Sciencescience

Sat Sep 3, 2016, 05:55 PM

CELLS ONLY REPRODUCE AFTER THEIR KIND


Cells consistently reproduce "after their kind"—the law of Genesis 1 .

"The cells which form a carrot or form the liver of a mouse consistently retain their respective tissue and organism identities after countless cycles of reproduction."—*Phillip C. Hanawalt, "Simple Inorganic Molecules to Complex Free-living Cells" in Molecules to Living Cells (1980), p. 3.

"All life . . reproduces with incredible fidelity."—*Lynn Margulis, Symbiosis in Cell Evolution (1981), p. 87.

"So perfect is the original one-cell form of life, and so potent both for body building, for activating nerves and muscles, and for procreation, that the cell has never altered its basic size or nature from the beginning of life even to this day."—*Rutherford Platt, The River of Life (1956), p. 100.


"Now we know that the cell itself is far more complex than we had imagined. It includes thousands of functioning enzymes, each one of them a complex machine itself. Furthermore, each enzyme comes into being in response to a gene, a strand of DNA. The information content of the gene—its complexity—must be as great as that of the enzyme it controls." —*Frank B. Salisbury, "Doubts about the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution," in American Biology Teacher, September 1971, pp. 336-338.

"A living cell is a marvel of detailed and complex architecture. Seen through a microscope there is an appearance of almost frantic activity. On a deeper level it is known that molecules are being synthesized at an enormous rate. Almost any enzyme catalyzes the synthesis of more than 100 other molecules per second. In ten minutes, a sizeable fraction of total mass of a metabolizing bacterial cell has been synthesized. The information content of a simple cell had been estimated as around 1012 bits, comparable to about a hundred million pages of the Encyclopedia Britannica."—*Carl Sagan, "Life" in Encyclopedia Britannica: Macropaedia (1974 ed.), pp. 893-894.

42 replies, 2700 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 42 replies Author Time Post
Reply CELLS ONLY REPRODUCE AFTER THEIR KIND (Original post)
nolidad Sep 2016 OP
FORD Sep 2016 #1
City Kitty Sep 2016 #2
nolidad Sep 2016 #3
City Kitty Sep 2016 #4
nolidad Sep 2016 #6
City Kitty Sep 2016 #8
nolidad Sep 2016 #11
nolidad Sep 2016 #12
TexMex Sep 2016 #5
nolidad Sep 2016 #9
smalllivingeddy Sep 2016 #7
nolidad Sep 2016 #10
smalllivingeddy Sep 2016 #13
nolidad Sep 2016 #14
Duke Lacrosse Sep 2016 #15
nolidad Sep 2016 #16
Duke Lacrosse Sep 2016 #17
nolidad Sep 2016 #18
Duke Lacrosse Sep 2016 #20
nolidad Sep 2016 #21
Duke Lacrosse Sep 2016 #22
nolidad Sep 2016 #23
Duke Lacrosse Sep 2016 #24
nolidad Sep 2016 #25
Duke Lacrosse Sep 2016 #27
nolidad Sep 2016 #28
Duke Lacrosse Sep 2016 #30
nolidad Sep 2016 #31
Duke Lacrosse Sep 2016 #32
nolidad Sep 2016 #33
nolidad Sep 2016 #34
nolidad Sep 2016 #35
SlayerNut Sep 2016 #19
nolidad Sep 2016 #26
SlayerNut Sep 2016 #29
nolidad Sep 2016 #36
SlayerNut Sep 2016 #37
nolidad Sep 2016 #38
SlayerNut Sep 2016 #39
nolidad Sep 2016 #40
SlayerNut Sep 2016 #41
nolidad Sep 2016 #42

Response to nolidad (Original post)

Sat Sep 3, 2016, 06:12 PM

1. "Who says so??"

 

- Book of MonSatan, 6:66

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Original post)

Sat Sep 3, 2016, 08:39 PM

2. Yes

But that does not mean that offspring is identical to the parent.

If you are trying to disprove evolution with your latest kick, you should really educate on exactly what it is. You aren't going to learn that by looking at Answers in Genesis or similar sites. They will steer you wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to City Kitty (Reply #2)

Sun Sep 4, 2016, 11:44 AM

3. You fail to see the forest for trees.

The offspring is identical to the parent in that it is of the same genre and species. It may not be identical in every single detail in its morphology(like an identical twin) but that is because we follow Mendels Law- Dna will recombine and produce all sorts of wonderful variations- but they are always within the barrier of the same kind.

Dogs will always produce dogs. People will always produce people and the offspring will be governed by what is already encoded within the parents DNA and chromosomes.



Mendel's laws

A Punnett square for one of Mendel's pea plant experiments.
Mendel discovered that, when he crossed purebred white flower and purple flower pea plants (the parental or P generation), the result was not a blend. Rather than being a mix of the two, the offspring (known as the F1 generation) was purple-flowered. When Mendel self-fertilized the F1 generation pea plants, he obtained a purple flower to white flower ratio in the F2 generation of 3 to 1. The results of this cross are tabulated in the Punnett square to the right.

He then conceived the idea of heredity units, which he called "factors". Mendel found that there are alternative forms of factors—now called genes—that account for variations in inherited characteristics. For example, the gene for flower color in pea plants exists in two forms, one for purple and the other for white. The alternative "forms" are now called alleles. For each biological trait, an organism inherits two alleles, one from each parent. These alleles may be the same or different. An organism that has two identical alleles for a gene is said to be homozygous for that gene (and is called a homozygote). An organism that has two different alleles for a gene is said be heterozygous for that gene (and is called a heterozygote).

