Scientists Decipher the Chimpanzee's DNA

[LionHeart-112]

Any scientist that believes in Darwinism/Evolution is dumb...as are you, madhibaan boy.

[dhuusa_deer]

what is midhabaan? is it another word for midgaans?

[LionHeart-112]

mahdibaan--jareer..

[dhuusa_deer]

OH

aren't midgaans jareers too? Anyways, I'm in solidarity with ALL somali minorities. From jews to jareers and to everyone in between

[LionHeart-112]

No they are not. It would take me hours to explain the difference. it seems to me that you dunno the difference between somali tribes?? Are you really somali, mr.dhuuso..or just another Yahuud from faithfreedom?

[LilTrigger]

[quote="dhuusa_deer"]

what scientist JayZ?[/quote]


Lol No this foo can never be a scientist..

[Ureysoo]

*Dhuuso*…

ur comments .. *This doesn’t mean I won’t agree with you on anything you say. If you show false facts I presented, I’ll without reservation accept my error*…..

well, I don’t know why, but I perceived that u overlook some of the points, or make inconsistency remarks, without giving any amplification why …*not just in this debate*….anyway what u scripted above sounds impartial 2 me, from this twinkle of an eye, I’ll concentrate on ur *faux pas*…

ur comments… *BTW, are you a student of science? If so, what do you take or hope to take?*….

nah, im not, that’s *quite eccentric* huh…but most of my family members r either scientists or engineers, and that’s what manipulated me 2 be fond of scientific scrutinizes…beside as a *psychologist* I should be acquainted with scientific studies…but I presuppose this fascinate will fade away as soon I modify my whole career utterly….

ur comments …. *Darwin’s theory (Evolution Theory) is not weak considering all the available supporting data. This is classic example of logical fallacy Argumentum Ad ignorantiam.. You are simply argueing from a position of ignorance. Had you bothered to read the case for Evolution Theory you wouldn’t have uttered the words: darwinism is too weak. Too weak on what? Evidence?*….

ain’t u being bit *judgmental*…just cause I portrayed the *evolution theory* as *flimsy* premises, therefore I become badly informed individual *ya subxanallah*...yeah I did interpret his wretch clarification about how life progress in his book, *Darwin on Evolution: The Development of the Theory of Natural Selection*…and I immobilised interpreting it cause I found it anaesthetised, and tedious…. I also interpreted a batch of articles of his books *The Origin of the Species* and *Descent of Man*…after ridiculed his theory… the 1st remark I heard was that im abhorring *Darwin* cause he’s an atheist, that was so inexcusable, cause im an enthusiast of *Albert Einstein* who’s also known as an atheist physicist …

*yes, indeed*… *Darwinian evolution* relies on random point mutations…but the studies illustrated that on both *theoretical* and *experimental* grounds, the broad sweep of evolution can’t be based on random mutations…on *theoretical* grounds, the probability is just 2 diminutive 4 random mutations, even with the filtering of natural selections, 2 lead to a new species.....on *experimental* grounds, there r no known random mutations that have added any genetic information 2 the organism….this may seem flabbergasting @ 1st, but a list of the best examples of mutations offered by evolutionists shows that each of them misplaces genetic information rather than gaining it. ….1 of the examples where information is lost is the 1 often trotted out by evolutionists nowadays in an attempt 2 convince the public of the truth of evolution…that is the evolution of bacterial resistance 2 antibiotics….

palpably if random mutations could account 4 the evolution of life, then those mutations must have added a vast amount of information 2 the genetic code...from the time of the 1st simple organism until the present profusion of life, billions of genetic changes would have 2 be built up by a long series of accumulated mutations and natural selection…. It pursues that each of these many billions of mutations must have added information…yet again in spite of all the molecular studies that have been done on mutations, not a single 1 has been found that adds any genetic information… they all lose information…. there’s conversely both direct and indirect confirmation that some evolution has occurred…how did it occur?...it might be more sagacious if he asserted that it occurred by *non-random* mutations….*non-random* here means that the environment itself manipulate how mutations can occur….atleast there’s extensive evidence 4 evolution by *non-random* mutations ……*evidence that spans life forms from bacteria through vertebrates*….

