and CERV 2) of the 42 families of chimpanzee endogenous retroviruses were found to
have orthologs in humans. Molecular analysis (PCR and Southern hybridization) of CERV 2
elements demonstrates that this family is present in chimpanzee, bonobo, gorilla and old-world
monkeys but absent in human, orangutan and new-world monkeys. A survey of endogenous
retroviral positional variation between chimpanzees and humans determined that approximately
7% of all chimpanzee-chimpanzee INDEL variation is associated with endogenous retroviral sequences.
Conclusion: Nine families of chimpanzee endogenous retroviruses have been transpositionally
active since chimpanzees and humans diverged from a common ancestor. Seven of these
transpositionally active families have orthologs in humans, one of which has also been
transpositionally active in humans since the human-chimpanzee divergence about six million years
ago. Comparative analyses of orthologous regions of the human and chimpanzee genomes have
revealed that a significant portion of INDEL variation between chimpanzees and humans is
attributable to endogenous retroviruses and may be of evolutionary significance.
Newhope101 states....The operative words in the above article are 'May be".....the fundamental basis for ToE.
Re utube video evidence...and still scientists do not know what they are looking at if you read the info below ... I expect you'll find the same similarility in a sponge if you look hard enough!!!! Various species can be infected by similar virus as the last article here shows. It does not necessarily mean anything. Next please....
Retrovirus Replication Process Different Than Thought
ScienceDaily (July 15, 2010) — How a retrovirus, like HIV, reproduces and assembles new viruses is different than previously thought, according to Penn State College of Medicine researchers. Understanding the steps a virus takes for assembly could allow development of a way to prevent the spread of retroviral diseases.
The start of the replication process is the production by the retrovirus of a protein called Gag. Prior to this study, it was thought the building process happened outside the nucleus in the cyctoplasm -- the material that fills the cell -- and then Gag protein was sent to the plasma membrane -- the outer boundary of the cell. The researchers discovered, however, that Rous sarcoma virus takes a detour through the cell nucleus before going to the cell membrane.
The Gag protein has a signal, which tells a receptor to take it into the nucleus. Once in the nucleus, Gag binds to the viral RNA. The viral RNA alters the structure of the protein, changing the way it folds. This new configuration triggers a different signal that allows the Gag to move out of the nucleus.
"There's a sequence of events that has to happen in a very specific order," Parent explained. "The Gag protein has to find its own RNA, build a virus particle around it, and then release it from the cell." Finding the viral RNA is the first committed step in the assembly process. By focusing on regulatory processes in assembly, researchers are looking for key events that, if disrupted, could stop the virus from spreading.
"We want to understand the smallest building blocks of the virus particle," Parent said. "If we interfere with the first step, the virus will never be released from the cell. Cells are complex, so we use the key elements in a test tube to figure out how Gag and the RNA interact."
This study built on a 2002 paper, which proposed a model for the Gag protein's entry into the nucleus. The researchers reported in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that Gag does travel in the nucleus. Further study will examine how the Gag complex travels from the nucleus to the plasma membrane.
Human Cells Can Copy Not Only DNA, but Also RNA
ScienceDaily (Aug. 10, 2010) — Single-molecule sequencing technology has detected and quantified novel small RNAs in human cells that represent entirely new classes of the gene-translating molecules, confirming a long-held but unproven hypothesis that mammalian cells are capable of synthesizing RNA by copying RNA molecules directly. The findings were reported in Nature by researchers from the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Helicos Biosciences Corp., Integromics Inc., and the University of Geneva Medical School.
"For the first time, we have evidence to support the hypothesis that human cells have the widespread ability to copy RNA as well as DNA," said co-author Bino John, Ph.D., assistant professor, Department of Computational and Systems Biology, Pitt School of Medicine. "These findings emphasize the complexity of human RNA populations and suggest the important role for single-molecule sequencing for accurate and comprehensive genetic profiling."
Scientists had thought that all RNA in human cells was copied from the DNA template, Dr. John explained. The presence of mechanisms that copy RNA into RNA, typically associated with an enzyme called RNA-dependent RNA polymerase, has only been documented in plants and simple organisms, such as yeast, and implicated in regulation of crucial cellular processes. Since thousands of such RNAs have been detected in human cells and because these RNAs have never before been studied, further research could open up new fronts in therapeutics, particularly diagnostics, Dr. John said.
