| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Budikka666" |
| Date: |
28 Aug 2006 06:54:12 PM |
| Object: |
New Information In The Genome - Demonstrated |
http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2006/08/25/a_switch_is_born.php
"Would it be possible for a random sequence to change into one Sigma 70
could grab? Could it go from nothing to a promoter? The answer is yes.
How long would it take? According to some recent experiments, two days.
Two."
Budikka
.
|
|
| User: "FaceDancer" |
|
| Title: Re: New Information In The Genome - Demonstrated |
29 Aug 2006 05:39:33 PM |
|
|
Budikka666 wrote:
http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2006/08/25/a_switch_is_born.php
"Would it be possible for a random sequence to change into one Sigma 70
could grab? Could it go from nothing to a promoter? The answer is yes.
How long would it take? According to some recent experiments, two days.
Two."
Budikka
Do you undertstand exactly what you are posting? Please tell us
"ignorant ones" what is Sigma 70?
You should be able to tell us in your own words. If you are cutting and
pasting, I will know.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Jabriol Posting As FaceDancer |
29 Aug 2006 06:18:34 PM |
|
|
Answer my questions before i answer yours - and I mean answer, don;t
run away form them, don;t lie that oyu answered them, don;t side-step
them, don't tell lies to avoid answering them, Just answer them.
Brief summary of all the unanswered qiestions follows:
1. A car is organic (molecular structure based in carbon).
True or false?
2. Not counting living things, the universe is, in part, organic.
True or false?
3. This universe is the only example of a universe that we know of for
sure.
True/false?
4. We know for a fact that humans create cars, as can been seen from a
tour of any auto manufacturing plant.
True or false?
5. We have no known-for-a-fact examples of gods creating universes.
True or false?
6. If we know humans create cars, but we do not know that gods create
universes, trying to pretend that finding a car abandoned in the desert
leaves one in the same position, vis-a-vis its origins, as we are in
trying to understand the universe is an irredeemably braindead
proposition.
True or false?
7. In a thread started in alt.religion.jehovahs-witn on Sept 21,2003
you stated: "On the other hand, if the Genesis creation account is
factual, then the fossil record would not show one type of life turning
into another. It would reflect the Genesis statement that each
different type of living thing would reproduce only "according to its
kind." (Genesis 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25) Also, if living things came into
being by an act of creation, there would be no partial,
unfinished bones or organs in the fossil record. All fossils would be
complete and highly complex, as living things are today."
(http://tinyurl.com/u62b)
That thread was titled "TOBS: The Fossil record support's Genesis".
Posting such an article and/or believing we were created rather than
evolved is an open admission that you are in fact, a creationist.
True or false?
8. Regardless of what it is classed as and regardless of whether it was
or was not in the evolutionary line to birds, the archaeopteryx had
pretty much a fifty-fifty mix of reptile/dino and bird features and
therefore represents an example of a potential intermediate stage.
True or false?
9. The okapi, an animal alive and well today, and biologically related
to the giraffe is pretty much what a transitional giraffe could have
looked like.
True or false?
10. http://www.talkorigins.org/faq s/faq-transitional.html summarises
discoveries pertaining to transitional fossils and contains over 70
references, many of which are to papers published in peer-reviewed
science journals.
True or false?
11. Something akin to a mouse could reasonably change 300 genes over 60
million years to become either human or a modern mouse.
True or false?
12. It is possible to clearly and scientifically define the Biblical
"kind" as used in the Noah's ark story in Genesis.
True or false?
13. There is a mechanism in genetics or biochemistry which prevents one
"kind" of organism varying into another "kind".
True or false?
14. Evolutionists hold that modern amphibians evolved from modern
fish.
True or false?
15. Evolutionists hold that modern reptiles evolved from modern
amphibians.
True or false?
16. Evolutionists hold that modern birds evolved from modern reptiles.
True or false?
17. Evolutionists hold that modern mammals evolved from modern
reptiles.
True or false?
18. Creationist letters published as a joke in a science publication
are of the same standing as peer-reviewed papers published in
recognized science journals.
True or false?
19. There has been at least one peer-reviewed science paper published
in a recognized, refereed science journal that calls the Theory of
Evolution into serious question.
True or false?
20. There has been at least one peer-reviewed science paper published
in a recognized, refereed science journal that establishes a better
theory to explain the distribution and variety of life on Earth today
than the Theory of Evolution.
True or false?
21. There has been posted, in one place in a thread somewhere in these
news groups, a supported and referenced *list* of the colossal holes in
the Theory of Evolution.
True or false?
22. It is hypocritical to demand peer-reviewed published evidence from
others in refutation of non-existent material favoring your own
arguments.
True or false?
23. References to long-dead dead topics such as "Piltdown man",
Nebraska "man", and Ramapithecus as a human ancestor are irrelevant to
the current state of the Theory of Evolution because no one but
creationists ever makes an issue of them any more.
True or false?
24. Certain creationists-in-denial will snip or ignore this entire
post because they cannot even handle a series of simple true/false
questions without realizing what a ***** they are.
True or false?
The last question is a little more difficult. It's multiple choice.
25. The match between human DNA and banana DNA is:
A. 95%
B. 75%
C. 60%
D. Greater than 50%
E. 50%
Please *support* your answer to question 25 with at least one
competent and intelligent reference that does not refer to a
non-existent article in _New Scientist_, is not a throw-away quotation,
and is not merely a headline from an article that has nothing otherwise
to do with the topic.
Still waiting on you answering these:
Jabriol Unanswered Questions series #1
http://tinyurl.com/c75ql
Jabriol Unanswered Questions series #2
http://tinyurl.com/cla6m
Jabriol Unanswered Questions series #3
http://tinyurl.com/d5ku3
Jabriol Unanswered Questions series #4
http://tinyurl.com/btmpg
Jabriol Unanswered Questions series #5
http://tinyurl.com/7hkz9
Jabriol Unanswered Questions series #6
http://tinyurl.com/9c8hp
Jabriol Unanswered Questions series #7
http://tinyurl.com/cqanx
Jabriol Unanswered Questions series #8
http://tinyurl.com/bqydk
Jabriol Unanswered Questions series #9
http://tinyurl.com/dkmd3
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: New Information In The Genome - Demonstrated |
30 Aug 2006 06:39:09 AM |
|
|
FaceDancer wrote:
Budikka666 wrote:
http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2006/08/25/a_switch_is_born.php
"Would it be possible for a random sequence to change into one Sigma 70
could grab? Could it go from nothing to a promoter? The answer is yes.
How long would it take? According to some recent experiments, two days.
Two."
Budikka
Do you undertstand exactly what you are posting? Please tell us
"ignorant ones" what is Sigma 70?
You should be able to tell us in your own words. If you are cutting and
pasting, I will know.
It's an enzyme within the cell that that controls the processes that use
a gene to form a protein. If the enzyme is present, the process will
occur; if it's not, the process does not. Enzymes are not used up in the
process but simply catalyze it.
