Evolution theory contradicts the Quran and Hadiths

[faye]

you try mammals!

[Alchemist]

Ah yes as predicted ....you used the stochastic model scapegoat






..even when evidence is presented to you ....you simply scapegoat the research and data and create conspiracy theory babble of why the data it's faulty

so they used software which recognizes matching protein sequences.....that's what technology is supposed to do when you can't do stuff like that by hand.

and somehow you think frowning and wagging your finger at that fact means you found some flaw or inconsistency.

For everyone watching, basically what Alchemist is trying to argue here is that the scientists purposely forged the data and rigged the software to make it seem like it confirms evolution by assuming evolution is automatically true; which means that concocted an elaborate conspiracy to make it seem like the evidence confirm evolutionary predictions.

Notice everyone he hasn't actually debated ANY of the evidence itself? I mean look at what he says here


and what the article actually says






is there any evidence that this guy ignore evidence and doesn't actually read what he's refuting by the fact he says the exact opposite of what the evidence says?

Numbnuts, not even close to what I said, we're talking about protein SEQUENCES, their loci and arrangement and combination. Much different than merely having the protein dimwit.

This dumbass, stupid hill billy doesn't even know the difference between proteins and genes and he is here to debate with me on evolution. LOL


Arrangement and combination and loci of proteins? LOL

Look dip****, its GENES, not proteins that we are analyzing. Genes code for Proteins, and when we say loci, we mean their location on chromosomes, and that is not even exact location because 80% of the genes are transposons, that means they jump from one location to another location so what we have is a rough estimate of where it is most of the time...dumb ass. And genes don't have "arrangements" and "combinations" that are relevant for our discussions because all genes have the same elements required for their transcription...you stupid hill billy!
And as far as protein arrangement goes, we were talking about one gene coding for one protein, which was a sub unit of a quaternary protein, and the differences in that one subunit did not hamper the function of the complex of proteins, so why would even ask for that? You dumbass!!

You are as butt naked as a monkey in the Antarctic! Totally out of your element so you keep spewing crap you don't even know the meaning of. It's like watching a retard trying to eat soup with a knife. LOL


You are a clown trying to put on a show for everyone ..."notice everyone alchemist didn't do this ..he did this..." I basically showed everyone here that you are a goof ball who finds it hard to accept the facts. You are a conformist so you find anything that is so true, and obvious, to be a "conspiracy".

I already told your dumb ass that evolution is used in the scientific community not as a "belief" system, the way you try to use it, but as a mode of communication.
I've had discussions with my biochemistry professor, and he was well aware of the biochemical impossibility of complex proteins forming spontaneously, regardless of how much time considered. But he told us that he wouldn't debate whether it was true or not, but that to keep it a "biochemistry' class, we just simply had to assume it to be true.
So yes, the phylogenetic tree is assumed to be true, but it is not. We know that horizontal gene transfers do occur. And that genes get transfered between species that are not even close on the "tree". The tree is based on morphological similarities and not even on geneology...so they will put the horse before the cart. Which is why such studies are futile and irrelevant and bare nothing fruitful! Where is the conspiracy in that dip****? That is the truth! That is said in the manual ...why are you going in to denial? LOL
I can't believe how stupid you are...
Everytime I slap the evidence in your ugly face you turn sour and start bsing me with that "oh he is a conspiracy nut"?
You know why you do that?
Because you are brainwashed!!
You are americanized son!
32 years of brainwashing in the "Education system" and assimilation in America...no joke.
Thats why you react like that... good medicine tastes bad!
You are so much of a moron that even when I pull out the manual of the software and it says on it that matches are made according to the phylotree, you still don't accept it.


Simply because the experimentor says that e coli evolved this, doesn't mean that it is an actual proof of evolution! If anything it goes to show how impossible it is for a new trait to appear.... but this buffoon ...this ass clown...this moronic simpleton...who has no understanding of biology what so ever .. is just trying too damn hard to the take the unreal and make it real. This dumbass has grown up reading too many x-men comic books and is for sure a "planet of the apes" geek!

