Viva la Evolucion: The Discussion

Mononoke · **Viva la Evolucion: The Discussion -** 10-12-2009, 01:07 PM

Read & Discuss

hafizsaad · 10-14-2009, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mononoke

Read & Discuss

there is no proof in your post for Creationists don't beleive in medicine -
just blaming.

one more question is for you. your have join religion pastafaria.which also expose evolution then why you insist on evolution.

anyhow we know the following information about evolution

A Brief History of The Theory of Evolution

First and foremost, it has to be noted that the theory of evolution is not a scientific argument, but a dogmatic philosophy and a materialistic world view hiding behind the mask of science. However, it is not faith in this dogmatic philosophy, which has had a stimulating role in the birth and development of modern science, but faith in Allah.

Most of the people who have pioneered modern science believed in the existence of Allah, and while studying science, they sought to discover the universe Allah has created, to see His laws and the details in His creation. Scientists such as Leonardo da Vinci, Copernicus, Keppler, Galileo, Cuvier (the father of paleontology), Linnaeus (the pioneer of botany and zoology) and Isaac Newton all studied science by faith. They believed in the existence of Allah and that the whole universe came into existence by His creation. Considered to be the biggest genius of our age, Einstein was another devout scientist who believed in Allah.

Nevertheless, the theory of evolution came into view by the re-awakening of ancient materialistic philosophies and became widespread in the 19th century. This philosophy supposes that matter is absolute and infinite. This materialistic philosophy does not hold anything to be real except the matter, so it tries to explain the universe and nature through purely material factors. Since it denies creation right from the start, it puts forward that every being, whether animate or inanimate, appeared without any means of creation, but by mere coincidence and then acquired an order. However, the human mind is organised to comprehend the existence of an organising will wherever it sees an order. Materialistic philosophy, which is contrary to this very basic characteristic of the human mind, produced "the theory of evolution" in the middle of the 19th century.

The Theory of Evolution: Darwin's Imagination

The person who put forward the theory of evolution the way it is defended today, was an amateur English naturalist, Charles Robert Darwin. Darwin had never taken a formal biology education. He only took an amateur interest in the subject of nature and living things. His interest drove him to volunteer for boarding on the fficial discovery ship named H.M.S. Beagle that set out from England in 1832 and travelled around different regions of the world for five years. Young Darwin was greatly impressed by various living species, and particularly by various finches he saw in the Galapagos Islands. He thought that the variance in their beaks was caused by their adaptation to their habitat. With this idea in mind, he supposed that the origin of life and species lay in the concept of "adaptation to the environment". According to Darwin, living species were not created individually by Allah, but came from a common ancestor and differentiated from each other as a result of natural conditions.

Although Darwin's hypothesis was not based on any scientific discovery or experiment, in time, he turned it into a pretentious theory with the support and encouragement he received from the famous materialist biologists of his time. The idea was that the individuals who adapted to the habitat in the best way transferred their qualities to the next generations, and therefore, these advantageous qualities accumulating in time changed the individual to a species totally different from its ancestors. (The origin of these "advantageous qualities" was unknown). According to Darwin, man was the most developed outcome of this blind mechanism.

Darwin named this process "evolution by natural selection". He thought he had found the "origin of species"; the origin of one species was another species. He published these views in his book titled The Origin of Species: By Means of Natural Selection in 1859.

While developing his theory, Darwin was impressed by many evolutionist biologists preceding him, and primarily by Lamarck. According to Lamarck, living creatures were passing the traits they acquired during their lifetime from one generation to another, and were thus evolving. For instance, giraffes evolved from antelope-like animals by extending their necks further and further from generation to generation as they tried to reach higher and higher branches for food.

But both Darwin and Lamarck were mistaken, because biochemistry did not exist at that time and genetics was unknown. Therefore, their theories depended totally on their powers of imagination. While the echoes of Darwin's book lingered on, an Austrian botanist, Gregor Mendel discovered the laws of inheritance in 1865.

These laws refuted the idea of passing the acquired traits onto subsequent generations. Not much heard of until the end of the century, Mendel's discovery gained great importance at the beginning of the 1900's. This was the genesis of the science of genetics. Again in the same years, the structure of the genes and the chromosomes was discovered. And in the 1950's, the discovery of the DNA molecule that includes the genetic information put the theory in a great crisis. The reason was the incredible complexity of the DNA, whose origin could never be explained by any random process.