Mendel also hypothesized that allele pairs separate randomly, or segregate, from each other during the production of gametes: egg and sperm. Because allele pairs separate during gamete production, a sperm or egg carries only one allele for each inherited trait. When sperm and egg unite at fertilization, each contributes its allele, restoring the paired condition in the offspring. This is called the Law of Segregation. Mendel also found that each pair of alleles segregates independently of the other pairs of alleles during gamete formation. This is known as the Law of Independent Assortment.

The genotype of an individual is made up of the many alleles it possesses. An individual's physical appearance, or phenotype, is determined by its alleles as well as by its environment. The presence of an allele does not mean that the trait will be expressed in the individual that possesses it. If the two alleles of an inherited pair differ (the heterozygous condition), then one determines the organism’s appearance and is called the dominant allele; the other has no noticeable effect on the organism’s appearance and is called the recessive allele. Thus, in the example above dominant purple flower allele will hide the phenotypic effects of the recessive white flower allele. This is known as the Law of Dominance but it is not a transmission law, dominance has to do with the expression of the genotype and not its transmission. The upper case letters are used to represent dominant alleles whereas the lowercase letters are used to represent recessive alleles.

This is why two white parents who have a white background except for one black ancestor- can produce a black child!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #3)

Sun Sep 4, 2016, 01:39 PM

4. Your Arguments Are Completely Mixed Up

Black features are created by thousands of genes, not just one or two. That black child of white parents in a white background: when has it happened? Can you show us some examples?

Funny you should mention dogs...
Dogs will always produce dogs.

Over many generations, wolves will produce dogs, too (in fact, they did). Are they of a kind? If they are, would you trust a wolf to watch over preschool children playing in the backyard?

This talk of "a kind produces its own kind" is nothing more than bible apologists twisting themselves into pretzels to fit their mythology into proven science. It's rubbish. Trying that tripe in an 8th grade biology class will get you a failing grade.

Learn some science from real scientists, not from charlatans on religious websites. They get money from peddling lies and collecting money from people like you. You're being conned and, if you ever figure it out, you're anger will be directed at those who tried to tell you before it was too late, not at the ones who finagled your money from you on false pretenses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to City Kitty (Reply #4)

Sun Sep 4, 2016, 07:42 PM

6. I don't believe mine are the ones mixed up!

Over many generations, wolves will produce dogs, too (in fact, they did). Are they of a kind? If they are, would you trust a wolf to watch over preschool children playing in the backyard?

Wolves are in the cannidae family like a shepherd of spaniel.

Black features are created by thousands of genes, not just one or two. That black child of white parents in a white background: when has it happened? Can you show us some examples?

http://rolandmartinreports.com/blog/2015/01/black-parents-give-birth-to-white-baby/

https://abagond.wordpress.com/2009/05/13/sandra-laing-a-black-girl-born-to-white-parents/

This talk of "a kind produces its own kind" is nothing more than bible apologists twisting themselves into pretzels to fit their mythology into proven science.

Sorry Kitty- that is what is known as tested, repeated, observed, retested, re-repeated reobserved etc. science!

Give me one example of a "kind" reproducing something that is not after its "kind" and you will have shut this follower of Jesus up! Just show me when a bird reproduced something other than a bird, or an ape something other than an ape= anywhere!

After studying about mRNA I became convinced that evolution is the big hoax! mRNA fights to prevent any mutation from causing the "kind" from straying to far from its precoded path!

, not at the ones who finagled your money from you on false pretenses.

Oh, should I start writing checks to them? So you won't be bearing false witness?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #6)

Sun Sep 4, 2016, 07:58 PM

8. Nope

Sorry Kitty- that is what is known as tested, repeated, observed, retested, re-repeated reobserved etc. science!

That is what is known as repeated, repeated several more times, iterated, reiterated, blah blah blah. You are not spouting science. You are simply repeating nonsense.


Give me one example of a "kind" reproducing something that is not after its "kind" and you will have shut this follower of Jesus up! Just show me when a bird reproduced something other than a bird, or an ape something other than an ape= anywhere!

You just blew yourself out of the water with this. Nobody anywhere at any time suggested that a bird would hatch an egg of anything but a bird, or an ape would or could give birth to anything but an ape - except religious denialists. If you like to show the world that you are as ignorant of science as Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron are, please proceed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to City Kitty (Reply #8)

Mon Sep 5, 2016, 12:03 PM

11. Sorry Kitty

Mendels' Law is a law of science. Inherited traits and recombinant DNA dominant and recessive genes, all sprang from Mendels research!

You just blew yourself out of the water with this. Nobody anywhere at any time suggested that a bird would hatch an egg of anything but a bird, or an ape would or could give birth to anything but an ape - except religious denialists. If you like to show the world that you are as ignorant of science as Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron are, please proceed.

That is what the Bible teaches- birds reproduce birds, apes reproduce apes. Thank you for defending my position.

So show me the half raptor/half bird that science says was a transitional form from raptor to bird!

But to let you know- there is an evolutionary theory proposed by Richard Goldscmidt called the hopeful monster theory.

Goldschmidt's hopeful monster theory

Richard Goldschmidt
The evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould described Goldschmidt's hopeful monster theory of evolution as a "postulate that macroevolution is not simply microevolution extrapolated, and that major structural transitions can occur rapidly without a smooth series of intermediate stages." The theory was developed by the evolutionist Richard Goldschmidt, an American evolutionist who was originally from Germany. One of the more well known postulates of Richard Goldschmidt was that a reptile laid an egg that a bird hatched out of.