Here is his actual proof of evolution guys:

Planet Of The Apes - Beware The Beast Man - YouTube


This guy is too stupid to actually know what the papers read. He can hardly understand the difference between a gene and a protein ...lol

[ScimitarXEdge]

This dumbass, stupid hill billy doesn't even know the difference between proteins and genes and he is here to debate with me on evolution. LOL


Arrangement and combination and loci of proteins? LOL
l

genes code/sequence proteins moron

Genes and proteins

A primer

Under the Human Genome Project funded by the Department of Energy and the National Institutes of Health, various sequencing tools have been used to determine the order of the building blocks of genes. Genes are made of millions of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) molecules. A DNA molecule is constructed like a spiral staircase, or a double helix. The rails of the staircase are made of a backbone structure of phosphates and sugars, and the steps are pairs of four nitrogen-containing bases—adenine (A), cytosine (C), guanine (G), and thymine (T). Through hydrogen bonds the two rails of the staircase are kept together, A and T pair together, and C and G are partners (see image below). For example, a sequence of TACAT would bond specifically with a sequence of ATGTA.
A gene is made of a unique sequence of DNA bases; it is like a message containing a unique combination of letters. This message is translated into information for protein production. A protein is a folded chain of amino acids in a specific order; up to 20 different amino acids exist. The message for each amino acid within a protein is dictated by a sequence of three DNA bases. If the key word in the message provided by the gene is misspelled—say, part of it is supposed to be CATTAG but instead is spelled CATGAG—then it will have a point mutation (G substitutes for the T that should be there). As a result of this altered DNA base, the gene may produce a protein that has an incorrect shape so it won't dock with another protein (e.g., a receptor), leading to a mistake in the resulting message. In other words, if the message in the gene is misspelled, the protein it encodes may be wrong and its function in the body may be changed, sometimes for the worse.

It was once believed that each gene codes for a single protein. However, experimental and computational evidence (partly obtained at ORNL) shows that many genes produce an average of three different proteins and as many as ten protein products. Genes have protein-coding regions (exons) interspersed with non-coding regions (introns). Through "alternative splicing," a gene's exons can be combined in different ways to make variants of the complete protein.

Good grief


you only show how uneducated and dimwitted you are with every reply back

[ScimitarXEdge]

T

Simply because the experimentor says that e coli evolved this,

l

You were saying that there were NO significant changes in traits, the data showed there was significant changes in traits


case closed.
intellectual dishonesty will get you know where

[Alchemist]

dumbass...

I said there weren't any significant traits, and the paper said that there weren't any significant traits either...

you have to know what is of significance in our discussion isn't the same as it was discussed in the paper.

How many times did I tell your retarded ass to find me one example of a beneficial mutation, that was beneficial in it's own right and not because of extreme conditions that made it appear beneficial.

Your stupidity is getting you no where because you fail to realize that Cit- minus strand were able to transport citrate at the cost of metablizing glucose, which is the e.coli main source of energy. It is a handicap because in the wild the Cit - strand would not out thrive... it's the same case with viruses that develop "immunity" to antibiotics. Once the artificial strain is removed the wild type will flourish once more. This goes to show that organisms have a fixed "design" ...bacteria has been bacteria for billions of years, so have bats been bats for millions of years and flies have been flies for longer.

Intellectual dishonesty?
Your delusional. That is the problem. You don't know what evolution means. You don't know the difference between a gene and a protein. You don't know what the paper had set out to accomplish ...but you just assume that you are right because you are an arrogant douche bag.
Have some shame and stfu

[Alchemist]

genes code/sequence proteins moron





Good grief


you only show how uneducated and dimwitted you are with every reply back

good grief...you are as ugly as you are stupid.


let me tell your dumb ass why we study genes and not proteins.

I already told you that there 64 codons for 22 proteins, for example Proline can be coded as CCU, CCC, CCA and CCG...so when these "evolutionists" are trying to look for similarities and mutation rates, they don't look for amino acid sequences of proteins, but the codes...and since they know what codes are promoters, intitiators, stop codons, they can judge where genes start from ... so they never have to look at the protein sequences... so you are the dumb ass who kept asking for protein sequences.
You don't realize how retarded you sound ...no retard ever comprehends the depth of their own stupidity.

You show how much of a pompous arrogant douche bag you are with each reply. You are too ignorant on this subject to but heads with me .. middle aged fag.