All these developments should actually have caused Darwin's theory to be banished to the dusty shelves of history. However certain circles insisted on revising, renewing, and raising the theory up to a scientific platform. All these efforts were very meaningful in indicating that behind the theory laid some ideological intentions rather than scientific concerns.

Mononoke · 09:13 PM

Another piece of gibberish from that crook. Much like his purported eel which turns out to be a sea snake, this article is full of gibberish.

eel 2.jpg

People like copernicus, Da Vinci, Kepler never had a choice in religion. Back then you either beleive what the church say or go to jail or even worse, as Galileo found out the hard way. Even Kepler's mother was tried as a witch.

Quote:

These laws refuted the idea of passing the acquired traits onto subsequent generations. Not much heard of until the end of the century, Mendel's discovery gained great importance at the beginning of the 1900's. This was the genesis of the science of genetics. Again in the same years, the structure of the genes and the chromosomes was discovered. And in the 1950's, the discovery of the DNA molecule that includes the genetic information put the theory in a great crisis. The reason was the incredible complexity of the DNA, whose origin could never be explained by any random process.

Darwin didn't know the mechanism for passing down traits. Mendal predicted a mechanism. The discovery of DNA gave us the actual physical manifestation of it. Science is incremental it doesn't drop from the sky or spout from a burning bush.

The argument that DNA formations are random is sheer ignorance. Everything follows laws. If you think nature is random then explain to me how seasalt is formed.
Here is some basic chemistry

NaCl-salt

Na-Cl-Na-Cl-Na-Cl
Cl-Na-Cl-Na-Cl-Na

According Mr. Oktar, the probability of getting just 50 gram of salt is (1/2)^(12.044x10^23) that is ridiculously small number. So we should never get salt from nature. God has to fill up the salt jar in your kitchen, what lunacy. Of course I would never expect you to understand this argument, but thankfully there are intelligent people in this forum.

In case you'd like to know how DNA is formed in nature here are excerpts from two articles about DNA formations.

Quote:

Nucleic Acids Research, 2004, Vol. 32, No. 1 127-134
© 2004 Oxford University Press

Formation of DNA nanoparticles in the presence of novel polyamine analogues: a laser light scattering and atomic force microscopic study

Veena Vijayanathan1, Thresia Thomas2,3,4, Thomas Antony5, Akira Shirahata6 and T. J. Thomas*,1,3 Departments of 1 Medicine, and 2 Environmental and Community Medicine, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, 125 Paterson Street, CAB 7090, New Brunswick, NJ 08903, 3 The Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ 08903, 4 Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute, Piscataway, NJ 08854, USA, 5 Department of Molecular Biology, Max Planck Institute for Biophysical Chemistry, Am Fassberg 11, D-37077, Göttingen, Germany and 6 Department of Biochemistry and Cellular Physiology, Josai University, Saitama, Japan
*To whom correspondence should be addressed. Tel: +1 732 235 8460; Fax: +1 732 235 8473; Email: [email protected]
We synthesized a pentamine (3-3-3-3) and two hexamine (3-3-3-3-3 and 3-4-3-4-3) analogues of the natural polyamine, spermine (3-4-3) and studied their effectiveness in condensing pGL3 plasmid DNA, using light scattering and atomic force microscopic (AFM) techniques. The midpoint concentration of the polyamines on pGL3 condensation (EC50) was 11.3, 10.6, 1.5, 0.49 and 0.52 µM, respectively, for 3-4-3, norspermine (3-3-3), 3-3-3-3, 3-3-3-3-3 and 3-4-3-4-3 in 10 mM Na cacodylate buffer. Dynamic laser light scattering study showed a decrease in hydrodynamic radii of plasmid DNA particles as the number of positive charges on the polyamines increased. AFM data showed the presence of toroids with outer diameter of 117–191 nm for different polyamines, and a mean height of 2.61 ± 0.77 nm. AFM results also revealed the presence of intermediate structures, including those showing circumferential winding of DNA to toroids. The dependence of the EC50 on Na+ concentration suggests different modes of binding of spermine and its higher valent analogues with DNA. Our results show a 20-fold increase in the efficacy of hexamines for DNA condensation compared to spermine, and provide new insights into the mechanism(s) of DNA nanoparticle formation. These studies might help to develop novel nonviral gene delivery vehicles.

