Darwin Theory of Evolution has been proven scientifically

[Toronto]

Re-debunked !!


Toronto, you are still dumber than I thought. This is a lie. Smaller 'living' things can have some changes, not much , like a flu virus. If you wanna talk about MACRO evolution, dream on.

Come straight to the point coward. Wanna answer how proteins CAN be produced with a rock WITHOUT any help from any existing living cell ? I wanna see how you are going to turn tail and run on this one.

Atheistic science will tell you half truth and hide the other as usual. They will tell you that chiralty is not important because evolution is greater than the truth.

Liar ! Liar ! Liar !


Nearly all biological polymers must be homochiral (all its component monomers having the same handedness. Another term used is optically pure or 100 % optically active) to function. All amino acids in proteins are ‘left-handed’, while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are ‘right-handed’.

A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture. Racemic polypeptides could not form the specific shapes required for enzymes, because they would have the side chains sticking out randomly. Also, a wrong-handed amino acid disrupts the stabilizing α-helix in proteins. DNA could not be stabilised in a helix if even a single wrong-handed monomer were present, so it could not form long chains. This means it could not store much information, so it could not support life.


I know you LIKE to randomly pick an answer for your evo crap religion.

C'mon Mr. Randomness please explain HOW can non-living thing like a rock or water created proteins without getting all stuff mixed-up.

Your random god cannot save this one. Bruhahaha


"The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator. Science brings men nearer to God." (Louis Pasteur). Pasteur strongly opposed Darwin's theory of evolution because he felt it did not conform to the scientific evidence.

The biological randomness is different from tossing a coin. If you are so ignorant of this basic that every molecular biologist would know, you still dare to bring in molecular materials to debate( and I know exactly which site you got it). Please do some serious read up before revealing your IDiotic stupidity by mocking at people that already learned that randomness is different in different field. To have some understanding, I suggest you find some free time to stand outside a mrt station for 30min, observing the commuters coming in and leaving, you will have a feel that the randomness observed is very different for tossing coin. I wanted badly to bring you for my next deep sea diving trip, sadly I don't think you are qualified. Nevermind, my mrt example will still allow you to get a little understanding and feel. If you don't get it, I don't blame you for being an intelligently IDiot by design.

The spontaneous generation that Pasteur and others disproved was the idea that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria can appear fully formed. They disproved a form of creationism. There is no law of biogenesis saying that very primitive life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules.
​

Then tell us the functional advantage to right- or left-handed molecular chirality? A "random picked answer", you can't even debunk more 50%.

You have not answered most of my questions in this forum. You still dare to bark and chase after me like a mad dog? Ok, forget about those questions you failed to answer in other threads, you just have to answer my all questions in the 2 evo threads, I will answer you (but I hope you don't regret) . Make it easier, just answer 50% of them will do.

 

[Toronto]

Re: Spiritual Or Non-Spiritual

Thank you for sharing, very insightful! But your last point.
Did Jesus really say that? It's hard to believe.

The bible says it, I didn't fabricate.

Do a google search for "Luke 19:27". You will get different paraphrases because they are so many versions of bible but all arrived at the same meaning.

The

 

[Conqueror]

Please Do Explain The Two Isomers Select By Themselves ?

Please do some serious read up before revealing your IDiotic stupidity by mocking at people that already learned that randomness is different in different field.

Then tell us the functional advantage to right- or left-handed molecular chirality? A "random picked answer", you can't even debunk more 50%.

You have not answered most of my questions in this forum. You still dare to bark and chase after me like a mad dog?

This is TERRIBLE !! You are STILL struggling and trying to pass it off as fact ? What a lie !! I know you dumb atheists are not up to the standard of explaining how Chirality can affect the construction of proteins in a living cell. Your bullshitting is really going to the extreme now. A TYPICAL liar. OMG!

What a useless article that you have posted there and trying to pass it off as the truth to Evo crap. You are just pitifully loyal to your religion of randomness.

Then, explain !! If you think you can. :*:


The first guess towards solving the problem would be to suppose that chiral purity had formed as a result of chance. By chance, the initial mixture of enantiomers contained an excess of one of the enantiomers, and this casual asymmetry was amplified and propagated through generations due to self-replication of the enantiomers. This assumes that the rate of production of new enantiomers in nature was small compared to the rate of self-replication of enantiomers in living systems. What could be the cause of the initial accident leading to asymmetry?