[ScimitarXEdge]

good grief...you are as ugly as you are stupid.

so they never have to look at the protein sequences... so you are the dumb ass who kept asking for protein sequences.
.

you spend two hours trying to read and you're still wrong wrong wrong; you're as mentally handicapped as you are a total hypocrite intellectually dishonest fraud


seriously keep this going I love smashing you to bits; ......while you spend hours trying to overcompensate for your inadequacies and mental deficiencies

I take but 3 minutes to destroy your entire argument... the power of education vs. fast food pork vending


http://www.plosone.org/article/info:...l.pone.0000085

The largest family created along the primate lineage has 46 chimpanzee and 63 human genes. One of the few genes in this family where functional data are available is caspase-7. Genes in the caspase-dependent apoptosis pathway, of which caspase-7 is a part, are critical in mammalian brain and neuronal development. Furthermore, genes in this pathway have undergone accelerated protein sequence evolution in primates—especially in humans —that is consistent with positive natural selection [33]

not only are you a complete bumbling moron, you're a clearly effeminate and a homosexual .....why is another man deciding how attractive another man is? ......inferiority issues drive your very existence

[Alchemist]

You take 30 seconds to read what I have said.
Then 90 seconds to google for an article an another 30 seconds to scan it for a quote that will support your delusions and another 30 seconds to post it. By your own admission... you show why haste makes waste.

Previously you used to argue that chimps and humans differ by 3% genetically....this study that you posted counters that oft repeated myth and says that there has to be more difference that was supposed because we are obviously much different than chimps. But if we look at only gene homologies than it becomes more difficult to account for an evolutionary explanation, which assumes gradation of change from one species into another since mouse, cats and other mammals also have about 90% homologous genes to humans!

Then read this son:

In this paper we analyze gene gain and loss at a genomic scale by studying the expansion and contraction of gene families in the whole genomes of human, chimpanzee, mouse, rat, and dog. Using gene family assignments from the Ensembl project [26] (version 41 – October 2006; www.ensembl.org) we assign probabilities to the observed changes in gene family size along each mammalian lineage using a likelihood method that makes efficient use of genomic data in a phylogenetic context [25].

Can it be put any more planer and simpler for you son?


This paper has actually worked against your argument. And it goes to show that as more and more data becomes available, the case for evolution keeps getting weaker.

Do this ...take 10 minutes and try to read and understand the paper before you post it to me.

Unlike you, I don't have the mentality of a child who simply wishes to impose his own version of reality onto others...who is egocentric and cannot be reasoned with. Who when proven wrong throws a tantrum...and tries to fool himself more than others.


Get your head out of your ass...and stop embarrassing your self.

[Levanaye Zalmaye]

lol Alchemist, we're still waiting for your theory that explains the diversity of life on our planet. Silly creationists like you would have the world believe that the Flintstones were real (humans and dinosaurs coexisted lol)..

This paper has actually worked against your argument. And it goes to show that as more and more data becomes available, the case for evolution keeps getting weaker.

The "case" for evolution ended in the last century, it is mainstream science now, there is no argument within the scientific community about whether or not evolution happened. Exactly how it happened and many other technical details about it are being researched and debated, as is with all the scientific fields in the world. Best get the new versions of Harun Yahya. And a publication on etiquette would help, too.

Also, you still haven't replied to my post. I'm disappointed.

[Alchemist]

You said it your self. You are a lay person who has no idea what evolution is but that you only believe in because you have faith in science. The popularity of a belief hardly makes it the litmus test for its truth. Evolution does not have the same level of influence it used to have a century ago when governmental and economical systems were inspired by Darwin's book "descent of Man". Just google darwin and imperialism or Social Darwinism if you didn't know of this. Darwin's own original writing is evidence of his theory's sexism...mr.****mitar makes similar remarks often. You can google that too son. Your example is of sangar..as if reality is defined by what goes on in this forum?

Whether humans and dinosaurs co existed will never be known accurately and scientifically. It is anyone's guess if dragons were dinosaurs or if the ancient artefacts depicting dinosaurs are real or not. What we can be sure of is that the ancients believed in the existence of monstrous creatures that most resemble the fossils we find.

But what is the evidence? And where is it found?