Happy? Would you like salt and pepper on that crow?
--
Mike
-------------------------------
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never
stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and
neither do we," George W. "Shrub" Bush Aug 5, 2004
.
|
|
|
| User: "r norman" |
|
| Title: Re: New Information In The Genome - Demonstrated |
30 Aug 2006 08:35:34 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 07:39:09 -0400, Mike Anderson
<prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:
FaceDancer wrote:
Budikka666 wrote:
http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2006/08/25/a_switch_is_born.php
"Would it be possible for a random sequence to change into one Sigma 70
could grab? Could it go from nothing to a promoter? The answer is yes.
How long would it take? According to some recent experiments, two days.
Two."
Budikka
Do you undertstand exactly what you are posting? Please tell us
"ignorant ones" what is Sigma 70?
You should be able to tell us in your own words. If you are cutting and
pasting, I will know.
It's an enzyme within the cell that that controls the processes that use
a gene to form a protein. If the enzyme is present, the process will
occur; if it's not, the process does not. Enzymes are not used up in the
process but simply catalyze it.
Happy? Would you like salt and pepper on that crow?
I don't know or care who the players are or what your grudges may be.
However sigma-70 is not an enzyme because it does not catalyze a
chemical reaction. It is a protein that binds to an enzyme, RNA
polymerase, that enable it to initiate transcription. There are a
variety of sigma-factors in bacteria but sigma-70 is the major one.
If you read the original web site blog cited above, you will find that
the word 'enzyme' is crossed out and replaced with the proper term
'factor'.
.
|
|
|
| User: "FaceDancer" |
|
| Title: Re: New Information In The Genome - Demonstrated |
30 Aug 2006 04:18:08 PM |
|
|
r norman wrote:
I don't know or care who the players are or what your grudges may be.
However sigma-70 is not an enzyme because it does not catalyze a
chemical reaction.
I threw you guys a bone. Apparently you didn't pick up. look up the
term holoenzyme.
Now then I knew I left my false teeth around here someplace.
.
|
|
|
| User: "r norman" |
|
| Title: Re: New Information In The Genome - Demonstrated |
30 Aug 2006 04:54:58 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 17:18:08 -0400, FaceDancer
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
r norman wrote:
I don't know or care who the players are or what your grudges may be.
However sigma-70 is not an enzyme because it does not catalyze a
chemical reaction.
I threw you guys a bone. Apparently you didn't pick up. look up the
term holoenzyme.
Now then I knew I left my false teeth around here someplace.
So this is all just game playing, not trying to work out how molecular
biology and evolution works. In that case, have fun!
.
|
|
|
| User: "FaceDancer" |
|
| Title: Re: New Information In The Genome - Demonstrated |
30 Aug 2006 09:13:34 PM |
|
|
r norman wrote:
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 17:18:08 -0400, FaceDancer
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
r norman wrote:
I don't know or care who the players are or what your grudges may be.
However sigma-70 is not an enzyme because it does not catalyze a
chemical reaction.
I threw you guys a bone. Apparently you didn't pick up. look up the
term holoenzyme.
Now then I knew I left my false teeth around here someplace.
So this is all just game playing, not trying to work out how molecular
biology and evolution works. In that case, have fun!
No game. Budikaka posted a site about evolution, which she could not
explain. It is no better than a creationist trying to explain the nature
of god, or why they believe that creation occurred in 6 days. She is of
evolution, as Tammy Faye Baker is of religion. Evolution fanatics as
Budikaka make evolutionary biology a religion instead of a science and
she uses the T.O. faqs and websites as her "Bible" and religious
publications. It is a detriment to science. And you guys should keep
updated, so when the "moron" spits out a website she can not explain,
you young folks can.
No one has yet explained to moron the term " from nothing" in science.
Let me offer some assistance; when a scientist in a paper says "from
nothing", it is because the mechanism and function is not understood or
not clear.
If the Moron is out there, here is a question. Why is ATP is considered
to be a "battery recharger", and how did this mechanism evolved and why
is it important, And if you say it is a food supplement to build muscles
I will personally cyber-slap you across the noggin.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Sullivan" |
|
| Title: Re: New Information In The Genome - Demonstrated |
20 Sep 2006 04:47:33 PM |
|
|
In sci.bio.microbiology FaceDancer <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
r norman wrote:
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 17:18:08 -0400, FaceDancer
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
r norman wrote:
I don't know or care who the players are or what your grudges may be.
However sigma-70 is not an enzyme because it does not catalyze a
chemical reaction.
I threw you guys a bone. Apparently you didn't pick up. look up the
term holoenzyme.
Now then I knew I left my false teeth around here someplace.
So this is all just game playing, not trying to work out how molecular
biology and evolution works. In that case, have fun!
No game. Budikaka posted a site about evolution, which she could not
explain. It is no better than a creationist trying to explain the nature
of god, or why they believe that creation occurred in 6 days. She is of
evolution, as Tammy Faye Baker is of religion. Evolution fanatics as
Budikaka make evolutionary biology a religion instead of a science and
she uses the T.O. faqs and websites as her "Bible" and religious
publications. It is a detriment to science. And you guys should keep
updated, so when the "moron" spits out a website she can not explain,
you young folks can.
No one has yet explained to moron the term " from nothing" in science.
Let me offer some assistance; when a scientist in a paper says "from
nothing", it is because the mechanism and function is not understood or
not clear.
If the Moron is out there, here is a question. Why is ATP is considered
to be a "battery recharger", and how did this mechanism evolved and why
is it important, And if you say it is a food supplement to build muscles
I will personally cyber-slap you across the noggin.
'Noggin' being a neuralizing TGFb ligand active in many metazoan embryos.
I win!
You're a *****.
___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason
.
|
|
|
| User: "TimK" |
|
| Title: Re: New Information In The Genome - Demonstrated |
22 Sep 2006 09:30:44 PM |
|
|
"Steven Sullivan" <ssully@panix.com> wrote in message
news:eesctl$6lj$1@reader1.panix.com...
In sci.bio.microbiology FaceDancer <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
r norman wrote:
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 17:18:08 -0400, FaceDancer
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
r norman wrote:
I don't know or care who the players are or what your grudges may be.
However sigma-70 is not an enzyme because it does not catalyze a
chemical reaction.
I threw you guys a bone. Apparently you didn't pick up. look up the
term holoenzyme.
Now then I knew I left my false teeth around here someplace.
So this is all just game playing, not trying to work out how molecular
biology and evolution works. In that case, have fun!
No game. Budikaka posted a site about evolution, which she could not
explain. It is no better than a creationist trying to explain the nature
of god, or why they believe that creation occurred in 6 days. She is of
evolution, as Tammy Faye Baker is of religion. Evolution fanatics as
Budikaka make evolutionary biology a religion instead of a science and
she uses the T.O. faqs and websites as her "Bible" and religious
publications. It is a detriment to science. And you guys should keep
updated, so when the "moron" spits out a website she can not explain,
you young folks can.