ur comments… *I do not understand where you got the figure 1:10500 from, it makes no sense at all. Its looks impossible as your body needs protein production far greater since proteins are essential to the functioning of your body. Maybe you can elaborate more*…..

bro, that’s the mathematical problems that call the theory of evolution into Qs…unless these tribulation can be overwhelmed, the theory of evolution is in trouble....

the typical mechanism proposed 2 clarify the evolution of new proteins is that an existing gene is duplicated, and 1 of the copies of the gene then instigates a series of mutations that eventually result in a gene able 2 produce a new protein….if the mutations result in a modify in the shape of the protein, then the protein will perhaps no longer have a function in the organism, cause the function of a protein is closely correlated 2 its shape….the mutating duplicated gene is still able 2 produce a protein, but the protein has no function in the organism….we call such a gene *useless* 2 indicate that it does produce a protein but the protein has no function in the organism….this is distinct from *pseudo genes* which no longer produce proteins @ all because mutations have corrupted a control region or something else compulsory 4 the gene 2 function….
the obscurity with this scenario 4 protein evolution arises from the miniature number of genes…if many of these genes r useless, then the number of constructive genes would be even smaller than the number of discovered genes, which seems highly unlikely…therefore the average number of useless genes (*as opposed to pseudo genes*) in an organism is very small, reducing the probability that this kind of evolution can occur….*there’s where the 1: 10500 came from*…it’s the probability ratio of numbers of useful genes produced contrasting 2 the discovered 1…. furthermore, a ineffective gene produces a protein that either fails 2 fold properly or has no constructive function in the organism….producing this protein requires extra energy without producing any benefit, and is consequently detrimental 2 the organism….

ur comments…. *With exception of the brain (science does have an explanation for the evolution of the brain), none of what you write above deals with evolution theory. Evolution Theory frame of reference is the existence of at least one living organism. How that organism came into existence is outside the scope of evolution theory. That field is called Abiogenesis. You can’t rationally reject Evolution Theory because it doesn’t provide an explanation on the formation of the first living organism. That is rejecting it for something it doesn’t deal with. Very much like rejecting cars because they can’t fly you; cars aren’t meant to fly you. Same story with ‘cosmos’. Why would you expect evolution theory to explain the origin of the cosmos when it specifically states it purpose is to explain how living things evolved from first living organism?*…..

how could I adopt *evolutionism* and take it as alternative of *creationism* while it couldn’t even depict how the 1st living organism formed…huh, on the other hand, *Allah* represented unambiguously how the brain is formed and functioned in the *Quran*..my other rational is *evolution theory* couldn’t even state how the ancestor came into life….and here where I get the chance 2 ask u,*How could a life occur from lifeless chemicals* …r u having delusions bro, well the fact remains that there’s no scientific substantiation that life came from nonliving matter…attempts 2 illustrate that life can spontaneously generate from lifeless chemicals have instead demonstrated the opposite…iIn spite of much hyped headlines 2 the contrary, when scientists have endeavoured 2 form the most favorable conditions in controlled laboratory experiments they haven't come anywhere close….they have managed only 2 confirm the astronomical odds against life arising spontaneously….it hasn't happened, nor will it ever happen…life must come from preexisting life….

after the Q of the origin of the universe itself, this is the next gigantic Q…*How did life get here* …once you establish that the universe had an initiation and didn’t arise on it’s own from nothing, it should be palpable that life also did not arise on its own from lifless things…..*evolutionists* nevertheless insist on proceeding with the notion that life originated by a lucky accident and evolved through purely physical processes of random mutation and natural selection without the aid of an intelligent creator and designer…their assumed progression from simple life forms evolving to complex life over billions of years seems 2 overlook the 1st issue…*How did life generate from non alive* ....

