Want to see the result of viruses causing cell mutation, as in Ebola, Sci-fy Cult of evolution? | |
DGN (OP) User ID: 76193900 United States 03/03/2018 12:10 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 73269883 All very interesting and very cute, but don't forget you are the one trying to make sense of a theory which is unintelligible according to your own belief. Tell us, what is your logic based on? You seem to be forgetting that incoherent nonsense is your creator. What makes you say that it is unintelligible? The theory states its random mutation and natural selection doing all the magic. The definition of the words reflect unintellig.. Unintelligible implies that WE can't understand how it works. We do. Unintelligent just means it arises from natural means, in evolution's case chemistry. The chemistry of mutation is cell replication copy failure resulting in deformed dysfunctional handicaps, even fatal tumors not magical upgrades of all the victims cells, inventing new organs all growing in synchronicity until an entirely new species appears. Mutation never results in precision form and function, intelligence is always required by the divine chemist. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 73269883 Belgium 03/03/2018 12:13 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 73269883 All very interesting and very cute, but don't forget you are the one trying to make sense of a theory which is unintelligible according to your own belief. Tell us, what is your logic based on? You seem to be forgetting that incoherent nonsense is your creator. What makes you say that it is unintelligible? The theory states its random mutation and natural selection doing all the magic. The definition of the words reflect unintellig.. Unintelligible implies that WE can't understand how it works. We do. Unintelligent just means it arises from natural means, in evolution's case chemistry. Ofcourse you do. Whatever floats your boat. Chemistry did it, lol. |
DGN (OP) User ID: 76193900 United States 03/03/2018 12:40 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The theory states its random mutation and natural selection doing all the magic. The definition of the words reflect unintellig.. Unintelligible implies that WE can't understand how it works. We do. Unintelligent just means it arises from natural means, in evolution's case chemistry. Ofcourse you do. Whatever floats your boat. Chemistry did it, lol. Chemistry is the study of the 100 elements all of which are intelligently designed or their electrons would fly out of orbit. The universe is made of atoms which never spontaneously come alive, man can't even make then do it. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 72531636 United States 03/03/2018 02:49 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The theory states its random mutation and natural selection doing all the magic. The definition of the words reflect unintellig.. Unintelligible implies that WE can't understand how it works. We do. Unintelligent just means it arises from natural means, in evolution's case chemistry. Ofcourse you do. Whatever floats your boat. Chemistry did it, lol. Only goes to show how little you actually understand about evolution. At the level of mutations and D.N.A, you are dealing with molecules, which are bound by the laws of chemistry to react to each other in one way or another. Look at the study of organic molecules before abiogenesis: Chemical Evolution. A field dedicated entirely to studying "the formation of complex organic molecules from simpler inorganic molecules through chemical reactions..." |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 72531636 United States 03/03/2018 02:50 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 73269883 The theory states its random mutation and natural selection doing all the magic. The definition of the words reflect unintellig.. Unintelligible implies that WE can't understand how it works. We do. Unintelligent just means it arises from natural means, in evolution's case chemistry. Ofcourse you do. Whatever floats your boat. Chemistry did it, lol. Chemistry is the study of the 100 elements all of which are intelligently designed or their electrons would fly out of orbit. The universe is made of atoms which never spontaneously come alive, man can't even make then do it. Atoms didn't exist in the early Universe. They only formed from reactions of protons, neutrons, and electrons, with protons and neutrons themselves having only formed from quarks. |
DGN (OP) User ID: 76193900 United States 03/03/2018 02:54 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 73269883 The theory states its random mutation and natural selection doing all the magic. The definition of the words reflect unintellig.. Unintelligible implies that WE can't understand how it works. We do. Unintelligent just means it arises from natural means, in evolution's case chemistry. Ofcourse you do. Whatever floats your boat. Chemistry did it, lol. Only goes to show how little you actually understand about evolution. At the level of mutations and D.N.A, you are dealing with molecules, which are bound by the laws of chemistry to react to each other in one way or another. Look at the study of organic molecules before abiogenesis: Chemical Evolution. A field dedicated entirely to studying "the formation of complex organic molecules from simpler inorganic molecules through chemical reactions..." None of which could possibly spontaneous come alive or even assemble one single protein strand against odds of 1 to 10x163. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 72531636 United States 03/03/2018 03:13 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 72531636 Unintelligible implies that WE can't understand how it works. We do. Unintelligent just means it arises from natural means, in evolution's case chemistry. Ofcourse you do. Whatever floats your boat. Chemistry did it, lol. Only goes to show how little you actually understand about evolution. At the level of mutations and D.N.A, you are dealing with molecules, which are bound by the laws of chemistry to react to each other in one way or another. Look at the study of organic molecules before abiogenesis: Chemical Evolution. A field dedicated entirely to studying "the formation of complex organic molecules from simpler inorganic molecules through chemical reactions..." None of which could possibly spontaneous come alive or even assemble one single protein strand against odds of 1 to 10x163. Except the odds were already determined to be much lower than 10^163, not even being 10^40, nor the math showing the ability for chemical reactions to create a protocell having ever been determined to have been incorrect. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 73269883 Belgium 03/03/2018 05:02 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 73269883 Ofcourse you do. Whatever floats your boat. Chemistry did it, lol. Only goes to show how little you actually understand about evolution. At the level of mutations and D.N.A, you are dealing with molecules, which are bound by the laws of chemistry to react to each other in one way or another. Look at the study of organic molecules before abiogenesis: Chemical Evolution. A field dedicated entirely to studying "the formation of complex organic molecules from simpler inorganic molecules through chemical reactions..." None of which could possibly spontaneous come alive or even assemble one single protein strand against odds of 1 to 10x163. Except the odds were already determined to be much lower than 10^163, not even being 10^40, nor the math showing the ability for chemical reactions to create a protocell having ever been determined to have been incorrect. Ah yes the odds. Because you just can't pinpoint the math behind random mutation and natural selection, bring in the odds! This thread is becoming more scientific with each page. |
DGN (OP) User ID: 76193900 United States 03/03/2018 05:22 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 73269883 Ofcourse you do. Whatever floats your boat. Chemistry did it, lol. Only goes to show how little you actually understand about evolution. At the level of mutations and D.N.A, you are dealing with molecules, which are bound by the laws of chemistry to react to each other in one way or another. Look at the study of organic molecules before abiogenesis: Chemical Evolution. A field dedicated entirely to studying "the formation of complex organic molecules from simpler inorganic molecules through chemical reactions..." None of which could possibly spontaneous come alive or even assemble one single protein strand against odds of 1 to 10x163. Except the odds were already determined to be much lower than 10^163, not even being 10^40, nor the math showing the ability for chemical reactions to create a protocell having ever been determined to have been incorrect. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 72531636 United States 03/03/2018 06:35 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 72531636 Only goes to show how little you actually understand about evolution. At the level of mutations and D.N.A, you are dealing with molecules, which are bound by the laws of chemistry to react to each other in one way or another. Look at the study of organic molecules before abiogenesis: Chemical Evolution. A field dedicated entirely to studying "the formation of complex organic molecules from simpler inorganic molecules through chemical reactions..." None of which could possibly spontaneous come alive or even assemble one single protein strand against odds of 1 to 10x163. Except the odds were already determined to be much lower than 10^163, not even being 10^40, nor the math showing the ability for chemical reactions to create a protocell having ever been determined to have been incorrect. That's assuming the current form of proteins found in cells. The proteins on the first organisms would have been much simpler. |
DGN (OP) User ID: 76193900 United States 03/03/2018 07:47 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: DGN None of which could possibly spontaneous come alive or even assemble one single protein strand against odds of 1 to 10x163. Except the odds were already determined to be much lower than 10^163, not even being 10^40, nor the math showing the ability for chemical reactions to create a protocell having ever been determined to have been incorrect. That's assuming the current form of proteins found in cells. The proteins on the first organisms would have been much simpler. Show and tell how their amino acids were correctly sequenced without DNA assembly instructions or ribosomes to splice them together. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 73269883 Belgium 03/04/2018 10:36 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: DGN None of which could possibly spontaneous come alive or even assemble one single protein strand against odds of 1 to 10x163. Except the odds were already determined to be much lower than 10^163, not even being 10^40, nor the math showing the ability for chemical reactions to create a protocell having ever been determined to have been incorrect. That's assuming the current form of proteins found in cells. The proteins on the first organisms would have been much simpler. Source? |