No one has yet explained to moron the term " from nothing" in science.
Let me offer some assistance; when a scientist in a paper says "from
nothing", it is because the mechanism and function is not understood or
not clear.
If the Moron is out there, here is a question. Why is ATP is considered
to be a "battery recharger", and how did this mechanism evolved and why
is it important, And if you say it is a food supplement to build muscles
I will personally cyber-slap you across the noggin.
'Noggin' being a neuralizing TGFb ligand active in many metazoan embryos.
I win!
You're a *****.
Fancy seeing you here!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Jabriol Posting as FaceDancer Still Running From new Information |
02 Sep 2006 06:13:22 PM |
|
|
Jabriol Posting as FaceDancer wrote:
No game. Budikaka posted a site about evolution,
No, I posted an article that was not collected by a bot, that
referenced a peer-reviewed science paper that demonstrated new
information arising in the genome without a supernatural agency,. It
really is that simple.
Your pathetic attempts to sidestep this fact will not fool me. You may
get everyone else posting here tied up with your hand-waving *****
but you will not sway me.
Now Jabriol, did this demonstrate new information arising in the genome
(regardless of what the information was or what it does or does not
do), or does it not? Answer **THAT** question and I'll address yours.
There was random DNA, then there was functional DNA. Is this new
information or not? It's a simple question. Why are you so afraid of
it?
which she could not
explain.
The article/paper explains everything. The explanation is not the
issue, it's merely your attempt to distract from the issue. The issue,
as the original message title made clear, is that of new information
arising in the gneome without a supernatural agency.
Acknolwedge that, admit that, and I will address your issues.
It is no better than a creationist trying to explain the nature
of god, or why they believe that creation occurred in 6 days.
They believe that because the Bible lies that it's so. Science
disagrees and has the evidence to support its position.
She is of
evolution, as Tammy Faye Baker is of religion. Evolution fanatics as
Budikaka make evolutionary biology a religion instead of a science and
she uses the T.O. faqs and websites as her "Bible" and religious
publications. It is a detriment to science. And you guys should keep
updated, so when the "moron" spits out a website she can not explain,
you young folks can.
Did new information arise in the genome withut the aid of a
supernatural; agency or did it not? Answer the question.
No one has yet explained to moron the term " from nothing" in science.
Let me offer some assistance; when a scientist in a paper says "from
nothing", it is because the mechanism and function is not understood or
not clear.
It isn't from nothing and that was never my position. The "junk" DNA
was there. That's where the new info arose. The issue is solely about
new information arising in the genome. Did it or did it not? Answer
the question.
If the Moron is out there, here is a question. Why is ATP is considered
to be a "battery recharger", and how did this mechanism evolved and why
is it important, And if you say it is a food supplement to build muscles
I will personally cyber-slap you across the noggin.
What a sterling attempt to get away from the issue! You really do have
an endless supply of straw men, don't you? But you will not distract
me from the original thread message that I posted, which was titled
"New Information in the Genome - Demonstrated"
Do you dispute that that was the title of the original message in this
thread?
Do you dispute that the article said that a random sequence could go
from a random sequence to a functional sequence?
Does this or does this not represent new information arising in the
genome without a supernatural agency? Answer the question. It's
perfectly simple.
Or you can snip and run as you always do and the world will know what a
coward you are. (That's **NOT** new information, BTW)
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tleilax" |
|
| Title: Re: Jabriol Posting as FaceDancer Still Running From new Information |
02 Sep 2006 06:27:30 PM |
|
|
Budikka666 wrote:
Jabriol Posting as FaceDancer wrote:
No game. Budikaka posted a site about evolution,
No, I posted an article that was not
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSNNNNNIPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
look like that facedude got you riled up lol.
bye.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Jabriol Now Posting as Tleilax and Still Running From New Info in Genome |
03 Sep 2006 06:32:33 AM |
|
|
How about withdrawing your misleading quotes, starting with this one:
Jabriol Misleading Quotes series #1
http://tinyurl.com/b3n6s
Brief summary of all the unanswered qiestions follows:
1. A car is organic (molecular structure based in carbon).
True or false?
2. Not counting living things, the universe is, in part, organic.
True or false?
3. This universe is the only example of a universe that we know of for
sure.
True/false?
4. We know for a fact that humans create cars, as can been seen from a
tour of any auto manufacturing plant.
True or false?
5. We have no known-for-a-fact examples of gods creating universes.
True or false?
6. If we know humans create cars, but we do not know that gods create
universes, trying to pretend that finding a car abandoned in the desert
leaves one in the same position, vis-a-vis its origins, as we are in
trying to understand the universe is an irredeemably braindead
proposition.
True or false?
7. In a thread started in alt.religion.jehovahs-witn on Sept 21,2003
you stated: "On the other hand, if the Genesis creation account is
factual, then the fossil record would not show one type of life turning
into another. It would reflect the Genesis statement that each
different type of living thing would reproduce only "according to its
kind." (Genesis 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25) Also, if living things came into
being by an act of creation, there would be no partial,
unfinished bones or organs in the fossil record. All fossils would be
complete and highly complex, as living things are today."
(http://tinyurl.com/u62b)
That thread was titled "TOBS: The Fossil record support's Genesis".
Posting such an article and/or believing we were created rather than
evolved is an open admission that you are in fact, a creationist.
True or false?
8. Regardless of what it is classed as and regardless of whether it was
or was not in the evolutionary line to birds, the archaeopteryx had
pretty much a fifty-fifty mix of reptile/dino and bird features and
therefore represents an example of a potential intermediate stage.
True or false?
9. The okapi, an animal alive and well today, and biologically related
to the giraffe is pretty much what a transitional giraffe could have
looked like.
True or false?
10. http://www.talkorigins.org/faq s/faq-transitional.html summarises
discoveries pertaining to transitional fossils and contains over 70
references, many of which are to papers published in peer-reviewed
science journals.
True or false?
11. Something akin to a mouse could reasonably change 300 genes over 60
million years to become either human or a modern mouse.
True or false?
12. It is possible to clearly and scientifically define the Biblical
"kind" as used in the Noah's ark story in Genesis.
True or false?
13. There is a mechanism in genetics or biochemistry which prevents one
"kind" of organism varying into another "kind".
True or false?
14. Evolutionists hold that modern amphibians evolved from modern
fish.
True or false?
15. Evolutionists hold that modern reptiles evolved from modern
amphibians.
True or false?
16. Evolutionists hold that modern birds evolved from modern reptiles.
True or false?
17. Evolutionists hold that modern mammals evolved from modern
reptiles.
True or false?
18. Creationist letters published as a joke in a science publication
are of the same standing as peer-reviewed papers published in
recognized science journals.
True or false?