The prominent geneticist and evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote concerning the Goldschmidt's hopeful monster theory:

“ "... systemic mutations ... have never been observed. It is possible to imagine a mutation so drastic that its product becomes a monster hurling itself beyond the confines of a species, genus, family or class...The assumption that such a product may, however rarely, walk the earth, overtaxes one's credulity....". ”
Dobzhansky also wrote: ...the simplicity of Goldschmidt's theory is that of a belief in miracles.

Goldschmidt's evolutionary thinking influenced Stephen Jay Gould who was one of the co-founders of the punctuated equilibrium school of evolutionary thought. In a 1977 in a paper entitled, ‘The Return of the Hopeful Monsters' Gould wrote that when he studied evolutionary biology in graduate school that "official rebuke and derision focused upon Richard Goldschmidt". Nevertheless, Gould also wrote:

“ I do, however, predict that during this decade Goldschmidt will be largely vindicated in the world of evolutionary biology.....As a Darwinian, I wish to defend Goldschmidt's postulate that macroevolution is not simply microevolution extrapolated, and that major structural transitions can occur rapidly without a smooth series of intermediate stages....In my own, strongly biased opinion, the problem of reconciling evident discontinuity in macroevolution with Darwinism is largely solved by the observation that small changes early in embryology accumulate through growth to yield profound differences among adults.

He recognized the impossibility of evolution by slow accretion of "positive" mutations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to City Kitty (Reply #8)

Mon Sep 5, 2016, 12:04 PM

12. Are you familiar with science at all?

That is what is known as repeated, repeated several more times, iterated, reiterated, blah blah blah. You are not spouting science. You are simply repeating nonsense.

This is known as the Scientific method!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Original post)

Sun Sep 4, 2016, 06:11 PM

5. Get this crap out of Science

 

Were Jesus alive today, he'd tell you same fucking thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexMex (Reply #5)

Mon Sep 5, 2016, 11:45 AM

9. I don't think you realize Mendels Law is an established fact of science

Were Jesus alive today, he'd tell you same fucking thing.

And you know this how????

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Original post)

Sun Sep 4, 2016, 07:57 PM

7. I find it interesting that you quote Carl Sagan.

Last edited Mon Sep 5, 2016, 02:49 PM - Edit history (2)

I reading a Carl Sagan book entitled Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors, a Search for who We Are.

Basically its an exploration of our evolutionary heritage and implications regarding our present behavior.

He does include language very similar to that you quoted above. Mutations are rare. Beneficial ones even more rare, but they do happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to smalllivingeddy (Reply #7)

Mon Sep 5, 2016, 11:55 AM

10. Now think that through.

1. "Beneficial" mutations make up less .06% of all mutations.

2. So in order for horizontal evolution to take place the following must take place:

a) a beneficial mutation must take hold in a specific species
b) that mutation must survive the self correcting mechanisms of cells in mRNA
c) that specific animal must now have its genome rewritten to be able to pass on that "mutation."
d) it must survive all bad and benign mutations
e.) its offspring must do the same and now add another very very rare "beneficial mutation"
and repeat steps a-d

Remember from going to raptor to bird which evolultionists now declare as fact- you cannot have one mutation happen to a raptor in say America and another one in Europe and another in Asia! All these "beneficial mutations" have to happen to the group that has the rewritten genome. Interbreeding with the same raptors without the rewritten genome will dilute the mutation. So you need billions of "beneficial mutations" which occur only less than .06% of the time in all mutations happening in a direct line.

Also if it happened over millions of years- where are the transitional lines??? You had to have whole societies of partial raptors/birds why can't we find those animals???

These are the easy questions. The harder ones involve genetic load, natural selection weeds out inferior animals, rewriting hard wired instincts, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #10)

Mon Sep 5, 2016, 02:47 PM

13. And your point is?

(And never mind that much of your analysis is nonsensical.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to smalllivingeddy (Reply #13)

Mon Sep 5, 2016, 04:58 PM

14. Well f course it is nonsensical

Because that is what is supposed to have happened for evolution to take place and no one can seem to find it!

Remember the mantra of evolution
!. Mutation
2. Natural Selection giving advantage to the transitional.
3. Environmental pressures.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Original post)

Tue Sep 6, 2016, 02:39 PM

15. Thanks for that wonderfully simplistic and primitive piece of sophistry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duke Lacrosse (Reply #15)

Wed Sep 7, 2016, 06:31 AM

16. so we shall put you down

as unknowledgeable of cell reproduction then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #16)

Wed Sep 7, 2016, 10:01 AM

17. I know that it is essentially impossible for the product of sexual reproduction to be identical...

...to either of its parents. The same "kind" indeed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duke Lacrosse (Reply #17)

Thu Sep 8, 2016, 06:37 AM

18. You are confusing "natural cloning" with faithful reproduction of cells

human genes reproduce human genes- and they will reproduce them based on teh information provided by the parents.

liver cells reproduce liver cells in living beings- during our life- livers do not go off and start producing skin cells. this is simplistic but accurate.

hukans reproduce human cells and dna and rna etc.etc.etc.no one is talking about reproducing an exact duplicate of itself. But it does reproduce an exact duplicate human!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #18)

Thu Sep 8, 2016, 11:13 AM

20. The whole point of sexual reproduction is NOT to produce an exact duplicate human, or member...

...of any other species. Producing varied offspring provides the opportunity for a species to adapt over time, over generations, to changing conditions, or to become better suited to static ones.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duke Lacrosse (Reply #20)

Fri Sep 9, 2016, 06:33 AM

21. And once again you are making a false argument.

Neither the article nor I are talking about cloning- but faithful reproduction of its own genre and species.