DGN (OP) User ID: 76193900 United States 03/04/2018 11:16 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 72531636 Except the odds were already determined to be much lower than 10^163, not even being 10^40, nor the math showing the ability for chemical reactions to create a protocell having ever been determined to have been incorrect. That's assuming the current form of proteins found in cells. The proteins on the first organisms would have been much simpler. Source? There is no source, the theory is a make it up as you go thingy with believers accepting Professor Darwin's theory amino acids spontaneously formed together in exactly the correct sequence against odds of 10^40. Then this happened trillions x trillions times in a row accidentally forming a cell which came alive by the miracle of mindless natural selection, which they call 'science'. |
DGN (OP) User ID: 76193900 United States 03/04/2018 11:19 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | That's assuming the current form of proteins found in cells. The proteins on the first organisms would have been much simpler. Source? There is no source, the theory is a make it up as you go thingy with believers accepting Professor Darwin's claim amino acids spontaneously formed together in exactly the correct sequence against odds of 10^40. Then this happened trillions x trillions times in a row accidentally forming a cell which came alive by the miracle of mindless natural selection, which they call 'science'. You can pay to learn this from the intelligent professor at the university, or for free at the loony bin. Last Edited by DGN on 03/04/2018 11:20 AM |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 72531636 United States 03/04/2018 11:46 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 72531636 Except the odds were already determined to be much lower than 10^163, not even being 10^40, nor the math showing the ability for chemical reactions to create a protocell having ever been determined to have been incorrect. That's assuming the current form of proteins found in cells. The proteins on the first organisms would have been much simpler. Source? All the cellular machinery in the video is of complex eukaryotes, not ample prokaryotes |
DGN (OP) User ID: 76193900 United States 03/04/2018 12:17 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | That's assuming the current form of proteins found in cells. The proteins on the first organisms would have been much simpler. Source? All the cellular machinery in the video is of complex eukaryotes, not ample prokaryotes Who wrote the molecular assembly codes for the complex eukaryotes? Maybe they were inscribed into the non-existing DNA by sand swishing to and fro in the primordial soup, directing the non-existing ribosomes to assemble them? |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 72531636 United States 03/04/2018 03:43 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 72531636 That's assuming the current form of proteins found in cells. The proteins on the first organisms would have been much simpler. Source? All the cellular machinery in the video is of complex eukaryotes, not ample prokaryotes Who wrote the molecular assembly codes for the complex eukaryotes? Maybe they were inscribed into the non-existing DNA by sand swishing to and fro in the primordial soup, directing the non-existing ribosomes to assemble them? Eukaryotes are basically a bunch of prokaryotes that underwent symbiosis over a long period of time. |
DGN (OP) User ID: 76193900 United States 03/04/2018 03:49 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | All the cellular machinery in the video is of complex eukaryotes, not ample prokaryotes Who wrote the molecular assembly codes for the complex eukaryotes? Maybe they were inscribed into the non-existing DNA by sand swishing to and fro in the primordial soup, directing the non-existing ribosomes to assemble them? Eukaryotes are basically a bunch of prokaryotes that underwent symbiosis over a long period of time. And......? |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 72531636 United States 03/04/2018 04:00 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 72531636 All the cellular machinery in the video is of complex eukaryotes, not ample prokaryotes Who wrote the molecular assembly codes for the complex eukaryotes? Maybe they were inscribed into the non-existing DNA by sand swishing to and fro in the primordial soup, directing the non-existing ribosomes to assemble them? Eukaryotes are basically a bunch of prokaryotes that underwent symbiosis over a long period of time. And......? Thats how they "wrote" their "assembly codes." |
DGN (OP) User ID: 76193900 United States 03/04/2018 04:45 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: DGN Who wrote the molecular assembly codes for the complex eukaryotes? Maybe they were inscribed into the non-existing DNA by sand swishing to and fro in the primordial soup, directing the non-existing ribosomes to assemble them? Eukaryotes are basically a bunch of prokaryotes that underwent symbiosis over a long period of time. And......? Thats how they "wrote" their "assembly codes." They wrote their own DNA assembly directions, after they already existed? Last Edited by DGN on 03/04/2018 04:47 PM |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 72531636 United States 03/04/2018 05:37 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 72531636 Eukaryotes are basically a bunch of prokaryotes that underwent symbiosis over a long period of time. And......? Thats how they "wrote" their "assembly codes." They wrote their own DNA assembly directions, after they already existed? Organisms had R.N.A before they had D.N.A, D.N.A just resulting from R.N.A. |
DGN (OP) User ID: 76193900 United States 03/04/2018 05:50 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 72531636 United States 03/04/2018 05:58 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Organisms had R.N.A before they had D.N.A, D.N.A just resulting from R.N.A. So who inscribed the chemical data into the RNA? R.N.A is just the result of chemical reactions between nucleotides and their other components. |