All fossils are found in Sedimentary rock which is formed by water. In fact 95% of fossils found are marine invertebrates. Simply because the only preserved fossils we can find are found where water used to be, doesn't mean that life predominantly existed in water!
We find fossils of dinosaures in mass graves and this indicates that they died violently and they died quickly. The story that you believe in is that some asteroid struck the surface of the planet, which kicked dirt into the air, blocked out the sun and killed off the dinosaurs by starvation. The "creationists" which you hark on say that the dinosaures died during the great deluge when only certain creatures were lifted on to Noah's arc. No impact site have been found to be strong enough to cause such mass extinction, but evidence of a great deluge exists in the geology of the earth. Personally I don't entertain either assumptions since there isn't compelling evidence for either scenario. Only ignorant people like your self feel confident to take one side over the other and fail to see other explanations.
Every dinosaur bone that has been tested for C-14 have had some trace of it. This is fascinating since C-14 has a half life of 5,730 years.
Uranium 238 and 235 as well as Potassium 40 are isotopes with half lives in the millions of years...but these elements are not found in fossils themselves, and they usually exist in igneous rocks (cooled magma), not sedimentary rocks. Fossils are never found in igneous rock because they would melt away in the magma.
More importantly, the geological column only exists in text books. It is suppose to be 100 miles deep, layered chronologically and distinctly and the ten strata ...however in reality, on the deepest holes ever dug by man has been 5 miles so it has been verified and such uniformity of strata is inconsistent with the geological data, where at most three stratum are found except 2 or 3 places 10 and nor are they to be found in the same order depicted by geologist. Such circular thinking where evolution is assumed true first then the data "fitted" to the supposition allows the palentologist to say about the fossil found in the "Wrong" era that due to soil erosion it has either worked up or leaked down. Furthermore, cases of human artefacts at different "supposed" geological columns have been consistently found.

I am sure you will respond with another moronic post about how your personal experience and feelings that compel you to believe that you are on the winning side and that whatever I said could not possibly be true...some stereotyping of "creationists" and some cliches that effect the likes of ****mitar and your self to conform to popular culture. Like sheep...

[ScimitarXEdge]

wow gee whiz .....did Alchemist just make a long redundant reply back claiming that evolution is false because they determined genetic relationships between species is done using a stochastic algorithm....which is basically saying that they measure a ratio of how close the genes to each other.

He's trying to draw straw on terms like "Assign" ; a Fallacy of equivocation regarding the meaning of "assign", to implicate that they just fabricated numbers and applied them "ad-hoc". When we read the next sentence, it's talking about how they use that probability relationship to determine genetic divergence and changes.

Our statistical framework provides a basis for improved inferences about causative evolutionary mechanisms by providing an expectation for the extent of variation in gene family size when gains and losses occur randomly. This means that we can identify branches of the phylogenetic tree where larger-than-expected contractions or expansions potentially indicate the action of adaptive natural selection

Alchemist argues as if the premise of a genetic relationship between species is a "myth" and therefore makes the entire research is a myth. even though it's been an accepted science in mainline scientific research for decades.

Basically anything which measures probabilities in Alchemist's ERRORNEOUS understanding implies "arbitrary" data; all this shows is that he flunked not only Biology but basic High School Math .....which explains why someone who claims he has knowledge of science works at a Fast Food restaurant selling pork. He suggests to take 10 minutes to understand the material (to which I laughed); even though after MONTHS of trying to debate he hasn't comprehended the role of Stoachastic analysis in Gene Sequence matching.

even though I quoted the last article in regards to the issue of genes and proteins and how the protein sequences are analyzed to determine their genetic relationships. Somehow the part quoted by Alchemist, which I confirmed is a valid part of gene homology analysis. works against me? What a freakng moron

no wonder it took him 3 days to reply back

[ScimitarXEdge]

Which leads me back to my original question Which Alchemist very cowardly tried to evade


Why if alchemist is so sure of his analysis of the inconsistencies regarding evolution research and the Phylogenetic tree ......Doesn't he Bring all his research/Meta-analysis to Public Light in a Peer Reviewed Paper which refutes the Findings of Evolution research

[Alchemist]

buddy I have a life...

stochastic process is about the only thing you understood from the article...but as to what it was applied to...you didn't get.

The method used is irrelevant to our discussion but this goof ball is trying to change the goal post to something that he can feel more comfortable arguing about...when in reality I never said anything about the stochastic method...I did say what is inputed into the formula is of question. If the parameters are simply assumed to be right, then it hardly works as a proof for evolution...it likes using a drilling machine to punch holes into wood...that doesn't mean that wood will sink in water or float. The capabilities of the drill itself is hardly the issue.

This buffoon's story is similar to another buffoon who when he lost his engagement ring in the middle of night decided to look for it near a lamp post because he could see there better.

Your objective was to provide proof of evolution, not argue whether the stochastic method was a valid methodology for studying presumed probabilities of divergence according to supposed phylogentic trees of chimps, humans and urangotangos (or whatever).