19. There has been at least one peer-reviewed science paper published
in a recognized, refereed science journal that calls the Theory of
Evolution into serious question.
True or false?
20. There has been at least one peer-reviewed science paper published
in a recognized, refereed science journal that establishes a better
theory to explain the distribution and variety of life on Earth today
than the Theory of Evolution.
True or false?
21. There has been posted, in one place in a thread somewhere in these
news groups, a supported and referenced *list* of the colossal holes in
the Theory of Evolution.
True or false?
22. It is hypocritical to demand peer-reviewed published evidence from
others in refutation of non-existent material favoring your own
arguments.
True or false?
23. References to long-dead dead topics such as "Piltdown man",
Nebraska "man", and Ramapithecus as a human ancestor are irrelevant to
the current state of the Theory of Evolution because no one but
creationists ever makes an issue of them any more.
True or false?
24. Certain creationists-in-denial will snip or ignore this entire
post because they cannot even handle a series of simple true/false
questions without realizing what a ***** they are.
True or false?
The last question is a little more difficult. It's multiple choice.
25. The match between human DNA and banana DNA is:
A. 95%
B. 75%
C. 60%
D. Greater than 50%
E. 50%
Please *support* your answer to question 25 with at least one
competent and intelligent reference that does not refer to a
non-existent article in _New Scientist_, is not a throw-away quotation,
and is not merely a headline from an article that has nothing otherwise
to do with the topic.
Still waiting on you answering these:
Jabriol Unanswered Questions series #1
http://tinyurl.com/c75ql
Jabriol Unanswered Questions series #2
http://tinyurl.com/cla6m
Jabriol Unanswered Questions series #3
http://tinyurl.com/d5ku3
Jabriol Unanswered Questions series #4
http://tinyurl.com/btmpg
Jabriol Unanswered Questions series #5
http://tinyurl.com/7hkz9
Jabriol Unanswered Questions series #6
http://tinyurl.com/9c8hp
Jabriol Unanswered Questions series #7
http://tinyurl.com/cqanx
Jabriol Unanswered Questions series #8
http://tinyurl.com/bqydk
Jabriol Unanswered Questions series #9
http://tinyurl.com/dkmd3
And how about apologising for these lies instead of running from them?
Jabriol Lies Series #1
http://tinyurl.com/2w7u9
Jabriol Lies Series #2
http://tinyurl.com/2l9rl
Jabriol Lies Series #3
http://tinyurl.com/27cvs
Jabriol Lies Series #4
http://tinyurl.com/33zrt
Jabriol Lies Series #5
http://tinyurl.com/2t944
Jabriol Lies Series #6
http://tinyurl.com/3776p
Jabriol Lies Series #7
http://tinyurl.com/82da6
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Jabriol Still Running From New Info in the Genome |
05 Sep 2006 05:17:13 PM |
|
|
Still waiting on your cowardly ***** addressing the simple question: Does
the example in my opening message represent new information in the
genome? If not, why not?
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "StingRay" |
|
| Title: Re: Jabriol Still Running From New Info in the Genome |
05 Sep 2006 05:45:45 PM |
|
|
Budikka666 wrote:
Still waiting on your cowardly ***** addressing the simple question: Does
the example in my opening message represent new information in the
genome? If not, why not?
Budikka
All I see in your opening is : > "Still waiting on your cowardly *****
addressing the simple question:"
what question?
You see what I mean about you asking stupid nonsensical questions?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Jabriol Now Running Under the Name of StingRay |
05 Sep 2006 11:22:48 PM |
|
|
How about withdrawing your misleading quotes, starting with this one:
Jabriol Misleading Quotes series #1
http://tinyurl.com/b3n6s
Brief summary of all the unanswered qiestions follows:
1. A car is organic (molecular structure based in carbon).
True or false?
2. Not counting living things, the universe is, in part, organic.
True or false?
3. This universe is the only example of a universe that we know of for
sure.
True/false?
4. We know for a fact that humans create cars, as can been seen from a
tour of any auto manufacturing plant.
True or false?
5. We have no known-for-a-fact examples of gods creating universes.
True or false?
6. If we know humans create cars, but we do not know that gods create
universes, trying to pretend that finding a car abandoned in the desert
leaves one in the same position, vis-a-vis its origins, as we are in
trying to understand the universe is an irredeemably braindead
proposition.
True or false?
7. In a thread started in alt.religion.jehovahs-witn on Sept 21,2003
you stated: "On the other hand, if the Genesis creation account is
factual, then the fossil record would not show one type of life turning
into another. It would reflect the Genesis statement that each
different type of living thing would reproduce only "according to its
kind." (Genesis 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25) Also, if living things came into
being by an act of creation, there would be no partial,
unfinished bones or organs in the fossil record. All fossils would be
complete and highly complex, as living things are today."
(http://tinyurl.com/u62b)
That thread was titled "TOBS: The Fossil record support's Genesis".
Posting such an article and/or believing we were created rather than
evolved is an open admission that you are in fact, a creationist.
True or false?
8. Regardless of what it is classed as and regardless of whether it was
or was not in the evolutionary line to birds, the archaeopteryx had
pretty much a fifty-fifty mix of reptile/dino and bird features and
therefore represents an example of a potential intermediate stage.
True or false?
9. The okapi, an animal alive and well today, and biologically related
to the giraffe is pretty much what a transitional giraffe could have
looked like.
True or false?
10. http://www.talkorigins.org/faq s/faq-transitional.html summarises
discoveries pertaining to transitional fossils and contains over 70
references, many of which are to papers published in peer-reviewed
science journals.
True or false?
11. Something akin to a mouse could reasonably change 300 genes over 60
million years to become either human or a modern mouse.
True or false?
12. It is possible to clearly and scientifically define the Biblical
"kind" as used in the Noah's ark story in Genesis.
True or false?
13. There is a mechanism in genetics or biochemistry which prevents one
"kind" of organism varying into another "kind".
True or false?
14. Evolutionists hold that modern amphibians evolved from modern
fish.
True or false?
15. Evolutionists hold that modern reptiles evolved from modern
amphibians.
True or false?
16. Evolutionists hold that modern birds evolved from modern reptiles.
True or false?
17. Evolutionists hold that modern mammals evolved from modern
reptiles.
True or false?
18. Creationist letters published as a joke in a science publication
are of the same standing as peer-reviewed papers published in
recognized science journals.
True or false?
19. There has been at least one peer-reviewed science paper published
in a recognized, refereed science journal that calls the Theory of
Evolution into serious question.
True or false?
20. There has been at least one peer-reviewed science paper published
in a recognized, refereed science journal that establishes a better
theory to explain the distribution and variety of life on Earth today
than the Theory of Evolution.
True or false?
21. There has been posted, in one place in a thread somewhere in these
news groups, a supported and referenced *list* of the colossal holes in
the Theory of Evolution.
True or false?
22. It is hypocritical to demand peer-reviewed published evidence from
others in refutation of non-existent material favoring your own
arguments.