IOW people faithfully reproduce after their own kind and reproduce people. Liver cells reproduce liver cells and carrots reproduce carrots.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #21)

Fri Sep 9, 2016, 08:09 AM

22. The point of reproduction is to increase the likelihood of long-term survival, not to avoid changing

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duke Lacrosse (Reply #22)

Fri Sep 9, 2016, 04:58 PM

23. And the point of cellular reproduction ( the point of the article)

Is that human cells reproduce human cells. Carrots reproduce carrot cells, bird cells reproduce bird cells!

Evolution says that has not been the case- but empirical science says that has always been what has been observed!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #23)

Fri Sep 9, 2016, 05:14 PM

24. Again you are stating thing in overly simplistic terms.

A lot of changes can accumulate over thousands of generations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duke Lacrosse (Reply #24)

Fri Sep 9, 2016, 06:33 PM

25. As the theory goes

but all the evidence shows that the can has not materialized. Even with the carefully controlled attempts at causing evolution in fruit flies and E-coli bacteria

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #25)

Fri Sep 9, 2016, 09:08 PM

27. There is abundant evidence for evolution including what some refer to as the "macro" kind.

Many things in science can't be observed directly or demonstrated in controlled experiments. It's the only explanation that explains things like the distribution of endogenous retroviruses among various species and well-established transformations of organisms such as whales or horses in the fossil record. And how about the detection of Neanderthal DNA in varying amounts in modern humans - Don't try to brush it off by blurting out that Neanderthals and us are of the same "kind." We share a whole lot of genetic information with gorillas, chimps, and even plants. Nobody has come up with a better explanation for the totality of evidence than evolution.

Nobody has ever directly observed beta decay of a neutron or caused one in a controlled manner, but the phenomenon is well accepted. No telescope has yet resolved the disk of a distant star, but nobody seriously doubts that stars are similar to the Sun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duke Lacrosse (Reply #27)

Sat Sep 10, 2016, 06:51 AM

28. Nice deflections!

If there is abundant evidence- produce some.

We also share similarities with pigs and cows and others- so did we come from pigs also?

Man and ape are only 70% similar! The genetic difference would fill a dozen 30 volume Encyclopedia Brittanicas'

Neanderthal man is Homo Sapien Neanderthalis He is the same kind as modern man- just a subset like Homo sapien caucasoid or mongoloid, or negroid.

It's the only explanation that explains things like the distribution of endogenous retroviruses among various species and well-established transformations of organisms such as whales or horses in the fossil record.

It is not the only explanation- it is a belief held by indoctrination and inculcation. Not by evidence or proof but by interpretation . "Macro" evolution is a dogmatic belief system outside of the scientific method!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #28)

Sat Sep 10, 2016, 11:27 AM

30. Here you go!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duke Lacrosse (Reply #30)

Sat Sep 10, 2016, 05:47 PM

31. Yes this is circumstantial evidence that Retroviruses

But there are many other possibilities for why certain ERV's did not cross transmit in other species.

Also the infection events are highly speculative. IN the little I did look up , it appears some retroviruses are not amenable to cross species infection, while others are.

This neither proves evolution nor disproves it. It just shows that retroviruses infect varied groups in varied ways, throughout time.

I will need to gather ore information on this subject as retroviruses is almost totally foreign to research I have done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #31)

Sat Sep 10, 2016, 09:52 PM

32. LOL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duke Lacrosse (Reply #32)

Sun Sep 11, 2016, 05:32 PM

33. Well I knew there was some bunk to this video.

The. biggest being suppose! But I will post several research articles showing the fallacy of these supposes!

But first- it still doesn't show how gills became lungs, talons became wings, forward bending knees became reverse bending knees, flippers became claws, why something that became animated split into animal and vegetable kingdoms, how by randomness and no guidance entire instinct patterns hard wired into animals were rewritten.

Did Evolution Cause Rapid Changes or Just the Opposite in Sloth Virus?
by Brian Thomas, M.S. *
Evidence for Creation › Evidence from Science › Evidence from the Life Sciences › Biological Clocks Indicate Recent Creation

Researchers have recently focused on DNA sequences as a means for determining the evolutionary history of both viruses and their host organisms. To discover when mammals were first infected by them, a team of scientists scanned the genomes of all mammals. They searched for common DNA sequences that they interpret as having come from a retrovirus that entered mammals long ago. What they found, however, was evidence that confutes not only the evolutionary dates, but also the mechanism that supposedly drives evolution.

The team found a particular DNA sequence that looks like a retrovirus, named SloEFV, embedded in the sloth genome.1 Retroviruses have been said to be part of “junk DNA,” considered by many to be genetic leftovers from an evolutionary past. These viruses operate by inserting their DNA into the genome of the host organism. Many retroviruses, and viruses in general, are species-specific.2

In their study published in Science, the researchers correlated the evolutionary time of “divergence” for SloEFV (i.e., the time when it supposedly split off from its ancestor virus) with the assumed evolutionary date of divergence of its sloth host, along with several other hand-picked mammals, citing this correlation as evidence that the SloEFV evolved at least “39 million years” ago.1 However, this age was entirely dependent on tying the molecular data to the evolutionary timeline presumed to exist in the related fossil data—an example of circular reasoning that actually proves nothing.

For example, the technical background provided with the study stated, “We estimated a neutral evolutionary rate for Xenarthan nuclear genes using a previously published alignment of three nuclear genes.”3 Xenarthans are a group of mammals that include sloths. The observable data is merely gene sequences, which can be aligned for comparison. These were then dated based on an assumed evolutionary history. But many differences between similar sequences might well reflect an original design that has since been altered, rather than divergence from some hypothetical common ancestor.