DGN (OP) User ID: 76193900 United States 03/04/2018 06:05 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Organisms had R.N.A before they had D.N.A, D.N.A just resulting from R.N.A. So who inscribed the chemical data into the RNA? R.N.A is just the result of chemical reactions between nucleotides and their other components. Chemical reactions mindlessly produce complex bio-molecular cell assembly instructions that living human scientific research can barely understand? |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 72531636 United States 03/04/2018 06:14 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 72531636 Organisms had R.N.A before they had D.N.A, D.N.A just resulting from R.N.A. So who inscribed the chemical data into the RNA? R.N.A is just the result of chemical reactions between nucleotides and their other components. Chemical reactions mindlessly produce complex bio-molecular cell assembly instructions that living human scientific research can barely understand? We understand D.N.A and genetic coding very well, and yes, organic molecules can self assemble and replicate on their own. This has been proven in labs and on field. |
DGN (OP) User ID: 76193900 United States 03/04/2018 06:40 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | R.N.A is just the result of chemical reactions between nucleotides and their other components. Chemical reactions mindlessly produce complex bio-molecular cell assembly instructions that living human scientific research can barely understand? We understand D.N.A and genetic coding very well, and yes, organic molecules can self assemble and replicate on their own. This has been proven in labs and on field. They do not have the intelligence, knowledge, or will to write cell assembly codes, they don't even know they exist or care to |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 72531636 United States 03/04/2018 06:46 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 72531636 R.N.A is just the result of chemical reactions between nucleotides and their other components. Chemical reactions mindlessly produce complex bio-molecular cell assembly instructions that living human scientific research can barely understand? We understand D.N.A and genetic coding very well, and yes, organic molecules can self assemble and replicate on their own. This has been proven in labs and on field. They do not have the intelligence, knowledge, or will to write cell assembly codes, they don't even know they exist or care to Your thinking of it too much like a computer. The information in D.N.A exists, but it doesn't have to be created by an outside source like a computer code does. The "code" in D.N.A and R.N.A is more of chemical reactions be caused by certain parts of the D.N.A. |
DGN (OP) User ID: 76193900 United States 03/04/2018 07:01 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: DGN Chemical reactions mindlessly produce complex bio-molecular cell assembly instructions that living human scientific research can barely understand? We understand D.N.A and genetic coding very well, and yes, organic molecules can self assemble and replicate on their own. This has been proven in labs and on field. They do not have the intelligence, knowledge, or will to write cell assembly codes, they don't even know they exist or care to Your thinking of it too much like a computer. The information in D.N.A exists, but it doesn't have to be created by an outside source like a computer code does. The "code" in D.N.A and R.N.A is more of chemical reactions be caused by certain parts of the D.N.A. DNA and RNA are chemically correct bio-molecular codes containing millions of symbols specifying the exact sequence ribosomes need to assemble proteins. They reveal an extremely high level of scientific knowledge. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 73269883 Belgium 03/04/2018 07:16 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: DGN Chemical reactions mindlessly produce complex bio-molecular cell assembly instructions that living human scientific research can barely understand? We understand D.N.A and genetic coding very well, and yes, organic molecules can self assemble and replicate on their own. This has been proven in labs and on field. They do not have the intelligence, knowledge, or will to write cell assembly codes, they don't even know they exist or care to Your thinking of it too much like a computer. The information in D.N.A exists, but it doesn't have to be created by an outside source like a computer code does. The "code" in D.N.A and R.N.A is more of chemical reactions be caused by certain parts of the D.N.A. This dancing around the words isn't helping lol. |
DGN (OP) User ID: 76193900 United States 03/04/2018 08:09 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 72531636 We understand D.N.A and genetic coding very well, and yes, organic molecules can self assemble and replicate on their own. This has been proven in labs and on field. They do not have the intelligence, knowledge, or will to write cell assembly codes, they don't even know they exist or care to Your thinking of it too much like a computer. The information in D.N.A exists, but it doesn't have to be created by an outside source like a computer code does. The "code" in D.N.A and R.N.A is more of chemical reactions be caused by certain parts of the D.N.A. This dancing around the words isn't helping lol. The dancing is self contradicting claiming the codes in RNA are NON-intelligently, mystically invented in DNA but unwittingly admits RNA came first. What a pitiful defense of the dumbest hoax since Catholicism. Last Edited by DGN on 03/04/2018 08:10 PM |