True or false?
23. References to long-dead dead topics such as "Piltdown man",
Nebraska "man", and Ramapithecus as a human ancestor are irrelevant to
the current state of the Theory of Evolution because no one but
creationists ever makes an issue of them any more.
True or false?
24. Certain creationists-in-denial will snip or ignore this entire
post because they cannot even handle a series of simple true/false
questions without realizing what a ***** they are.
True or false?
The last question is a little more difficult. It's multiple choice.
25. The match between human DNA and banana DNA is:
A. 95%
B. 75%
C. 60%
D. Greater than 50%
E. 50%
Please *support* your answer to question 25 with at least one
competent and intelligent reference that does not refer to a
non-existent article in _New Scientist_, is not a throw-away quotation,
and is not merely a headline from an article that has nothing otherwise
to do with the topic.
Still waiting on you answering these:
Jabriol Unanswered Questions series #1
http://tinyurl.com/c75ql
Jabriol Unanswered Questions series #2
http://tinyurl.com/cla6m
Jabriol Unanswered Questions series #3
http://tinyurl.com/d5ku3
Jabriol Unanswered Questions series #4
http://tinyurl.com/btmpg
Jabriol Unanswered Questions series #5
http://tinyurl.com/7hkz9
Jabriol Unanswered Questions series #6
http://tinyurl.com/9c8hp
Jabriol Unanswered Questions series #7
http://tinyurl.com/cqanx
Jabriol Unanswered Questions series #8
http://tinyurl.com/bqydk
Jabriol Unanswered Questions series #9
http://tinyurl.com/dkmd3
And how about apologising for these lies instead of running from them?
Jabriol Lies Series #1
http://tinyurl.com/2w7u9
Jabriol Lies Series #2
http://tinyurl.com/2l9rl
Jabriol Lies Series #3
http://tinyurl.com/27cvs
Jabriol Lies Series #4
http://tinyurl.com/33zrt
Jabriol Lies Series #5
http://tinyurl.com/2t944
Jabriol Lies Series #6
http://tinyurl.com/3776p
Jabriol Lies Series #7
http://tinyurl.com/82da6
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "r norman" |
|
| Title: Re: New Information In The Genome - Demonstrated |
30 Aug 2006 09:56:17 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 22:13:34 -0400, FaceDancer
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
r norman wrote:
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 17:18:08 -0400, FaceDancer
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
r norman wrote:
I don't know or care who the players are or what your grudges may be.
However sigma-70 is not an enzyme because it does not catalyze a
chemical reaction.
I threw you guys a bone. Apparently you didn't pick up. look up the
term holoenzyme.
Now then I knew I left my false teeth around here someplace.
So this is all just game playing, not trying to work out how molecular
biology and evolution works. In that case, have fun!
No game. Budikaka posted a site about evolution, which she could not
explain. It is no better than a creationist trying to explain the nature
of god, or why they believe that creation occurred in 6 days. She is of
evolution, as Tammy Faye Baker is of religion. Evolution fanatics as
Budikaka make evolutionary biology a religion instead of a science and
she uses the T.O. faqs and websites as her "Bible" and religious
publications. It is a detriment to science. And you guys should keep
updated, so when the "moron" spits out a website she can not explain,
you young folks can.
No one has yet explained to moron the term " from nothing" in science.
Let me offer some assistance; when a scientist in a paper says "from
nothing", it is because the mechanism and function is not understood or
not clear.
If the Moron is out there, here is a question. Why is ATP is considered
to be a "battery recharger", and how did this mechanism evolved and why
is it important, And if you say it is a food supplement to build muscles
I will personally cyber-slap you across the noggin.
Your sneering questions are as bad as anything you describe for the
"evolution fanatics" you describe. ATP more closely resembles the
battery than the recharger, if you really want to push inappropriate
metaphors to their extreme. Its evolution is buried in the past
several billion years ago and would be hard to reconstruct although
there are suggestions about how intermediary metabolism developed. As
to why it is important, at your level of understanding the best I
could offer is that it is a food supplement to build muscles.
Yes, there are people with greater background and knowledge of
different aspects of science and there are people with lesser. You
choose to post to five different groups dealing primarily with
religion (or lack thereof) and to two which are intended for
professional scientists. Therefore you get a mix of sophistication in
the answer.
.
|
|
|
| User: "FaceDancer" |
|
| Title: Re: New Information In The Genome - Demonstrated |
30 Aug 2006 10:53:24 PM |
|
|
r norman wrote:
Your sneering questions are as bad as anything you describe for the
"evolution fanatics" you describe.
Are they now? It more like: " twenty dollars unleaded please"
ATP more closely resembles the
battery than the recharger,
Very good. Actually ATP is the *recharged battery*, not an out-of-box 9
volt eveready. ADP is lower energy, used battery. I wanted to know if
Budikaka was up to the challenge.
Its evolution is buried in the past
several billion years ago and would be hard to reconstruct although
there are suggestions about how intermediary metabolism developed. As
to why it is important, at your level of understanding the best I
could offer is that it is a food supplement to build muscles.
SLAP! Biological energy is a more than a supplement for muscle bounded
ninnies. ATP directly or indirectly delivers energy to almost all
metabolic pathways.
Please continue where I left off, and don't bore me.
Yes, there are people with greater background and knowledge of
different aspects of science and there are people with lesser. You
choose to post to five different groups dealing primarily with
religion (or lack thereof) and to two which are intended for
professional scientists. Therefore you get a mix of sophistication in
the answer.
Actually the original thread started in the religious group from a moron
who believes she is the goddess of biology. I decided to add on the
science groups, just see how much she really knows about evolutionary
biology. My pretended arrogance was a reminder; my endgame with people
like her will always the "fools mate"
She has been quiet as of late. I guess it is a good sign, a teaspoon of
humility may actually get her to learn to use the automatic check out
counter at Giants.
Oh dang! I am getting bored. I wonder what on CNN. I hope there is more
toilet talk!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: New Information In The Genome - Demonstrated |
30 Aug 2006 10:41:25 AM |
|
|
r norman wrote:
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 07:39:09 -0400, Mike Anderson
<prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:
FaceDancer wrote:
Budikka666 wrote:
http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2006/08/25/a_switch_is_born.php
"Would it be possible for a random sequence to change into one Sigma 70
could grab? Could it go from nothing to a promoter? The answer is yes.
How long would it take? According to some recent experiments, two days.
Two."
Budikka
Do you undertstand exactly what you are posting? Please tell us
"ignorant ones" what is Sigma 70?
You should be able to tell us in your own words. If you are cutting and
pasting, I will know.
It's an enzyme within the cell that that controls the processes that use
a gene to form a protein. If the enzyme is present, the process will
occur; if it's not, the process does not. Enzymes are not used up in the
process but simply catalyze it.
Happy? Would you like salt and pepper on that crow?
