conquer

This is another propaganda made by smart evolutionists.

In realirty they are not releasing the complete outcoming. The rest of experiments made in labs, the results have always shown the winning and losing of characteristics in the species.

We have bacteria that used to eat the sugars of our bodies, but after a misuse of antibiotics, the bacteria "changed" the diet and start eating our inmune system cells...but stop eating our sugars.

Another myth is "size" assumed as higher complexity. By code information a worm is more complex than a human even when humans are of a greater "size" and have more capabilities to use more functional organs. This important part is not even explained in books of biology.

The horse, used as an example of "evolution" shows degeneration steps through generations, because there is more losing than gaining of characteristics (organic and functional) in this species.

In the case of the horse, we have the "real biological event called degeneration" and the "theorical biological explanation attempt called evolution", and between the definition of "degeneration" -the losing of characteristics- and "evolution" -changes in the species through generations- the definition "degeneration" rules.

Of course, the ignorance of the masses is the best vehicle used by evolutionists to spread out their propagandistic campaign, most of the messages in this thread are a good example of this last statement.

__________________
Knowledge is more important than imagination.
Conquer.

jfuh

Which worm and how is its code more complex.

__________________
The facts and science of the theory of anthropogenic Global warming

metreon

Although poorly written, I think conquer is referring to the fact that the "size" of the organism is not related to the size of the genome, which is sort of true but is inaccurate in this case. The gene density in bacteria often is higher than in eukarotic cells (with a nucleus, like our cells), but the overall genome size is still smaller. Also genome size is misleading since the one of the largest known genomes belongs to an ameoba, - Amoeba dubia for example has over 670 billion base pairs, almost 200 times larger than the human genome. Many plants share a similar distinction of having larger genomes than humans. This undboutedly is a case where we must hope that size doesn't matter.

Conquer is wrong though because all he is doing is trying to keep raising the bar for the definition of macro-evolution. Simple examples of beneficial single gene mutations have been observed many times in various species for decades now, but I believe that is where creationists originally drew the line between micro and macro evolution. I actually have a copy of "Darwin's Black Box", the creationist manifesto which I picked up briefly but never finished because it was idiotic imo. They proposed that selection by small single gene mutations could not account for the complexity of animals.

None of the issues of genome size and density are counterintuitive imo to complexity issues or have anything to do with diluting the value of the conclusions from the bacteria research. The complexity of genes probably comes more from their expression, and only in part the size of the genome. Discoveries like epigenetics help unravel those more hidden complexities of expression.

My own speculation is that alot of complexity can be accelerated over rote combination probabilities because common genetic building blocks of multiple genes are probably repurposed in a similar ways that single genes can be mutated to create new effects. That is undoubtedly why most animals share the same genome to a great extent. For example fruit flies have 60% of the exact same genes as humans, and chimpanzees have 96% of the same genes. Most of the difficult work of evolution, therefore, would have occured in the primordial soup where the basic building blocks of life were first assembled into a functional form. Hey, if creationists can speculate, why not anyone?

conquer

metreon,

Since a decade ago I have discarded the theorical term "evolution" by the term "association".

With this simple step, the explanation of the similitude of the genome between the whole species can be explained and understood without controversies.

Take the genes in general as basic materials for construction purposes. You use bricks, concrete, wood, glass and more to build houses, skyscrapers, etc.

You have different kind of bricks, different kind of wood, different kind of paint, and so forth.

When you associate these basic materials you make a building, and a similar event is observed in macro-organisms, this is to say, the asociation of micro-organisms will build a macro-organism.

Even when we share great percent of genome with monkeys or mice, I can tell you that the information inside of the genes is different, like to say that humans have enamel paint for interior and exterior purposes while mice have enamel paint for interiors only. The specimens might "look to be of the same kind of paint" but they aren't.

The differences of information between the shared genes (check the enamel paint analogy above) is what makes the difference in the outcoming of the association of the micro-organisms forming macro-organisms.

This appraoach of "association" is very simple to understand and it applies to the general building of things of the world, like planets formed by association of planetesimals, clouds formed by associaton of molecules of water, and so forth. So, while the universe never "evolved" because the elements are getting more simpler each time, the same applies to living organisms which are becoming more degenerated instead of more complex or better.

The key explanation seems to be always "association" instead of "evolution".