ur comments…* So is this mean you won’t verbally abuse me? That is an anticlimax, I had my hopes high*….

what an extraordinary creature, I just can’t comprehend why u encouraging me 2 maltreat u verbally…

beside I perceived that u r insulting me cause of my *stinky* smell, well nigga… don’t neglect ur malodorous fart, which can be used as *weapon of mass distraction* cause it can slaughter a batch of ppl as they initiate whiffing ur chemically fart…it’s enough 2 utilize u as terminal weapon, if *Somalia* ever deliberate of eliminating *Ethiopia*… all what we should execute is, compel u 2 fart while u running around a particular town or city, massacring every breathing creature who inhale it….

[Sultan-Kenadiid-of-Hobyo]

ureysoo ,

[dhuusa_deer]

Ureeyso,

I haven't forgotten about your post. I'll reply soon.

[dhuusa_deer]

Ureeyso,

I'm gonna multi-post in my response. Hope that is OK with you.

"beside as a *psychologist* I should be acquainted with scientific studies…but I presuppose this fascinate will fade away as soon I modify my whole career utterly"

I suggest you don't consider science as career choice, you woefully inadequate on what it takes to become a one. Just kidding

Psychologist huh? Finished school

Good for you that you went to school instead of like many other xaliimos who forgo education in the hope of attracting khat chewing, taxi driving farax

"ain’t u being bit *judgmental*…just cause I portrayed the *evolution theory* as *flimsy* premises, therefore I become badly informed individual *ya subxanallah*"

It's not on what you base your premises but how you approach the Evolution topic. Like other creationists, you look at the current stage of human and other life form and marvel at its complexity. So you go backwards and try reason how complex life could have risen from simpler life forms. Where instead, to understand evolution theory's propositions better, you need the take the opposite viewing angle -- from simple unicellular life forms to complex modern organisms. You need to aske how present organisms have arisen from simple ones.

Present living organisms are the products of millions of years of evolution from simple forms to present forms. It didn't happen in one fell swoop but slowly and incrementally. With that in mind, gathered facts, experimental results and with Evolution Theory's explanations, it should readily be obvious to you or anyone that Evolution is a fact.

When Profs teach us about the history of living organisms in Uni, they take this approach. For example, when the history of a particular organ is taught, they would align all various types of the organ being studied from its simplist form, the one it originally modified from, to its recent form. This helps us students fully grasp the mechanism evolution. It is easy to conceptualise as you can see how throughout its long history of evolution, the organ modified by acquiring new features and shedding unneeded ones, from simple to more complex. all directed by the needs of its environment. Take a look at the various organs present in the human body. Compare them with their primitive forms and try to see a pattern.

I will explain more in my next post.

"the 1st remark I heard was that im abhorring *Darwin* cause he’s an atheist, that was so inexcusable, cause im an enthusiast of *Albert Einstein* who’s also known as an atheist physicist"

I never said that? I never said your objection of Darwinism was cuz darwin was athiest. And einstien was a panthiest not an atheist.

[Ureysoo]

It’s aight, as far as u’ll respond…there’s no dissimilarity….

[dhuusa_deer]

Ureeyso aka Verbal Bunny,

You said: Darwinian evolution* relies on random point mutations…but the studies illustrated that on both *theoretical* and *experimental* grounds, the broad sweep of evolution can’t be based on random mutations…on *theoretical* grounds, the probability is just 2 diminutive 4 random mutations, even with the filtering of natural selections, 2 lead to a new species.....on *experimental* grounds, there r no known random mutations that have added any genetic information 2 the organism.

Reply: Random point mutations are niether beneficial nor harmful. They simply add to the genetic diversity, the raw material Natural selection acts on, of species's gene pool. Point mutations make up the majority of all mutations.

There are harmful mutations which are eliminated from getting into the gene pool either before birth or shortly after birth. Harmful mutations don't all manifest physically, some can be 'unseen' and affect the biochemical bathways of the organism. But they are nonetheless removed from getting into the gene pool of the species.