I don't know or care who the players are or what your grudges may be.
I don't have any grudges here; I just got rubbed the wrong way by
Facedancer's remarks.
However sigma-70 is not an enzyme because it does not catalyze a
chemical reaction. It is a protein that binds to an enzyme, RNA
polymerase, that enable it to initiate transcription. There are a
variety of sigma-factors in bacteria but sigma-70 is the major one.
If you read the original web site blog cited above, you will find that
the word 'enzyme' is crossed out and replaced with the proper term
'factor'.
I'm not the only one calling it an enzyme rather than a factor.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8702534&dopt=Abstract
"...which was qualitatively different for the mutants compared to the
wild-type final sigma70 enzyme."
Now the sigma-70 isn't strictly an enzyme by itself, true. But it's a
part of an enzyme (i.e. a factor) that makes the enzyme more specific.
The addition of the sigma-70 factor to the core enzyme turns it into a
polymerase, which is a enzyme that catalyzes the formation of new DNA or
RNA from raw materials, using other DNA or RNA as a template (as I
understand it, anyways. I'll admit to no formal training in this field
beyond high school and that's been years ago.)
So I wasn't completely accurate in my first posting, I'll agree. My
posting was probably analogous to calling the body of a car "a car" as
opposed to "a part of a car that modifies the car's performance and
usage and makes it a sedan or a wagon or a hatchback."
--
Mike
-------------------------------
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never
stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and
neither do we," George W. "Shrub" Bush Aug 5, 2004
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: New Information In The Genome - Demonstrated |
29 Aug 2006 06:46:24 PM |
|
|
In article <44f4c3c8$0$8145$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere.com> FaceDancer <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes:
Budikka666 wrote:
http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2006/08/25/a_switch_is_born.php
"Would it be possible for a random sequence to change into one Sigma 70
could grab? Could it go from nothing to a promoter? The answer is yes.
How long would it take? According to some recent experiments, two days.
Two."
Budikka
Do you undertstand exactly what you are posting? Please tell us
"ignorant ones" what is Sigma 70?
You should be able to tell us in your own words. If you are cutting and
pasting, I will know.
Um, did you glance at the article? It's pretty straightforward:
sigma 70 is a factor involved in switching genes on, one that is most
active when E coli are in a low-stress environment.
The question is: how long would it take a random gene which is
not initially responsive to sigma 70 to mutate into a version
which would be activated by that factor?
The astonishing result, it is claimed, is two days.
That's the setup, and it takes only five short paragraphs to explain.
The rest is detail (how the gene was inserted using a plasmid stripped
of the gene's normal promoter). And the mechanism of "mutation"
strikes me as a bit artifical.
But the article itself is, as I said, pretty straightforward.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "FaceDancer" |
|
| Title: Re: New Information In The Genome - Demonstrated |
29 Aug 2006 10:04:31 PM |
|
|
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <44f4c3c8$0$8145$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere.com> FaceDancer <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes:
Budikka666 wrote:
http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2006/08/25/a_switch_is_born.php
"Would it be possible for a random sequence to change into one Sigma 70
could grab? Could it go from nothing to a promoter? The answer is yes.
How long would it take? According to some recent experiments, two days.
Two."
Budikka
Do you undertstand exactly what you are posting? Please tell us
"ignorant ones" what is Sigma 70?
You should be able to tell us in your own words. If you are cutting and
pasting, I will know.
Um, did you glance at the article? It's pretty straightforward:
sigma 70 is a factor involved in switching genes on, one that is most
active when E coli are in a low-stress environment.
The question is: how long would it take a random gene which is
not initially responsive to sigma 70 to mutate into a version
which would be activated by that factor?
The astonishing result, it is claimed, is two days.
That's the setup, and it takes only five short paragraphs to explain.
The rest is detail (how the gene was inserted using a plasmid stripped
of the gene's normal promoter). And the mechanism of "mutation"
strikes me as a bit artifical.
But the article itself is, as I said, pretty straightforward.
-- cary
I know about the article. I also know about Sigma 70.
And nobody yet has said what it is. Budikaka is more concern with her
battle with "Jabriol"
I have ask what is Sigma 70. I also know about promoters. You see, there
is a difference between a moron who spurt web pages about evolution
because the moron has a bot to collect them. A biologist, a
microbiologist, would explain what the article means.
It has been more than 3 hours since I asked the question. Before morons
present articles as evidence for evolution, they should at least
understand the concept of what they are reading and why are they posting
it. It appears that Budikaka doesn't understands it.
Anyhow as my kid is fond of saying, my replies you should know what
background in science I have.
Budikaka is a fraud. So is my daughter biology class teacher, almost
make me want to leave retirement. The nitwit talks about creation in a
science class. Him and I are going to have some words. Maybe Budikaka
and this nitwit are clones, yes?
Here is a bone for the moron. Look up holo enzyme. I am tired and going
to bed. Maybe somebody will be able to tell the moron exactly what is
meant by "Could it go from nothing to a promoter"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Jabriol Posting as FaceDancer Still Running |
02 Sep 2006 05:55:02 PM |
|
|
Jabriol Posting As Facedancer wrote:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <44f4c3c8$0$8145$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere.com> FaceDancer <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes:
Budikka666 wrote:
http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2006/08/25/a_switch_is_born.php
"Would it be possible for a random sequence to change into one Sigma 70
could grab? Could it go from nothing to a promoter? The answer is yes.
How long would it take? According to some recent experiments, two days.
Two."
Budikka
Do you undertstand exactly what you are posting? Please tell us
"ignorant ones" what is Sigma 70?
You should be able to tell us in your own words. If you are cutting and
pasting, I will know.
Um, did you glance at the article? It's pretty straightforward:
sigma 70 is a factor involved in switching genes on, one that is most
active when E coli are in a low-stress environment.
The question is: how long would it take a random gene which is
not initially responsive to sigma 70 to mutate into a version
which would be activated by that factor?
The astonishing result, it is claimed, is two days.
That's the setup, and it takes only five short paragraphs to explain.
The rest is detail (how the gene was inserted using a plasmid stripped
of the gene's normal promoter). And the mechanism of "mutation"
strikes me as a bit artifical.
But the article itself is, as I said, pretty straightforward.
-- cary
I know about the article. I also know about Sigma 70.
And nobody yet has said what it is. Budikaka is more concern with her
battle with "Jabriol"
No, Jabriol, I'm concerned about nothing. I do find it as hilarious as
it is pathetic that once again you're running away from the issue at
hand and tossing out as many straw men as you possibly can because you
are a beaten coward.
Now go ahead and try and snip while you're lying that you're not
Jabriol. What a dilemma for you! Do you snip me and thereby prove
you're you;re that well-known vacuous coward Jabriol who is too much of
a dumb cluck to try and discuss science with me, or do you actually try
and address my position, in which case you get your dumb creationist
***** whipped raw. LoL! I can;t wait.
I have ask what is Sigma 70. I also know about promoters. You see, there
is a difference between a moron who spurt web pages about evolution
because the moron has a bot to collect them. A biologist, a
microbiologist, would explain what the article means.