In the study, the researchers profiled small RNAs from human cells and tissues, uncovering several new classes of RNAs, including antisense termini-associated short RNAs, which are likely derived from messenger RNAs of protein-coding genes by yet uncharacterized, pervasive RNA-copying mechanisms in human cancer cell lines.
"This class of non-coding RNA molecules has been historically overlooked because available sequencing platforms often are unable to provide accurate detection and quantification," said Patrice Milos, Ph.D., chief scientific officer at Helicos Biosciences. "Our technology provides the platform capability to identify and quantify these RNAs and reinforces the potential clinical advantages of our single molecule-sequencing platform."
ScienceDaily (Oct. 12, 2007) — According to paleontologic and molecular studies, the chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) is the closer relative to the humans (Homo sapiens) and that both lineages had a common ancestor at 5 to 7 million years ago.
Moreover, the human-chimp lineage split from that of the rhesus monkey (Macaca mulatta) around 25 million years ago. However, by studying the population dynamics of complete copies of primate endogenous retrovirus family K (ERV-K) in the genomes of humans, chimpanzee and rhesus monkey, a surprising pattern was observed.
The study by Romano and colleagues being published this week on PLoS Onerevealed that human ERV-K had a similar demographic signature to that of the rhesus monkey, both differing greatly from that of the chimpanzee. The data suggested that the humans and rhesus have been purging ERV-K copies from their genomes while the chimpanzee ERV-K population kept the signature of increasing numbers of ERV-K amplification in the genome of ancestral primates during the last 20 million years.
Identification, characterization and comparative genomics of
chimpanzee endogenous retroviruses
Nalini Polavarapu, Nathan J Bowen and John F McDonald
Abstract
Background: Retrotransposons, the most abundant and widespread class of eukaryotic
transposable elements, are believed to play a significant role in mutation and disease and to have
contributed significantly to the evolution of genome structure and function. The recent sequencing
of the chimpanzee genome is providing an unprecedented opportunity to study the functional
significance of these elements in two closely related primate species and to better evaluate their
role in primate evolution.
Results: We report here that the chipanzee genome contains at least 42 separate families of
endogenous retroviruses, nine of which were not previously identified. All but two (CERV 1/
PTERV1 and CERV 2) of the 42 families of chimpanzee endogenous retroviruses were found to
have orthologs in humans. Molecular analysis (PCR and Southern hybridization) of CERV 2
elements demonstrates that this family is present in chimpanzee, bonobo, gorilla and old-world
monkeys but absent in human, orangutan and new-world monkeys. A survey of endogenous
retroviral positional variation between chimpanzees and humans determined that approximately
7% of all chimpanzee-chimpanzee INDEL variation is associated with endogenous retroviral sequences.
Conclusion: Nine families of chimpanzee endogenous retroviruses have been transpositionally
active since chimpanzees and humans diverged from a common ancestor. Seven of these
transpositionally active families have orthologs in humans, one of which has also been
transpositionally active in humans since the human-chimpanzee divergence about six million years
ago. Comparative analyses of orthologous regions of the human and chimpanzee genomes have
revealed that a significant portion of INDEL variation between chimpanzees and humans is
attributable to endogenous retroviruses and may be of evolutionary significance.
Newhope101 states....The operative words in the above article are 'May be".....the fundamental basis for ToE.
Last edited:
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
I'm not saying YECs are evasive, but you can't even get them to state their hypothesis. On page 30 yet. Heck, some of them won't even admit to being YECs!
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
evolution works well in simulated environments because simulated environments are using existing life
however, there was a time on earth when there was no pre existing life... so how did evolution get its start?
As this has never been demonstrated in a simulated environment, then its highly unlikely that it began on its own.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
So does ToE.
With the first reproducing organism.
First, this thread isn't about evolution, it's about your hypothesis, which you have told us you don't have.
Second, evolution is not about the origin of life. That's a different subject altogether.
If you don't have a hypothesis, then you really have nothing to contribute to this thread.
It's odd though that you reject the leading, consensus, accepted scientific theory, and have no competing hypothesis of your own.