However, even if the time of divergence is accepted as accurate, for the sake of argument, it leads to a disturbing conclusion. The viral genetic sequence (SloEFV) changed only a tiny amount over those supposed 39 million years. The same SloEFV sequence has “persisted in a surprisingly unchanged form until today, supporting the idea that evolutionary constraint can maintain viral genomic conservation over many millions of years despite exceptionally high short-term rates of mutation.”1

In other words, these researchers want to have their cake and eat it, too. They espouse that evolution explains why gene sequences like SloEFV change rapidly over time, as well as why SloEFV in particular has changed hardly at all. Which is it?

The persistence of such extremely similar sequences in sloths and a modern retrovirus that infects sloths does not necessarily support the idea that evolution can maintain sequence integrity over eons. On the contrary, the rapid rate of change known by observation to take place in retroviral genomes, together with the similarities found in them today, supports the idea that the evolutionary time scale is “many millions of years” in error because the origin of both sloth and virus looks recent.

References

Katzourakis, A. et al. 2009. Macroevolution of Complex Retroviruses. Science. 325 (5947): 1512.
Many genetic sequences that look like they were derived from retroviruses have been found to provide essential regulatory functions within those animals. Therefore, it is possible that SloEFV, though it shares features in common with sequences derived from retroviruses, actually was engineered into the sloth genome from the beginning. See Doyle, S. 2008. Large scale function for ‘endogenous retroviruses.’ Journal of Creation. 22 (3): 16.
Katzourakis, A., et al. 2009. Macroevolution of Complex Retroviruses. Science. 325 (5947): 1512. Supporting online material, posted on sciencemag.org in conjunction with the article.
* Mr. Thomas is Science Write

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duke Lacrosse (Reply #32)

Sun Sep 11, 2016, 05:35 PM

34. And another refutation:

Viral Genome Junk Is Bunk
by Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D. *
Evidence for Creation

One of the great ongoing myths of evolution is that the genomes of animals and humans are littered with vast amounts of genomic viral DNA fossils. These alleged ancient viral sequences are thought to have entered the genome via viral infection, initially served no purpose in the host, and then later during evolution’s long, slow changes were supposedly converted (“exapted”) to various useful purposes—like aiding in the elaborate process of human reproduction. However, like other evolutionary tales, advancing research in the field of genomics utterly contradicts this popular dogma.

According to evolutionary theory, viruses have repeatedly integrated themselves into the DNA of germline cells (those that produce eggs and sperm) over the past 100 million years of mammalian evolution—with their viral-like DNA proliferating across creatures’ genomes.1 These are called endogenous retroviruses (ERVs), and 8% of the human genome is populated by these sequences. However, there are least three major problems with this idea.

First, genetic data indicate that these sequences are not millions of years old. Using the comparative tools of evolutionary genetics, secular scientists compared the gene sequences of viruses to their counterparts in animal genomes and found that, at most, the variation in these sequences indicates they can be no more than 50,000 years old.2 So, if these viral-like sequences are not millions of years old, then where did they come from?

Second, the alleged process whereby these ERV sequences were supposedly stably integrated into the germlines of animals has never been documented. The process itself is an exercise in speculation. In studies where their random and uncontrolled integration has occurred in regular body cells (called somatic tissue), cancerous tumors are often the outcome.1 In reality, most modern ERV-like viruses do not readily integrate into a host’s genome; only a few, like the AIDS virus, have been found to do this. And the ones that do perform this integration type of behavior do not target germline cells that would then enable them to be passed on to the next generation.

Third, important functions are now being attributed to ERV sequences in mammalian genomes. In fact, several studies in recent years have highlighted the importance of many ERV gene sequences in placenta development and maintenance—a process crucial to reproduction and life.3,4 Not only are important genes contained in these sequences, but also many different regulatory elements that function as key genetic switches.5

So, where do viruses come from that essentially share the same sequences as those found in their host genomes? Perhaps the evolutionists have placed the cart before the horse on this issue, as proposed by several creationist scientists.4,6 In fact, in an ironic twist, the evidence mentioned above indicates that viruses likely arose from their hosts and not the other way around. As molecular biologist and biochemist Peter Borger notes, “The most parsimonious answer is: the RNA viruses got their genes from their hosts.”6

In other words, mammalian viruses may not have existed at all before the Curse, but after mankind’s sin may have been allowed to develop from DNA sequence already present in the now-fallen people and animals of the earth. Again, cutting-edge genome research confirms the Genesis account of origins.

References

Magiorkinis, G., D. Blanco-Melo, and R. Belshaw. 2015. The decline of human endogenous retroviruses: extinction and survival. Retrovirology. 12: 8.
Holmes E. C. 2003. Molecular Clocks and the Puzzle of RNA Virus Origins. Journal of Virology. 77 (7): 3893–3897.
Lavialle, C. et al. 2013. Paleovirology of ‘syncytins’, retroviral env genes exapted for a role in placentation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. 368 (1626): 20120507.
Liu, Y. and C. Soper. 2009. The Natural History of Retroviruses: Exogenization vs. Endogenization. Answers Research Journal. 2: 97–106.
Chuong, E. B. et al. 2013. Endogenous retroviruses function as species-specific enhancer elements in the placenta. Nature Genetics. 45 (3): 325-329.
Borger, P. 2009. The design of life: part 3—an introduction to variation-inducing genetic elements. Journal of Creation. 23 (1): 99-106.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duke Lacrosse (Reply #32)

Sun Sep 11, 2016, 05:39 PM

35. and one more:

Evolution's Best Argument Has Become Its Worst Nightmare
by Brian Thomas, M.S. *
Evidence for Creation

How Functional Transposons Refute "Junk DNA" and Human Evolution
Broad-scale evolution holds that a single-cell organism can eventually develop into a human through natural processes. Unique genetic features called transposons have been introduced as knock-down evidence that this progression actually occurred in humans, but a closer look at new data shows that they strongly argue against evolution.