The issue at hand is new information in the genome. That's the title
of the thread. That's what the thread is about. Others may play your
side-step game with you, but I will not.
Now are you going to address the fact that it has been demonstrated
that new information can arise in the genome through purely natural
processes or are you going to keep waving your hands and trying to hide
from the fact that your pathetic little creationist world is crumbling
round your ears?
It has been more than 3 hours since I asked the question. Before morons
present articles as evidence for evolution, they should at least
understand the concept of what they are reading and why are they posting
it. It appears that Budikaka doesn't understands it.
The issue is new information in the genome. I posted on it first.
There will be none of your questions responded to until you admit that
nature can introduce new information into the genome with no god
invovled. Dig deep, Jabriol. See if you can find the intellectual
honesty to admit that, and I will address your issues. Got that?
Anyhow as my kid is fond of saying, my replies you should know what
background in science I have.
You have no background in science. Your "science background" consists
of reading New Scientist and lying on Usenet about what's published in
it.
Remember that creationist letter that appeared in New Scientist, that
you then pretended was a science paper published in a peer-reviewed
journal? Wrong on two counts. It wasn't a science paper, it was a
letter, and it was not published in one of the standard first-tier
refereed science journals. LoL! That's one of the many challenges
I've laid on you that you've been running from for two years.
Now are you going to acknowledged that new information can arise in the
genome without any supernatural agency?
Budikaka is a fraud.
That's choice coming for you, Jabriol hiding under the lie that you're
faceDancer. LoL! Can you spell HYPOCRITE?
So is my daughter biology class teacher, almost
make me want to leave retirement. The nitwit talks about creation in a
science class. Him and I are going to have some words. Maybe Budikaka
and this nitwit are clones, yes?
I'll take you on in a formal debate on creation any time right here.
Post your best **POSITIVE SCIENTIFIC** evidence for creation or
intelligent design, and I hereby guarantee a response.
You can't do it, can you? There is no positive scientific evidence for
creation or intelligent design, is there? Don't worry, your failure to
post any will be your acknowledgement that I'm right.
Here is a bone for the moron. Look up holo enzyme. I am tired and going
to bed. Maybe somebody will be able to tell the moron exactly what is
meant by "Could it go from nothing to a promoter"
I told you I'll address your issues when you address the subject of
this thread. I'm not going to let you avoid it. So you either have to
answer or you have to run. Which is it? I know where my money is.
Are you going to acknowledged that new information can arise in the
genome without any supernatural agency or am I going to laugh in your
face yet again?
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "FaceDancer" |
|
| Title: Re: Jabriol Posting as FaceDancer Still Running |
02 Sep 2006 06:23:41 PM |
|
|
Budikka666 wrote:
Jabriol Posting As Facedancer wrote:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
I know about the article. I also know about Sigma 70.
And nobody yet has said what it is. Budikaka is more concern with her
battle with "Jabriol"
No, Jabriol, I'm concerned about nothing. I do find it as hilarious as
it is pathetic that once again you're running away from the issue at
hand and tossing out as many straw men as you possibly can because you
are a beaten coward.
Now go ahead and try and snip while you're lying that you're not
Jabriol.
I was going to answer here. But Moron number One is still obsessed with
Jabriol. People who are obsessed are irrational and not worth tea nor
the cup it is served in.
Since the Moron is talking to Jabriol and not to me, I will let Jabriol
answer.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Jabriol Posting as FaceDancer Still Running |
03 Sep 2006 06:31:06 AM |
|
|
FaceDancer wrote:
Budikka666 wrote:
Jabriol Posting As Facedancer wrote:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
I know about the article. I also know about Sigma 70.
And nobody yet has said what it is. Budikaka is more concern with her
battle with "Jabriol"
No, Jabriol, I'm concerned about nothing. I do find it as hilarious as
it is pathetic that once again you're running away from the issue at
hand and tossing out as many straw men as you possibly can because you
are a beaten coward.
Now go ahead and try and snip while you're lying that you're not
Jabriol.
I was going to answer here. But Moron number One is still obsessed with
Jabriol. People who are obsessed are irrational and not worth tea nor
the cup it is served in.
Since the Moron is talking to Jabriol and not to me, I will let Jabriol
answer.
Thanks for proving what a vacuous liar you truly are. Any other
response from me to your previous message would have elicited
*precisely* the same brand of side-stepping evasion we see here.
In short, there is new info in the genome and you are too pathetic to
find the intellectual guts to admit to it.
Case proven. Thanks for your help.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jabriol-Green" |
|
| Title: Re: Jabriol Posting as FaceDancer Still Running |
03 Sep 2006 07:11:55 AM |
|
|
Budikka666 wrote:
FaceDancer wrote:
Budikka666 wrote:
Jabriol Posting As Facedancer wrote:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
I know about the article. I also know about Sigma 70.
And nobody yet has said what it is. Budikaka is more concern with her
battle with "Jabriol"
No, Jabriol, I'm concerned about nothing. I do find it as hilarious as
it is pathetic that once again you're running away from the issue at
hand and tossing out as many straw men as you possibly can because you
are a beaten coward.
Now go ahead and try and snip while you're lying that you're not
Jabriol.
I was going to answer here. But Moron number One is still obsessed with
Jabriol. People who are obsessed are irrational and not worth tea nor
the cup it is served in.
Since the Moron is talking to Jabriol and not to me, I will let Jabriol
answer.
Thanks for proving what a vacuous liar you truly are. Any other
response from me to your previous message would have elicited
*precisely* the same brand of side-stepping evasion we see here.
In short, there is new info in the genome and you are too pathetic to
find the intellectual guts to admit to it.
Case proven. Thanks for your help.
Budikka
I don't know what sort of love affair you both have... It is easier to
snip her replies... they are useless and meaningless. She is The Carolyn
Gulley of TO.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Jabriol Posting as Jabriol-Green Still Running |
04 Sep 2006 05:53:27 AM |
|
|
How about withdrawing your misleading quotes, starting with this one:
Jabriol Misleading Quotes series #1
http://tinyurl.com/b3n6s
Brief summary of all the unanswered qiestions follows:
1. A car is organic (molecular structure based in carbon).
True or false?
2. Not counting living things, the universe is, in part, organic.
True or false?
3. This universe is the only example of a universe that we know of for
sure.
True/false?
4. We know for a fact that humans create cars, as can been seen from a
tour of any auto manufacturing plant.
True or false?
5. We have no known-for-a-fact examples of gods creating universes.
True or false?
6. If we know humans create cars, but we do not know that gods create
universes, trying to pretend that finding a car abandoned in the desert
leaves one in the same position, vis-a-vis its origins, as we are in
trying to understand the universe is an irredeemably braindead
proposition.