All kinds of speculations are equally plausible, but the most interesting one involved a suggestion that the source of this asymmetry was extraterrestrial. In 1969, the Murchison meteorite crashed into Australia and various groups studied the chemistry of its contents and deposits. The meteorite was shown to have contained an excess of the “right” kind of amino acids and some people proposed that this meteorite brought in enough of the “right” kind of enantiomeric excess needed to explain the chiral purity we see today [2]. Many people opposed the conclusions of this finding, arguing that the meteorite could be contaminated with terrestrial amino acids.

Apart from this, comets and meteorites were also perhaps too hot for any sort of chemistry to take place in them. And while the extra-terrestrial bit does seem fascinating, I would doubt that chirally pure enantiomers were produced in meteorites and comets! If chiral purity was indeed an accident, how would we ever know? It might be fruitless to speculate on possible accidents, as there would be no way to check our hypotheses.


So, Dawkins was saying ALIENS. Now, meteorites ? LOL

Atheists are raising their stupidity to the NEXT level. OMG !

 

[currypuff]

Re: OMG ! Who Killed Kenny !

The mind is like your OS and Explorer. The brain is like your Intel chip, the motherboards, RAMs and HDD. The brain is of the flesh. The flesh is still of the world although it may be an invention or product of God. So, the brain and mind do not belong to the Spirit. The flesh uses WWW but the Spirit uses a different system which may be somewhat similar to WWW - like an Intranet ?

Both system admin officers are different. Sometimes, both systems can give you conflicting messages at the same time. How to resolve the conflict ? That's for me to know but NOT for you to find out at this juncture.

Oh no ! Who killed Kinana ? :*:

bro, very chin, I don't understand.
You sound very knowledgeable. Can also share some christian websites?

 

[Psalm23]

Re: God Is The God Of The Living

Another piece of bullshit debunked....

The proteomic evidence also supports the universal ancestry of life. Vital proteins, such as the ribosome, DNA polymerase, and RNA polymerase, are found in everything from the most primitive bacteria to the most complex mammals. The core part of the protein is conserved across all lineages of life, serving similar functions. Higher organisms have evolved additional protein subunits, largely affecting the regulation and protein-protein interaction of the core. Other overarching similarities between all lineages of extant organisms, such as DNA, RNA, amino acids, and the lipid bilayer, give support to the theory of common descent. Phylogenetic analyses of protein sequences from various organisms produce similar trees of relationship between all organisms. The chirality of DNA, RNA, and amino acids is conserved across all known life. Is there is no functional advantage to right- or left-handed molecular chirality, the simplest hypothesis is that the choice was made randomly by early organisms and passed on to all extant life through common descent. Further evidence for reconstructing ancestral lineages comes from junk DNA such as pseudogenes, "dead" genes that steadily accumulate mutations.
Not only has life evolved, but life has evolved to evolve. That is, correlations within protein structure have evolved, and mechanisms to manipulate these correlations have evolved in tandem. The rates at which the various events within the hierarchy of evolutionary moves occur are not random or arbitrary but are selected by Darwinian evolution. Sensibly, rapid or extreme environmental change leads to selection for greater evolvability. This selection is not forbidden by causality and is strongest on the largest-scale moves within the mutational hierarchy. Many observations within evolutionary biology, heretofore considered evolutionary happenstance or accidents, are explained by selection for evolvability. For example, the vertebrate immune system shows that the variable environment of antigens has provided selective pressure for the use of adaptable codons and low-fidelity polymerases during somatic hypermutation. A similar driving force for biased codon usage as a result of productively high mutation rates is observed in the hemagglutinin protein of influenza A.

When scientists try to explain the 'origin of life' and try to come out with 'answers', often this attempt attracts more questions than answers that scientists ironically was trying to seek!