Genome Expansion through Transposon Activity

Transposons include several classes of DNA that appear to have been copied, spliced, and reinserted into the genome. Sometimes referred to as jumping genes, these are found in all plants and animals. While some transposons are inactive, many are functional. They have an affinity for transposition into certain areas of the genome.

Scientists have observed transposons copying and splicing rapidly, which contradicts evolution's traditional scenario of slow and gradual change.1 Rapid transposon activity appears to be controlled by specific cellular programs and thus is not a product of mutation plus selection, nor is it part of evolution as it has been described.

In a short time--corresponding to fewer than a dozen or so generations--transposons can add more DNA to a population, inflating the total volume of DNA without adding new genes. Some species appear to have large volumes of DNA that were assembled this way. About 44 percent of human DNA consists of repetitive elements, much of which came from transposons.

These vast sequences are repeated blocks of identical DNA. Many evolutionists believed them to be random sequences, conveniently useful for evolutionary processes to tinker with and develop into new genetic features. However, they are now known to be quite useful. Therefore, if evolution were to mutate them randomly, rather than leading to genetic improvements, it could actually kill the host.

Transposons in Chimps--Leftovers from the Evolutionary Past?

Intriguingly, chimpanzees and humans share some almost identical transposons that are found on similar-looking chromosomes. How did they get there? Evolutionists have insisted that "ancient retroviruses slipped bits of their DNA into the primate genome millions of years ago."2 Though often asserted as fact, it is only speculation that today's transposons came from yesterday's viruses.

Some transposons supposedly entered chimps and humans by a viral infection when both were part of one ancestral species. Later, humans and chimpanzees "diverged" from that primate ancestor. Thus, the same transposon sequence in both species is used as evidence that humans and chimps came from a common ancestor. And if humans transmutated from some earlier primate, then big-picture evolution is true. This has been one of evolution's best arguments.

Transposons are also thought to have provided "junk DNA" for ages of mutations to have organized into new features, forming today's diverse living forms. But science has shown that these long, repeated transposon sequences are useful on their own and even necessary. The arguments that transposons demonstrate common ancestry between chimps and humans, and that they provide scrap material for evolutionary progression, only have merit if transposons are largely useless.

Some scientists, open to the possibility that transposons were purposefully created and therefore functional, predicted at least a decade ago that important functions for transposons would be discovered.3 When nobody knew if these repetitive sequences had a useful genetic role, evolutionary biologists assumed that they did not, since they don't code for proteins. However, new genomic technologies have revealed more about what transposons actually do.

Transposons with Functions

The last decade has provided a growing list of examples of transposon functions, including the 2006 discovery of one that regulates a nerve cell development gene common to all mammals and even the "living fossil" coelacanth.4 Transposons that regulate the expression rates of plant gene products have also been found.5

Transposons in a single-cell ciliate were determined in 2009 to be critical to the tiny organism's development. The study's authors wrote, "These transposons might not merely be parasitic invaders that reduce host fitness or have little phenotypic effect but instead mutualists directly contributing a useful function for the organism, such as genomic DNA processing."6 They found that these transposons "spur an almost acrobatic rearrangement of the entire genome that is necessary for the organism to grow."7 So, if transposons have functions in these organisms, could they also play important roles in chimps or humans?

Publishing in Nature Genetics, an international team of researchers led by geneticist Geoff Faulkner found that in mammal tissue between 6 and 30 percent of RNA transcripts come from retrotransposons, not genes.8 Retrotransposons are a class of transposon.

RNA transcripts begin as single-strand copies of small sections of a DNA sequence. Some transcripts specify the information to make a protein, but most RNA transcripts help regulate the speed and amounts of important cellular processes and products.9 Also, information inside transposons provides alternate places for the transcription machinery to latch onto and begin transcribing the DNA. With transcription beginning at these various start sites and proceeding forward and backward on both strands of DNA, the necessary varieties of RNA are generated.10

Faulkner stated in a University of Queensland press release, "Our results showed that retrotransposons that can no longer move around the genome may still be expressed in a broad range of cells, and thereby regulate the expression of nearby genes."11 Transposon-derived transcripts are very important for cells.

Parasitic DNA sequences from some ancient virus should yield useless junk, not important information-carrying material. The idea that transposons came from viral infections but somehow later learned uses within their new hosts has been baptized into evolution with the name "exaptation." But this conclusion is speculative, unobserved, and irrational. Without proper gene regulation provided by transposons that are already intact and fully integrated into the genome, the organism may die.

By analogy, copies of a computer virus on a hard drive do not improve software or performance, but rather harm it. Useful software comes only by planning and effort. Science has shown that transposons are useful biological software. But this means that they did not come from viruses, despite contradictory popular press.12 Instead, they appear to have come from a pre-designed system of integrated genetic elements that mobilize under strict regulation, and which in turn regulate other systems.

The Entire Genome Is Information-Rich

The reason why both chimpanzees and men have such similar-looking transposons in similar chromosomes could be because the sequences were programmed to serve similar biological functions. Or, they could have followed similar biologically significant patterns when they were being copied and inserted, for reasons that are no longer discernible.