Even if I respond 10 days later and sell your family into slavery it has nothing to do with evolution...so once again I repeat ...get your head out of ur ass.

[Alchemist]

Why am I not publishing my "research"?
What research?

This is already obvious to almost every biology student. We all know that evolution is a theory full of gaps and holes and it is treated only as a narrative. It remains as an enigma for thousands of old men who have spent their lifes building a legacy around it. Why don't we abolish the culture of blood sports and disband armies of the world and unite under one nation and one flag?
I already showed you published papers that dispelled myths of the "phylogenetic" trees. All the data is already out there. But that is the problem with science. There is no comprehensive theory of "Everything" to bring all the data together into focus. We have thousands of labs around the world doing the same experiment with slightly different variations and producing variant results..the data is so over whelming that it would take you a life time to go through all the journals and articles to give a comprehensive theory that ties everything together and gives meaning to life. Rather this is the problem of western society as a whole, as they adopted the myth of evolution and materialism, they began to see their own lives as being purposeless and devoid of any meaning. The two world wars were motivated by social darwinists at the helms and the nihilists lamented over the meaning of existence.

When people like you try to inject evolution into Islam, you do it in such an awkward and moronic fashion that it becomes obvious that you sincerely believe in the myth...despite the skepticism of evolutionists. Evolution is a byproduct of a method of thinking that in today's world is outdated. It proceeds linearly, A to B to C to D, however every biochemist knows that in reality it is never A to B to C to D...the cell functions in such a sophisticated and complex manner that it can not have produced spontaneously or gradually. Even the article you posted on the Cit+ strain had the experimentors baffled as to how within a few generations, a few hours, a fully formed process of transportation be implemented, unless it was already preconfigured into the DNA of e coli...even more baffling that the DNA sequence even in Cit - strain had already point mutated more times than it had nucleotides! We've barely scratched the surface....and like I keep telling your retarded ass...as more data becomes more available the myth of evolution keeps evaporating into thin air. I don't have to "publish" jack all ...its all published already.
Your only problem is that you don't know how to access the data...you only go about this by faith. Your belief in evolution is not on the basis of facts but on emotions...which is why you are always trying to challenge me in ways that have nothing to do with the theory itself. I've told your monkey ass already...if I wanted to argue for evolution I could easily do it in such a way that the narrative I give will seem reasonable...however, I am not a mushrik like you. I don't call creationism farcical nor do I wish to entertain the delusions of some kafirs like levanay.

[ScimitarXEdge]

exactly ....your criticisms are nothing but shallow musings and speculations without any basis in any technical knowledge

while I don't have a degree in Biology or Genetics and Evolutionary Biology, I do have the fundamental technical knowledge which allows me to understand what these articles are speaking about..

Hence why you take days upon days to make a TOTALLY irrelevant reply, and why I can dispatch you in minute, not because I don't understand the material but because I clearly understand it BETTER than you

you're playing around with words and phrases when you say "how it is applied" ; just come out and say what you're really trying to say ..That you think they just Made up some Desired Value for the probabilities of the likelihood of genetic proximity and fit the Data to match the value. ....Something which a person who is scientifically literate would see the literature there in is claiming everything but that.

The lesson here is that you suffer scientific ILLITERACY, for a peon like you the hard words and rigorous sentences are difficult for your inbred bred head to wrap its severely underdeveloped brain around (watch this clown will later emulate the rhetoric I use to dispatch him to respond back to me as he usually does like the incompetent wimp that he is)

We already know you have no research, that was the whole point, it wasn't a challenge which I expected you to actually meet. It was to highlight that your arguments are not even TANTAMOUNT to conjecture, because conjecture at least has some evidentiary basis, where there was some degree of data analysis and hypothesis testing involved. You have not even met the bare minimum of refuting research on Evolution. Hence why you won't ever dare challenge people who actually have PRACTICAL expertise in the field, because you know your ideas are completely errant. Have you even attempted to contact any of these researchers in the journal articles to ask them about the alleged "discrepancies" you found in their research? Of course, not because allegedly you're "too busy" but you have plenty of time for forums and debating us right?

And what life do you claim to have? You work selling Fast food to fat White people in a green and yellow uniform, while collecting supplemental public assistance from the Canadian Government, just like most of your uneducated types do. (watch him start using some variation of that in response to me later on too.) I'm sure you could have emailed these researchers. but you won't because you're a coward who is afraid to have his wimpery exposed.