A very small percentage of mutations are beneficia. The percentage of these can be as low as 1% out the total genes present in the gene pool. So is it possible such small amount useful genes play any sort of a role in the evolution of species?

The answer is yes. Despite seeming counterintuitively unlikely, from theoritical point of view, there is no reason why they shouldn't. As you may recall all mutations (excluding the harmful ones) are continuously being added to the gene pool. They are always there, carried by one or few individuals. These individuals pass them on to their offsrpings and their offsprings will do the same and so and so forth. They are always there in the gene pool waiting for the call of Natural Selection when the what these genes code for will give the organism better adaptiblity.

Experiments done on bacteria and other species (fruit flies, yeasts, etc) back this up. When bacteria were subjected to antibiotics, their numbers dwelled down significantly. But they didn't all die out after the initial decline in numbers becuz the ones with resistant mutant genes gained the upper hand via better reproduction rate compared to the rest. Subsequently, the population size stabilised and normal growth rate resumes. This new population is mostly resistant to antibiotics as they inherited the mutant resistant genes.

From theoretical and experimental perspective, mutations are the bread and butter of evolution

You said: yet again in spite of all the molecular studies that have been done on mutations, not a single 1 has been found that adds any genetic information… they all lose information…. there’s conversely both direct and indirect confirmation that some evolution has occurred…how did it occur?...it might be more sagacious if he asserted that it occurred by *non-random* mutations….*non-random* here means that the environment itself manipulate how mutations can occur….atleast there’s extensive evidence 4 evolution by *non-random* mutations ……*evidence that spans life forms from bacteria through vertebrates*….

Reply: define what you mean by 'genetic information'? Whatever information mutations may carry, they ALWAYS add that to the gene pool of the species and the genetic make up of the individual. But first define specifically what you mean by genetic information. If you mean what I think, that is genes with specific codons coding for the production of various protiens, then mutations DO add to the genetic information of the organism. That is the purpose of point mutations!

The environment NEVER 'manipulates' production of mutant genes. They are produced during cell divisions. They arise spontanuously. They environment only selects individuals with advantageous mutant genes.

You said: bro, that’s the mathematical problems that call the theory of evolution into Qs…unless these tribulation can be overwhelmed, the theory of evolution is in trouble...in an organism is very small, reducing the probability that this kind of evolution can occur….*there’s where the 1: 10500 came from*…it’s the probability ratio of numbers of useful genes produced contrasting 2 the discovered 1...

Reply: Why do you need mathematical calculations to accept or reject Evolution Theory? Probability calculations for the chance of a particular protien forming secussfully have been shown to be meaningless many times.

First, these calculations rely on modern protiens as suppose to primordial protiens which were the acting ingredients for early life. Second, they rely on the assumtion of there being fixed number of protiens and their sequences. This is not what evolution theory proposes nor is what abiogenesis, the theory describing how life arose from non-life chemicals, says. Third, these calculations are falty in that they are based on the assumption of sequential rather than simaltaneous trials. Forth, these so called probability calculation are not probability calculations at all. For more detail, see this link:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abiopro ... tml#Search

You said: how could I adopt *evolutionism* and take it as alternative of *creationism* while it couldn’t even depict how the 1st living organism formed…huh, on the other hand, *Allah* represented unambiguously how the brain is formed and functioned in the *Quran*

Reply: As I said before and many other times, Evolution Theory is not intended to explain how first living organism was formed. Rejecting it for not doing so is not legit reasoning. You don't reject a theory for what it is not intended to explain but how well or lack of it explains what it is attempting to explain. Personally, I believe the fact Evolution Theory doesn't delve into the origin of first life form, leaves the door open for creationists to accept it as how we humans evolved. What do you think? I know it would mean ditching Eve and Adam story but compramise may be worth it given the overwhelming empirical evidence for evolution.