Just look at your message above, and see those highlighted. They attract more questions than answers;

(a) the most primitve bacteria - please note that there is not such definition. Even the so-called most primitive or simpliest cell, it has been discovered that its function and the cellular structure is more complex than the whole New York City, and its process from cell division, to discharging it's waste, to making movement, etc is more complex than the most complex manufacturing facilities of the modern day. Why this is so? Scientists cannot and will never to explain! During Darwin's time, it was thought the 'simple' cell like an one-cell organism has very simple structure but we all now know that it is far more complex than any than manufacturing facilities! Darwin's theory of evolution was based on a completely wrong premise and tell the world that 'simple' cell can evolve into more complex cell given time.

(b) right and left-hand of the protein structure - you have missed the point (but certain not real scientists). The main point is that why they are all left-hand and none right hand. If these cells are evolved over time, obviously you could find a mix of left and right-hand protein structure of the cell. Again, scientists are completely puzzled with this phenomemon.

(c) the simpliest hypothesis - Right on! You scored a good point here. What is being taught now by the evolutionists and evolutionary biologists are simply hypothesis - guess game. They can guess anything they like but they must not tell people these 'guesses' are scientific evidences.

(d) 'dead' genes that steadily accumulate mutations - Absolutely true and scientists are puzzled with such thing. To put it another way, mutations lead to dead and destruction. The evolution of life theory is based on the premises that genes mutation over time from bad to good to become very good. But it has been proved that mutations always (absolutely always) did the opposite, that is destruction which it will lead destruction and finallyl death.

(e) high mutation rates is observed in the hemagglutinin protein of influenza A - This just proves my point in (d) above. The best way to observe mutation is by looking at diseases. Have you come across any scientists brought out something 'good' resulted from mutation? Absolutely none! Again, let me say it again, the premises of evolution of life theory is based on the 'cell's ability to mutate' and the resultant end is that somehing good, something better would arise. We know now mutation just works the opposite.

Besides the above, another important point is the scientific concept of biogenesis. It is 100% well-tested that life can never and will neverable to come from non-life. So, how could the first DNA (which is what all living organisim is all above) came into being?

Psalm23

 

[Toronto]

Re: God Is The God Of The Living

Evolution is a proven fact. There's tons of fossil evidence that proves evolution is a fact.


Creationists are mostly bad losers and eventually they lie about most things.

ID is a crap. It is no different to the Big Flood BS. There is no transition as proof. It is a brainwashing process for the young and the average.

 

[Psalm23]

Re: God Is The God Of The Living

Evolution is a proven fact. There's tons of fossil evidence that proves evolution is a fact.


Creationists are mostly bad losers and eventually they lie about most things.

ID is a crap. It is no different to the Big Flood BS. There is no transition as proof. It is a brainwashing process for the young and the average.

I have taken to the trouble to discredit your message point by point. And you? Just a sweeping statement: Evolution is a proven fact. What fact you referring to? The only 'fact' are those dead fossils displayed at the museum and some computer graphics to illustrate how man was evolved from four-legged beasts into human. It is interesting that we have not seen, not even only graphic displaying how woman evolve.

Another scientific point to reject evolution is that medical facts surrounding sexual reproduction of all animals - whether is sea or land mammals, birds, reptiles, etc. It is a scientific fac that in order to reproduce, both the male and female specie must be absolutely compatible. For example, the maile and the female egg of the specie must be have equal number of DNA/chromosones. Thus how could all animals progress in such a perfect tandem to allow this perfect compatibility to take place. Remember, there are thousands of specie and each and every single of this specie is unique and they can only mate or reproduce based on 'its own kind' as described in the Bible and this can only happen when their reproductive elements are 100% compatible.

Please use you common sense.

The graphic presetation from the four-legged animal to human is simply a computer graphic and you are being fooled to believe this is factual!

Psalm 23

 

[Conqueror]

You Can't Get It From Websites

bro, very chin, I don't understand.
You sound very knowledgeable. Can also share some christian websites?

I don't think you can get it from websites. To be frank, if you are able to communicate with God yourself and He is willing to impart His will and knowledge to you, do you still need websites or a degree in divinity to approve your wisdom and to confirm your understanding ? Of course, no.

Many things that I say here are of my own personal experiences with God. The bible will become alive when you are able to speak to Him.

I don't think I can evangelize online. Firstly, I need His permission. Secondly, it can be difficult for a newly saved person to continue (with the faith) when you cannot do personal thing like fellowship. I don't think we can do it online effectively. When a babe is borne, he or she still need that sincere milk before he or she is weaned. Or else, a premature death may be imminent. There is no guarantee how things will turn out.