Source

Quote:

Mechanism of the formation of DNA–protein cross-links by antitumor cisplatin

Kateina Chválová, Viktor Brabec and Jana Kapárková* Institute of Biophysics, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Královopolská 135, CZ-61265 Brno, Czech Republic
*To whom correspondence should be addressed. Tel: +420 541517174; Fax: +420 541240499; Email: [email protected]
Received October 5, 2006. Revised January 2, 2007. Accepted January 5, 2007.

DNA–protein cross-links are formed by various DNA-damaging agents including antitumor platinum drugs. The natures of these ternary DNA–Pt–protein complexes (DPCLs) can be inferred, yet much remains to be learned about their structures and mechanisms of formation. We investigated the origin of these DPCLs and their cellular processing on molecular level using gel electrophoresis shift assay. We show that in cell-free media cisplatin [cis-diamminedichloridoplatinum(II)] forms DPCLs more effectively than ineffective transplatin [trans-diamminedichloridoplatinum(II)]. Mechanisms of transformation of individual types of plain DNA adducts of the platinum complexes into the DPCLs in the presence of several DNA-binding proteins have been also investigated. The DPCLs are formed by the transformation of DNA monofunctional and intrastrand cross-links of cisplatin. In contrast, interstrand cross-links of cisplatin and monofunctional adducts of transplatin are stable in presence of the proteins. The DPCLs formed by cisplatin inhibit DNA polymerization or removal of these ternary lesions from DNA by nucleotide excision repair system more effectively than plain DNA intrastrand or monofunctional adducts. Thus, the bulky DNA–protein cross-links formed by cisplatin represent a more distinct and persisting structural motif recognized by the components of downstream cellular systems processing DNA damage considerably differently than the plain DNA adducts of this metallodrug.

The authors wish it to be known that, in their opinion, the first two authors should be regarded as joint First Authors.

Source

As for Darwin's Credentials, a persons work is supposed to define their credentials not the other way around. Évariste Galois, who discovered modern group theory, was less than 20 years old when he did his seminal work; do mathematician brush him aside as being too young. Of course this article, by that moron Mr. Okatar, is but an instance of the corrosion of sanity that the disease of Judeo-Christianity bestows upon it lucky practitioners. What Darwin discovered has stood the test of time and has cleared the miasma that is the Judeo-Christian religion.

P.S: if you understand the Pastarfarian position you should be aware that we never deny the validity of the scientific method or the conclusions it reaches.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CFSM

It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.

RAmen

hafizsaad · 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mononoke

P.S: if you understand the Pastarfarian position it never denies the validity of scientific method or the conclusions it reaches.

Originally Posted by CFSM
It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.

YOU ARE POSTING ONE PICTURE FOR WHICH I HAVE GIVEN A DETAIL ANSWER AGAIN AND AGAIN.

YOUR SELECTION OF A RELIGION Pastarfarian HAS JUST A PURPOSE TO SUPPORT AND ANSWER THE QUESTION WHO MADE THE ORIGIN, THEN AS YOU ASK FROM US WHO MADE YOUR GOD , WE CAN ALSO ASK WHO HAS CREATED YOUR THAT GOD .....

YOUR DISCUSSION IS JUST A PERSONAL ITERPRETITION OKHTAR CONCLUDE CORRECT THAT However certain circles insisted on revising, renewing, and raising the theory up to a scientific platform. All these efforts were very meaningful in indicating that behind the theory laid some ideological intentions rather than scientific concerns.

Mononoke · 10-14-2009, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hafizsaad

YOU ARE POSTING ONE PICTURE FOR WHICH I HAVE GIVEN A DETAIL ANSWER AGAIN AND AGAIN.

YOUR SELECTION OF A RELIGION Pastarfarian HAS JUST A PURPOSE TO SUPPORT AND ANSWER THE QUESTION WHO MADE THE ORIGIN, THEN AS YOU ASK FROM US WHO MADE YOUR GOD , WE CAN ALSO ASK WHO HAS CREATED YOUR THAT GOD .....

YOUR DISCUSSION IS JUST A PERSONAL ITERPRETITION OKHTAR CONCLUDE CORRECT THAT However certain circles insisted on revising, renewing, and raising the theory up to a scientific platform. All these efforts were very meaningful in indicating that behind the theory laid some ideological intentions rather than scientific concerns.

Quit the pedantic bullshit, just give me an answer about sea salt.