Since transposons did not come from ancient viruses, but are instead essential parts of genomes, they can no longer be used to support the belief that chimpanzees and humans evolved from a common ancestor. And this means that one of evolution's best arguments has failed, just like the debunked parade of prior "best" arguments.13

The demotion of transposons as an evolutionary "proof" is reminiscent of the old, discredited "vestigial organ" argument. One hundred-eighty organs in the human body had been cited as useless leftovers from an evolutionary past, but each has been found to have an important function, including the appendix and tonsils.14 Now that these vast expanses of genetic material are known to be information-rich, the concept of "junk DNA" has to be junked. And with no spare genetic material for it to mutate, what mechanism is left that broad-scale evolution could have used to produce the variety of life observed today?

It is difficult, if not impossible, to imagine how evolution could tinker with transposons without disrupting their precise coordination, which is vital to life forms. But it is easier now to see that the original people--like the first chimpanzees, plants, and even single-cell life forms --were expertly fashioned, through and through, by a brilliant Engineer.

References

Kalendar, R. et al. 2000. Genome evolution of wild barley (Hordeum spontaneum) by BARE-1 retrotransposon dynamics in response to sharp microclimatic divergence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 97 (12): 6603-6607.
Schmidt, K. and T. Stephens. Ancient Retroviruses Spurred Evolution of Gene Regulatory Networks in Primates. Center for Biomolecular Science & Engineering, University of California Santa Cruz press release, November 14, 2007.
Walkup, L. K. 2000. Junk DNA: evolutionary discards or God's tools? Technical Journal (now Journal of Creation). 14 (2): 18-30.
Bejerano, G. et al. 2006. A distal enhancer and an ultraconserved exon are derived from a novel retroposon. Nature. 441 (7089): 87-90.
Takeda, S. et al. 1998. Transcriptional activation of the tobacco retrotransposon Tto1 by wounding and methyl jasmonate. Plant Molecular Biology. 36 (3): 365-376.
Nowacki, M. et al. 2009. A Functional Role for Transposases in a Large Eukaryotic Genome. Science. 324 (5929): 935-938.
MacPherson, K. Research team finds important role for junk DNA. News at Princeton. Posted on princeton.edu May 20, 2009, accessed January 18, 2010.
Faulkner, G. J. et al. 2009. The regulated retrotransposon transcriptome of mammalian cells. Nature Genetics. 41 (5): 563-571.
Moore, M. J. and N. J. Proudfoot. 2009. Pre-mRNA Processing Reaches Back to Transcription and Ahead to Translation. Cell. 136 (4): 688-700.
The ENCODE Project Consortium. 2007. Identification and analysis of functional elements in 1% of the human genome by the ENCODE pilot project. Nature. 447 (7146): 799-816.
International team cracks mammalian gene control code. University of Queensland press release, April 20, 2009.
Most professional and lay scientists still believe that transposons are virally derived, and probably will for a long time to come. See Zimmer, C. Hunting Fossil Viruses in Human DNA. The New York Times. Published online January 11, 2010, accessed January 18, 2010.
Wells, J. 2000. Icons of Evolution. Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, Inc.
Bergman, J. and G. Howe. 1990. "Vestigial Organs" Are Fully Functional. Chino Valley, AZ: Creation Research Society

Like everything else evolutionist shave used to posit evolution as fact, further study has revealed it to be not so!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Original post)

Thu Sep 8, 2016, 09:13 AM

19. Roflmao.. Have anything

After 1981?
Poor nolidsd. So eager to pretend to know what you are talking about that you resort to this type of foolishness.
You probably have me on ignore, again, and I don't blame you. Since I constsntly make you and your ridiculous sources look, well, ridiculous.
Poor poor nolidad..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SlayerNut (Reply #19)

Fri Sep 9, 2016, 06:35 PM

26. Waiting for you to start.

The only thing you have been capable of since we have gone back and forth is hurl insults and make ex- cathedra statements without providing evidence or rebutting any evidence excpet to go "no-sir, roflmao".

Since I constsntly make you and your ridiculous sources look, well, ridiculous.

I would love to see you try once! That would make the first time yo broke away from your Alnsky tactics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #26)

Sat Sep 10, 2016, 07:41 AM

29. I've done it over and over

You just refuse the evidence
Everyone sees it except you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SlayerNut (Reply #29)

Mon Sep 12, 2016, 07:24 AM

36. Sorry slayer

but mocking scientists who are creationists, and then throwing in a few swears is not evidence, no matter how much you want it to be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #36)

Mon Sep 12, 2016, 07:44 AM

37. Show me evidence

Of your precious jesus then.
You can't even prove the fuckin guy existed outside of some stories written by unknown authors a century after he died.
So don't go yapping about evidence when it's all right there in front of you.
You'll find shit we haven't explained yet and use that as evidence that the earth's 6000 years old.. it fucking isn't. Stop and think for one fucking second that you are wrong. . Incredibly wrong.. on the losing side of history and science, making a mockery of your own beliefs and the beliefs of others with your fucking nonsense. Smarten up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SlayerNut (Reply #37)

Mon Sep 12, 2016, 08:23 AM

38. OK

making a mockery of your own beliefs and the beliefs of others with your fucking nonsense. Smarten up.

my my sounds like you are getting a little testy.

Stop and think for one fucking second that you are wrong. . Incredibly wrong.. on the losing side of history and science

Well I am on the losing side of human history! but as for science- the kind that is verifiable, empirical, testable, observable- that gives far more support for the theory of young earth creation than it does for old earth random directionless darwinian evolution. evolution is a theological dogma of science - not a proven. their is zero evidence for the "ascent of species" by mutation, natural selection, and enviornmental pressure as the theory is accepted!

So don't go yapping about evidence when it's all right there in front of you.