Great - so we're all on the "Titanic". What ship are you on? How do you know it's seaworthy?
Remember - this thread isn't about trying to poke holes in the theory of evolution; it's for making the case for Creationism. Do you actually have a case to make?
It's not like creationism wins by default if evolution is somehow disproven. If you want us to accept your point of view, you're going to have to present it and defend it on its own merits at some point.
Has a god ever poofed life into being in a simulated environment?
newhope101
Active Member
The problem here is there are too many morons making stupid comments that do not add to the debate. Being personally insulting isn't clever.
Autodidact if this is the post you so fervently request a reply too, my reply to your answer is No. Your reframing and summation of my theory is not what I put forth, and well you know it. If it serves you well to play the idiot in some game, fine with me, do not expect a serious reply. Autodidact...will you please stop harping and whining now that I have formally replied and stated what should have been very obvious to you! Daaa!
If you have some serious refute, go ahead and quit blowing your own horn.
At least one of you had some serious evidence to discuss in line with what I proposed. At least one of you has read my proposed theory and info and posted a video that was an appropriate point to refute, similarily in retrovirus chimp-human. I can respect that. I have posted my refute.
You Autodidact go back to biology 101, you cannot even frame a debate, much less enter into one. Ridicule is all you have in the armoury and you let your cronnies fight your battles. Great plan. The one who hits the lowest is not the winner here. Surprise!
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
O.K., if my description is not accurate, would you please correct those parts that you are not claiming? Thanks. I'm trying to help you actually state a hypothesis. If you reject mine, then we are still at square one without a single hypothesis being stated, let alone evidence presented.
I am not ridiculing you, newhope, I am stating the simple fact that you lied to all of us, and more than once. For some reason you do not wish to address that subject.
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
the bible tells us that God created plant, land animals, sea animals and flying animals 'according to their kinds'
What specifies a genesis 'kind' is its breeding capability. If two animals can interbreed successfully then they are the same 'kind' (this is different to sciences current definition of species) What separates 'kinds' is the barrier which prevents different 'kinds' from interbreeding...although size can also prevent interbreeding, its not the barrier im referring to here. So within a genesis kind there can be great variety... in current scientific terms its called a 'genus'. For example, the large cats all form a genus and within that genus there is a large variety of 'species.
The original 'tree of life' presented by Darwin (and others) theorises that all creatures can be traced back to one root of the tree. However, the current scientific evidence points to several origins for all life on earth rather then a single root.
Now this is in harmony with Genesis because therein we find the description that God created the first of 'each kind' and from that point, those created 'kinds' went forth and multiplied. That mulitplication does not rule out the emergence of new varieties of the original creature developing. We only have to look at how crossbreeding can produce new varieties of horse or dog or cat or cow to understand that, biologically, its not impossible for new and different varieties to develop.
So thats how God did it. He created the first of the base pairs and from there they multiplied and developed to form a number of varieties of the same kind. Scientists call this the 'cambrian explosion' which is the period when major divisions of animal life show up in the fossil record in a relatively short time frame.
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
without a foundation for the ToE to sit upon, its bound to fall.
With all scientific evidence pointing to life arising only from pre-existing life, then its a huge leap of faith to believe in a spontaneous generation of life on this planet.
Not genus; you pretty much just gave the biological definition for a species.
So a kind is a species?
What evidence?
Is it in harmony with Genesis? For this to be the case, you'd need more than just multiple original roots on the tree of life (or the "Creationist Orchard"). These roots would also have to match up with the "kinds" listed in Genesis. For instance, it does no good for your case if all vertebrates are branches of the same tree, for instance, even if there are many original points for life.
That mulitplication does not rule out the emergence of new varieties of the original creature developing. We only have to look at how crossbreeding can produce new varieties of horse or dog or cat or cow to understand that, biologically, its not impossible for new and different varieties to develop.
The "Cambrian Explosion" marks the point (well, millions of years, but a "point" in geologic time) when the major phyla first appear in the fossil record. It doesn't mark the beginning of all phyla, and it doesn't mark the beginning of all (or even most?) genuses, which is what you gave as the closest classification to the "kind".
Out of curiosity, do you also reject Ohm's Law until the origin of electrons is firmly established?