This is not my portion. I rather be a new John the Baptist. I'll pave way for you guys. But, whether you will find God or not is really depending on your affinity and destiny ... well, in some way. :p

God chooses His believers. :*:

 

[Conqueror]

Re: God Is The God Of The Living

Evolution is a proven fact. There's tons of fossil evidence that proves evolution is a fact.

Fossils are dead, remember ? Dead men don't really tell tales. The 'million' years time measurement crap machines are not even stable and not to even mention the word accuracy.

What is alive and bouncing up and down on the field like wildebeest or American bison, they don't want to see. It is so obvious that there is NO evo crap on Earth ! OMG ! Atheists are all believers of crap science.

All these things make perfect sense to atheists. :*:

 

[Toronto]

Re: God Is NOT The God Of The Living

Chirality cannot disprove Evolution

Homochirality provides evidence of Common Ancestry
There is the obvious fact that homochirality does act as evidence of common ancestry of all living things. Chirality must be inherited (an organism using L-amino acids cannot produce an offspring with D-amino acids, or its entire biochemistry would collapse ... and incorporation of D-sugars in RNA and DNA cannot produce an organism with L-sugars in their RNA and DNA). So since chirality is inherited, if there were organisms with all sorts of chirality, this would tend to disprove common ancestry. So the lack of organisms using different chiralities is evidence of common ancestry.

Note that the same is not true of Creationism or Intelligent Design. If we were to find species using all sorts of different chiralities, this would also be perfectly compatible with the claim of Creationism of Intelligent Design, simply by postulating that the Creator or Designer wanted it that way.

Evolution is about Origin of Species, not Origin of Life. Homochirality is not an issue for ‘evolution’ to explain, but an issue for 'Abiogenesis’. I.e. the question is not so much why all living things use the same set of 20 amino acids (that is explained by common ancestry) ... but why all 20 are left-handed. In a primordial soup of all amino acids equally divided among left- and right-handed amino acids, it would seem improbable than an all-left-handed biochemical system could have emerged.


How did this homochirality of amino acids and sugars arise?

And this brings us to the third point. Which is that new research is actually coming up with some pretty good explanations for homochirality ... i.e. features of physics that tend to not only slightly favor left-handed amino acids, and D-sugars ... but reasons why a slight imbalance between two types would be amplified over time to a complete imbalance.

Enantiomers (L- or D-forms) of amino acids can be strongly enriched by two steps:
1. An initial imbalance of enantiomeric forms of an amino acid

2. Enhancement of enantiomeric excess by solid phase-liquid phase equilibria


Experiment under environment with chirality conditions
New research has been very promising as of late. The chirality of all life on Earth — every amino acid this planet uses as its biological Lego can exist in a right-handed or a left-handed form and would spontaneously form either one at identical odds, but every speck of life on this planet uses only the left-handed version With the ever-improving knowledge of the early environment of the planet, we’ve discovered that aspartic acid trends sinistral, creating left-handed versions in large quantities in a crystalline structure under those conditions.
There’s also the question of why those simple building blocks like aspartic acid might have influenced the other amino acids that self-generated in the environment to follow suit in their chirality. So, scientists built on the earlier result and introduced the left-handed acids into an environment with equal proportion left- and right-handed amino acids, and found the left ones crystallized much like the aspartic acid crystal in the earlier experiment.
“These amino acids changed how the reactions work and allowed only the naturally occurring RNA precursors to be generated in a stable form,” said Hein. “In the end, we showed that an amazingly simple result emerged from some very complex and interconnected chemistry.”
The natural enantiomer of the RNA precursor molecules formed a crystal structure visible to the naked eye. The crystals are stable and avoid normal chemical breakdown. They can exist until the conditions are right for them to change into RNA.”
This experiment had every possibility of falsifying the earlier hypothesis but it did not!

 

[Toronto]

Re: God Is NOT The God Of The Living

"The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator. Science brings men nearer to God."

Why the Creator or ID prefers left-handed amino acids and right-handed sugars?
You are so amazed, shouldn't be a problem for you.

Explain, please? Isn't it the genesis of your argument?