For me, the theory of evolution sucks, it is so controversial that the defenders of this theory have seeked in the past for fraudulent measures to make this theory to survive at all costs (remember the jaw of a human added to an ape skull, the gluing of moths in a tree, and more), and it won't be a surprise to find out that they still using fraudulent actions to keep the evolution theory alive today. For me, to stay the farther away from this theory of evolution...the better.

metreon

I think you need to learn the English language better before you start recommending a change to it. Your grammar and syntax is off throughout all of your posts and make little sense. So also, I suspect your understanding of what your are saying is affected by that inexperience.

Evolution is a very apt term, and although evolution has been since shown from Darwin's time to be a much richer process than he imagined, the actual examples that have been directly observed are in all ways a fulfillment of the original conception of the word. The fact that there are different mechanisms by which evolution progresses does not recommend a change in the word since the fundamental meaning is unchanged with respect to what has been observed.

jfuh

Actually, that's not true by the slightest bit. The information 90% of the time is identical. ie the information for atp-ase is identical for just about every single organism no matter of size or complexity.

DNA polymerase is DNA polymerase no matter what organism you look at. That of a human is exactly identical to that of a nematode or even a mushroom. Human's are not of a "finer quality" material. The material is exactly identical. Variance is that one is a mile high skyscrapper while the other a single story house.

Actually the elements all derived from hydrogen get more and more complex. with the fusion via stellar reactors.

The english language is not going to change simply because you wish it so. It's not an association by any extent.
Un-surprisingly you have not even been able to demonstrate where there are flaws of evolution.
I still patiently await your answer on my post above though.

nkgupta80

not controversial at all. Its only controversial cause it is made out to be that way. If you actually go into biology where people DO use evolutionary theory in research, there is NO controversy.

shared genome literally means that the information is the same. There are a lot of differences as to how that information is accessed and manipulatied (all in that 1% difference), but your enamel paint analogy is just not true (and shows a clear lack of knowledge in genetics).

A_Wise_Fool

Hmmm.....


Hmm it took trillions of cells to develop the ability to metabolize citrate. How many trillions of intermediary forms were there between our ancestor chimps' pea-brains and our fully developed cerebral corexes????


Hmmm maybe only around 10 trillion intermediary attempts over the last million years instead of the usual "several trillion" it takes for bacteria to evolve.... because a brain is a little more comliacated than the highschool equation of metabolizing citrate in ecoli ya know so it probably takes a few more trillion tries. Go figure.



WAKE UP PEOPLE. LIFE IS TOOOO COMpLEX to have evolved in the time frame given. I've always said the mechanics behind evolution are sound, but its just too much complexity in the time frame given to make anything. Taking trillions of attempts for this simple chemical equation to arise prooves that.

Thanks for this article Lachean.

jfuh

Chimps Pea brains? Rubbish.
There needn't be trillions of intermediary. The fact that you need trillions on a petri dish is simply that you need colonies in order to actually be able to see the micro-organisms. What is more relevant is not the number of cells but rather the number of generations that it took to reach the desired evolutionary result.
There is only a single amino acid difference between those who have sickle cell and the rest of us. Let me re-emphasize that a single amino acid. There is not that much variation between humans and chimps, we have 99% of all our genetic material identical. But one of the reasons why AIDS was able to cross the species barrier.

Highschool equation? Have you even the faintest idea of the biochemical complexity of being able to metabolize something completely different? Tell such rubbish to someone who is lactose intolerant.

So the mechanisms are sound but yet life is too complicated for evolution to occur? Talk about contradictions.

conquer

Evolution sucks, period.

WE have never evolved, biologically we are in a continuous decay, and this event is in perfect aggrement with the universe in general: After each supernova, the elemens' decay is more popular while the more complex and heavy elements are not produced anymore but are found solely in a rcycling process.

Do you think that life will go against the unique diurection of the universe which is decay only? Lol, you just have made my day.

The key is not "evolution" but "association", you don't need to be a master in linguistics to understand this term "association" in its several translations.

Evolution survived by several frauds in the past, and this theory really sucks. I don't mind if you believe in such a foolish hypothesis.

Just remember, that between the use of the theorical term "evolution" against the factual event of "degeneration", the horse has degenerated (it has lost more physical and functional characteristics than gaining new ones) and no dumb theory can change this fact.