True or false?
7. In a thread started in alt.religion.jehovahs-witn on Sept 21,2003
you stated: "On the other hand, if the Genesis creation account is
factual, then the fossil record would not show one type of life turning
into another. It would reflect the Genesis statement that each
different type of living thing would reproduce only "according to its
kind." (Genesis 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25) Also, if living things came into
being by an act of creation, there would be no partial,
unfinished bones or organs in the fossil record. All fossils would be
complete and highly complex, as living things are today."
(http://tinyurl.com/u62b)
That thread was titled "TOBS: The Fossil record support's Genesis".
Posting such an article and/or believing we were created rather than
evolved is an open admission that you are in fact, a creationist.
True or false?
8. Regardless of what it is classed as and regardless of whether it was
or was not in the evolutionary line to birds, the archaeopteryx had
pretty much a fifty-fifty mix of reptile/dino and bird features and
therefore represents an example of a potential intermediate stage.
True or false?
9. The okapi, an animal alive and well today, and biologically related
to the giraffe is pretty much what a transitional giraffe could have
looked like.
True or false?
10. http://www.talkorigins.org/faq s/faq-transitional.html summarises
discoveries pertaining to transitional fossils and contains over 70
references, many of which are to papers published in peer-reviewed
science journals.
True or false?
11. Something akin to a mouse could reasonably change 300 genes over 60
million years to become either human or a modern mouse.
True or false?
12. It is possible to clearly and scientifically define the Biblical
"kind" as used in the Noah's ark story in Genesis.
True or false?
13. There is a mechanism in genetics or biochemistry which prevents one
"kind" of organism varying into another "kind".
True or false?
14. Evolutionists hold that modern amphibians evolved from modern
fish.
True or false?
15. Evolutionists hold that modern reptiles evolved from modern
amphibians.
True or false?
16. Evolutionists hold that modern birds evolved from modern reptiles.
True or false?
17. Evolutionists hold that modern mammals evolved from modern
reptiles.
True or false?
18. Creationist letters published as a joke in a science publication
are of the same standing as peer-reviewed papers published in
recognized science journals.
True or false?
19. There has been at least one peer-reviewed science paper published
in a recognized, refereed science journal that calls the Theory of
Evolution into serious question.
True or false?
20. There has been at least one peer-reviewed science paper published
in a recognized, refereed science journal that establishes a better
theory to explain the distribution and variety of life on Earth today
than the Theory of Evolution.
True or false?
21. There has been posted, in one place in a thread somewhere in these
news groups, a supported and referenced *list* of the colossal holes in
the Theory of Evolution.
True or false?
22. It is hypocritical to demand peer-reviewed published evidence from
others in refutation of non-existent material favoring your own
arguments.
True or false?
23. References to long-dead dead topics such as "Piltdown man",
Nebraska "man", and Ramapithecus as a human ancestor are irrelevant to
the current state of the Theory of Evolution because no one but
creationists ever makes an issue of them any more.
True or false?
24. Certain creationists-in-denial will snip or ignore this entire
post because they cannot even handle a series of simple true/false
questions without realizing what a ***** they are.
True or false?
The last question is a little more difficult. It's multiple choice.
25. The match between human DNA and banana DNA is:
A. 95%
B. 75%
C. 60%
D. Greater than 50%
E. 50%
Please *support* your answer to question 25 with at least one
competent and intelligent reference that does not refer to a
non-existent article in _New Scientist_, is not a throw-away quotation,
and is not merely a headline from an article that has nothing otherwise
to do with the topic.
Still waiting on you answering these:
Jabriol Unanswered Questions series #1
http://tinyurl.com/c75ql
Jabriol Unanswered Questions series #2
http://tinyurl.com/cla6m
Jabriol Unanswered Questions series #3
http://tinyurl.com/d5ku3
Jabriol Unanswered Questions series #4
http://tinyurl.com/btmpg
Jabriol Unanswered Questions series #5
http://tinyurl.com/7hkz9
Jabriol Unanswered Questions series #6
http://tinyurl.com/9c8hp
Jabriol Unanswered Questions series #7
http://tinyurl.com/cqanx
Jabriol Unanswered Questions series #8
http://tinyurl.com/bqydk
Jabriol Unanswered Questions series #9
http://tinyurl.com/dkmd3
And how about apologising for these lies instead of running from them?
Jabriol Lies Series #1
http://tinyurl.com/2w7u9
Jabriol Lies Series #2
http://tinyurl.com/2l9rl
Jabriol Lies Series #3
http://tinyurl.com/27cvs
Jabriol Lies Series #4
http://tinyurl.com/33zrt
Jabriol Lies Series #5
http://tinyurl.com/2t944
Jabriol Lies Series #6
http://tinyurl.com/3776p
Jabriol Lies Series #7
http://tinyurl.com/82da6
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: New Information In The Genome - Demonstrated |
29 Aug 2006 10:33:48 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 23:04:31 -0400, FaceDancer
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
I have ask what is Sigma 70.
Sigma is the subunit of RNA polymerase (in bacteria) that recognizes
the promoter. Sigma-70 is one specific sigma factor -- the major one,
under common conditions.
(The 70 is a shorthand for its size; its mass is about 70,000
daltons.)
bob
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "r norman" |
|
| Title: Re: New Information In The Genome - Demonstrated |
29 Aug 2006 06:33:00 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 18:39:33 -0400, FaceDancer
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Budikka666 wrote:
http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2006/08/25/a_switch_is_born.php
"Would it be possible for a random sequence to change into one Sigma 70
could grab? Could it go from nothing to a promoter? The answer is yes.
How long would it take? According to some recent experiments, two days.
Two."
Budikka
Do you undertstand exactly what you are posting? Please tell us
"ignorant ones" what is Sigma 70?
You should be able to tell us in your own words. If you are cutting and
pasting, I will know.
The paper is
S Liu and A Libchaber
Some Aspects of E. coli Promoter Evolution Observed in a
Molecular Evolution Experiment
J Molec Evol 62(5):536-550, May, 2006
The abstract is:
We devised a molecular evolution procedure to evolve E. coli promoter
sequences and applied it to observe an arbitrary, nonfunctional
sequence evolving into functional promoters. In the experiments, DNA
sequence variations were generated with error-prone PCR and were
inserted in the promoter region of the cat (chloramphenicol acetyl
transferase) gene on a plasmid. Upon transforming the cells,
functional promoters on the plasmid were selected according to the
chloramphenicol resistance. Within a few cycles of mutation-selection,
promoters emerged, and the sequences converged into a small number of
groups. In the process, the extended minus 10 type of promoters
emerged quickly, and small deletions were often involved in adjusting
the length between the -35 and the -10 elements. Our results also
suggest a possible selection for promoter stability against mutation.
Full text requires payment.
Yes, I cut and pasted. This is the primary research literature that
requires technical training to interpret.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