You said: here where I get the chance 2 ask u,*How could a life occur from lifeless chemicals*

Reply: That is covered by Abiogenesis theory. The gist of the theory can be summerised as the following;

1. There existed lifeless chemicals, principally inorganic chemicals. These along with all the other chemicals present in early earth were the product of the creation of the earth AND the continuous bombardment by comets and asteroids which carried with them elements like iron, sulphur...

2. Once the earth's atmosphere stabilised and became conducive to for life forms to exists, the process of lifeless chemicals turning into precursors for living organism's evolution commenced.

3. Openly conceding not knowing what initially instigated lifeless chemicals to eventually form life chemicals, scientists hypothesis that living organism arose from lifeless chemicals spontaneously. They made predictions about the mechanisms of this process and have cried out experiments testing these predictions. Interestingly, these experimentals have demonstrated that it is more than mere possibility for lifeless chemicals to turn into life chemicals, it is actually demonstratable. Later verified by the Miller-Urey experiment and follow up experiments. I posted the link to the experiment somewhere in this thread, go fish it out.

That is the crux of the abiogenesis theory but there is alot more to it. For detailed info, google search abiogenesis theory and have a read. Again, for reminder no shortcomings of this theory, abiogenesis, will in the slightest bit discredict evolution theory.

You said: well the fact remains that there’s no scientific substantiation that life came from nonliving matter

Reply: Not YET. But we have shown it possible to go from lifeless chemicals to chemicals needed for life organism. Science is tentative, hence we may have more knowledge of this subject in the future. So don't be hasty to your conclusions.

You said: *there’s where the 1: 10500 came from*…it’s the probability ratio of numbers of useful genes produced contrasting 2 the discovered 1….

Reply: Again, probability calculations are irrelevant for the reasons I explained above. See the link for detailed explanation.

You said: after the Q of the origin of the universe itself, this is the next gigantic Q…*How did life get here* …once you establish that the universe had an initiation and didn’t arise on it’s own from nothing, it should be palpable that life also did not arise on its own from lifless things…..*evolutionists* nevertheless insist on proceeding with the notion that life originated by a lucky accident and evolved through purely physical processes of random mutation and natural selection without the aid of an intelligent creator and designer…their assumed progression from simple life forms evolving to complex life over billions of years seems 2 overlook the 1st issue…*How did life generate from non alive*"

Reply: What you said above contains many questions, I'll try answer all of them. How did life get here?

Well, according to evolution theory life didn't actually 'get here' but evolved from primordial elements. From our limited knowledge of our universe, only our planet can support life. As the rest of the planets are either too far from the sun, hence too cold to support life, or too close and therefore too hot for life to exist. The reason why our planet is best positioned from the sun has no agreeable answer other than being purely accidental.

No credible science theory, more precisely cosmological theory, states the universe came from 'nothing'. Of all the cosmological thoeries at debate currently, none say that the universe came from nothing. All have the universe originating from pre-existing universes or being part of larger mega-universe. Science doesn't accept something coming from nothing. That is in the realm of religions. Science believes in cause and effect with noted exceptions.

You said: what an extraordinary creature, I just can’t comprehend why u encouraging me 2 maltreat u verbally…

Reply: well...are you going to do or not? what you wrote below doesn't do it for me albeit chuckle's worth

You said: beside I perceived that u r insulting me cause of my *stinky* smell, well nigga… don’t neglect ur malodorous fart, which can be used as *weapon of mass distraction* cause it can slaughter a batch of ppl as they initiate whiffing ur chemically fart…it’s enough 2 utilize u as terminal weapon, if *Somalia* ever deliberate of eliminating *Ethiopia*… all what we should execute is, compel u 2 fart while u running around a particular town or city, massacring every breathing creature who inhale it….



Ciao,

DD--Darwin's most trusted bulldog.

[dhuusa_deer]

Darwin, may you rest in peace. may allah make it easy for you in the after life. if not, then see you in hell pal

[dhuusa_deer]

The evolution of mujahid-muqafal-lunatic chic coming soon to a book store near you!

[dhuusa_deer]

^up to the top^