Nice dodge for not supporting your rantings!

Of your precious jesus then.
You can't even prove the fuckin guy existed outside of some stories written by unknown authors a century after he died.

You want one piece of evidence? Write out todays date! September 12, 2016 A.D. The Calendar is based on teh proof of his existence.

But if thsat is not enough, pick up Lee Strobels book "The case for Christ". It shows Jesus isa one of the most recorded persons of history.

BTW the authors of Scripture and the NT were contemporaries and/or followers of Jesus while he was on earth.

Of your precious jesus then

.Psalm 14English Standard Version (ESV)

The Fool Says, There Is No God
To the choirmaster. Of David.

14 The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”
They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds,
there is none who does good.
2 The Lord looks down from heaven on the children of man,
to see if there are any who understand,
who seek after God

Only the fool believes that God does not exist.

Psalm 19King James Version (KJV)

19 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork

to quote you:

So don't go yapping about evidence when it's all right there in front of you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #38)

Mon Sep 12, 2016, 08:33 AM

39. who wrote the books then?

They followed jesus around and wrote the books 70 or 80 years after he died? They authors of the bible were 100 years old?
Just because people wrote a lot about jesus over the years doesn't prove he existed.
You can't prove it.. nobody can or has.. it's all faith. That's fine if you want to believe in such ridiculous things, leave the rest of us out of it and leave the scientists do their thing. Science fucking works we have robots on a other planet.. ANOTHER PLANET! because science works.. stop being such a fucking tool for the idiots at ICR and whoever else is filling your head with such ridiculous bullshit. Holy shit..

No... biology, geology, astronomy, chemistry, physics etc.. do NOT show a young earth. What the fuck is the matter with you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SlayerNut (Reply #39)

Mon Sep 12, 2016, 01:50 PM

40. Wrong again

With the exception of the gospel of John and hois other writings all the NT was done written by 65 AD.

Just because people wrote a lot about jesus over the years doesn't prove he existed.

Prove Julius Ceaser existed. Napoleon Bonaparte. Nero, Plato, Aristotle Socrates . Go ahead!!

That's fine if you want to believe in such ridiculous things, leave the rest of us out of it and leave the scientists do their thing. Science fucking works we have robots on a other planet.. ANOTHER PLANET! because science works.. stop being such a fucking tool for the idiots at ICR and whoever else is filling your head with such ridiculous bullshit. Holy shit.

My6 MY we are very testy today aren't we!

Yes science does work and it is awesome! But evolution is not science and you know it! It can't be tested, observed, verified, repeated only theorized!

What is observable , testable, repeatable, and verifiable science lends support to the Biblical account of Creation!

No... biology, geology, astronomy, chemistry, physics etc.. do NOT show a young earth. What the fuck is the matter with you?

What's the matter with me?? do you want the short list or the long list!

As you listed whole fields of science that is too broad to answer. Why don't you narrow it down a wee and let us see if your rants are true or not!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #40)

Mon Sep 12, 2016, 03:46 PM

41. really..

We are talking about a man that you fucking worship here. You don't even know if he's real.. so you try to pull other people out of history to try to prove some stupid point. That's exactly what you do. I'm tired of it at this point.
In 22 years online I have never blocked or ignored anyone on the hundreds of boards and websites I have frequented. No matter how fucking ridiculous or stupid they were, but I think it's time to put you to bed nolidad.

You are one of the stupidest people I have ever engaged online when it comes to science and our natural world.
Incredibly gullible and fucking stupid.
I'm not saying you are stupid about everything, some of your posts about other things make sense, you are well versed in the bible, but you read read it over 200 times.
You are seriously ignorant and stupid about our world and the cosmos. It's like the stupid switch goes off as soon as you start going on about religion and creation.
Your constant references to morons that you believe are testament to that fact. All of your sense and reasoning goes away and you become a drone, a brainwashed idiot.
Anyone that says noahs flood carved the grand canyon needs to have their head checked, it's fucking stupid to believe that, very, very stupid.
You don't love science, you attack science, well not you, you aren't smart enough to do it yourself, you copy paste what people that are a little smarter than you write. You think you are enlightening us with these stupid posts but people just laugh at you. I laugh at you, most of this board laughs at you, your coworkers laugh at you, your neighbors laugh at you..
You are the epitome of the religious brainwashed. There are several religious people on this board that make sense when I converse with them, you bring nothing but the same old bullshit to the table over and over again.
So, goodbye nolidad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SlayerNut (Reply #41)

Mon Sep 12, 2016, 04:10 PM

42. Too bad you won't be able to read this!!

We are talking about a man that you fucking worship here. You don't even know if he's real.. so you try to pull other people out of history to try to prove some stupid point. That's exactly what you do. I'm tired of it at this point.
In 22 years online I have never blocked or ignored anyone on the hundreds of boards and websites I have frequented. No matter how fucking ridiculous or stupid they were, but I think it's time to put you to bed nolidad.

what you can't prove Plato is real???? You really are a sore loser!

You are seriously ignorant and stupid about our world and the cosmos. It's like the stupid switch goes off as soon as you start going on about religion and creation.

and yest you are so smart you cannot disprove anything I say!

You don't love science, you attack science, well not you, you aren't smart enough to do it yourself, you copy paste what people that are a little smarter than you write. You think you are enlightening us with these stupid posts but people just laugh at you. I laugh at you, most of this board laughs at you, your coworkers laugh at you, your neighbors laugh at you

Still suck at reading my mind!

, your coworkers laugh at you, your neighbors laugh at you

Have you talked to them or are reading entrails again?

So, goodbye nolidad.

If you read this---be well!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Sciencescience