 

[Toronto]

Re: God Is NOT The God Of The Living

Here I come, command and conquer. The right moment to discharge my ammunitions! I am anticipating and waiting patiently for you to crap sufficiently(including Psalm23) before throwing in the REAL meat, haha.

An intelligent design plan, with 'design' reasons, haha. I am having lotz of fun.

I cannot camp here for too long like that kinana and may have to abort. Luckily I don't to. And you FALL IN just right, with god's bless.

Did you realize my CRAPY post#346 looks rather similar to your writeup? It was actually paraphrased(with certain words replaced) of your non-brainess reply that non other than an intelligent design IDiot is capable of crafting. That has been the norm before you chance to pick up the chirality 'gem'.

Creationists are mostly bad losers and eventually they lie about most things. ID is a crap. It is no different to the Big Flood BS. There is no transition as proof. It is a brainwashing process for the young and the average.

Evolution is a proven fact. There's tons of fossil evidence that proves evolution is a fact.

vs

Atheists are mostly bad losers and eventually they lie about most things. Evo is a crap. It is no different to the Big Bang BS. There is no transition as proof. It is a brainwashing process for the young and the average.

I have to give credit where credit is due, -the chirality post is by far the most logic carrying post you ever made, in fact by anyone of you. You have set a new and higher standard for the creationists here. Let see the creationists will improve over their usual crapy, silly, wild guessing, lack of evidence, lack of prove if not fraudulent prove or the waving hand of a magician(by far the easiest and simpliest) types of posts.

 

[Conqueror]

If Have Lost

Why the Creator or ID prefers left-handed amino acids and right-handed sugars?
You are so amazed, shouldn't be a problem for you.

Explain, please? Isn't it the genesis of your argument?

If you ask this question, you have lost already. You cannot agree with me.

 

[Conqueror]

Re: God Is NOT The God Of The Living

Here I come, command and conquer.

You are going to be conquered.

Don't worry, not now.

 

[Faker]

Re: Spiritual Or Non-Spiritual

The bible says it, I didn't fabricate.

Do a google search for "Luke 19:27". You will get different paraphrases because they are so many versions of bible but all arrived at the same meaning.

Jesus wanted unbelievers to kill before him. This is insane!

 

[Faker]

Re: If Have Lost

If you ask this question, you have lost already. You cannot agree with me.

Very lame reply. Toronto won, you lost miserable! Evolution is real, there is no God.

 

[Faker]

Re: God Is NOT The God Of The Living

You are going to be conquered.

Don't worry, not now.

Looking forward to clash of the titans 2.

 

[currypuff]

Re: You Can't Get It From Websites

I don't think you can get it from websites. To be frank, if you are able to communicate with God yourself and He is willing to impart His will and knowledge to you, do you still need websites or a degree in divinity to approve your wisdom and to confirm your understanding ? Of course, no.

Many things that I say here are of my own personal experiences with God. The bible will become alive when you are able to speak to Him.

I don't think I can evangelize online. Firstly, I need His permission. Secondly, it can be difficult for a newly saved person to continue (with the faith) when you cannot do personal thing like fellowship. I don't think we can do it online effectively. When a babe is borne, he or she still need that sincere milk before he or she is weaned. Or else, a premature death may be imminent. There is no guarantee how things will turn out.

This is not my portion. I rather be a new John the Baptist. I'll pave way for you guys. But, whether you will find God or not is really depending on your affinity and destiny ... well, in some way. :p

God chooses His believers. :*:

bro, you share a lot but have not answered my question on the OS, brain, memory, etc. You know of any virtual church?

 

[currypuff]

Re: God Is NOT The God Of The Living

Looking forward to clash of the titans 2.

david vs goliath

 

[Psalm23]

Re: God Is NOT The God Of The Living

Why the Creator or ID prefers left-handed amino acids and right-handed sugars?
You are so amazed, shouldn't be a problem for you.

Explain, please? Isn't it the genesis of your argument?

The answer is so simple and obvious.

The cellular structures that are all left-handed amino acids is to show that it is created rather than evolved through 'natural selection'. It is a known biological fact that if just one of the right-handed amino acid is hooked to any of the left-handed, the whole series of amino acids will be rended useless.

Psalm23