MrPresident1 and the others pls stop derailing this thread. This thread is not about Atheism

DoctorAlien:
It must be remembered that fitness improvements or even gains of protein function are not equivalent to a gain of novel information (GONI). A loss of information occurring in a regulatory region may improve gene product function by increasing its expression, but this would not represent a GONI. Neither would a mutation that brings back a function that was previously lost, a decrease in specificity of a protein’s function, a rearrangement of already existing information, the duplication of existing information, or the general increase in diversity over time. A GONI must involve a mutational event or series of events that enable the production of novel protein(s) that can perform a specific and previously unknown activity. This type of mutation has not been observed.

Cc: MrMontella

You believe a mutation can lead to a loss if ''information''/''gene'' but not a ''gain''...is that logical?

On your fitness claim...
This article deals with it plainly

[b]Even a variation of traits is a production of Novelty..
Why? Because there was no variation before...




here are researches in which Mutations led to an increase in Genes/information...
increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown
et al. 1998 Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and
Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)

novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al.
1996)

and here's your proof of mutation leading to Novel Information in proteins.
Proteins in the histidine biosynthesis pathway
consist of beta/alpha barrels with a twofold repeat pattern. These apparently evolved from the
duplication and fusion of genes from a half-barrel ancestor (Lang et al. 2000).

damogul:


Who addressed the article? You gave an opinion which is entirely yours. I suppose the others who said something contrary and 4kings who learned something new from it saw something you did not see

Or do you see yourself as the litmus test for the article?

my opinions?
I cited a lot of documents there sire...
Not entirely my opinion..but the opinion of well informed scientists...


But nevertheless..your claims are baseless...

KingEbukasBlog:


Who addressed the article

Can someone end this delusion ?

what delusion are you talking about?
Delusion is when you stylishly input evolution as ''progressive creationism''
the Op is baseless...uninformed and with wrong understandings of various things..

MrMontella:

my opinions?
I cited a lot of documents there sire...
Not entirely my opinion..but the opinion of well informed scientists...


But nevertheless..your claims are baseless...

what delusion are you talking about?
Delusion is when you stylishly input evolution as ''progressive creationism''
the Op is baseless...uninformed and with wrong understandings of various things..

So if the well informed scientists have declared their opinion first before yours then your opinion is what it is ...your opinion! And it does not in any way refute the Opinion of those well informed scientists whom you already hailed.]

Your opinion is painfully baseless.

I am sure if it was your article it would be extremely acceptable right?

hopefulLandlord:


you keep repeating the same empty things that I've shown to be ineffably stupid

Satanists' version of atheism is no more/less atheist than my Pastafarianism version of atheism and not more/less atheists than Seun's version of atheism

that's because we don't have a book and a promised spirit that would tell us the meaning

Christianity however does

Holy Spirit never claimed to reveal himself to specific Christians at a particular level

once you have Christ, accept him, love him, obey his commandments, you should be able to talk to the same holy spirit and he should reveal straightforward truth to you, many Christians like Anas09 and cohorts even believe you should start speaking in tongues immediately you receive Christ because the holy spirit would descend on you

and I don't even know where you're going with this "level" talk; are you saying you're levels above kingebuka or vice versa? which is it

I cannot help you. You are on lock down from the atheist spirit from the LORD.

Byebye

damogul:
MrPresident1 and the others pls stop derailing this thread. This thread is not about Atheism

I am replying mentions only

MrMontella:

the Op is baseless...uninformed and with wrong understandings of various things..

Logical fallacy , argumentum ad lapidem , dismissing an argument as absurd without giving proof of its absurdity .

1.Where is the proof the OP is baseless

2.Where is the proof the OP is uninformed

3.Show the OP that he has wrong understanding of various things

MrPresident1:


I am replying mentions only

I know but please stop. Its causing a ripple effect.

KingEbukasBlog:


Logical fallacy , argumentum ad lapidem , dismissing an argument as absurd without giving proof of its absurdity .

1.Where is the proof the OP is baseless

2.Where is the proof the OP is unformed

3.Show the OP that he has wrong understanding of various things

That is what a rebuttal should look like and not "some" opinion off the top of his head.

MrMontella:



what delusion are you talking about?
Delusion is when you stylishly input evolution as ''progressive creationism''
the Op is baseless...uninformed and with wrong understandings of various things..

Don't mind him.
I think he is aware of this particular delusion.

MrPresident1:

I cannot help you. You are on lock down from the atheist spirit from the LORD.
Byebye

copout just as expected

just that you should've done that long before now rather than engaging me and getting exposed then using this to save the little face you have left

Seun i cannot count the number of times you have banned me at the drop of a hat with the excuse that i made comments not related to the OP. Which is Rule 1.

Seun Seun Seun!

BTW 4evergod you've not answered my question.
Is Progressive Creationism to be considered a "Valid Theory", why or why not?
Damogul you can help him out.

KingEbukasBlog:


Logical fallacy , argumentum ad lapidem , dismissing an argument as absurd without giving proof of its absurdity .

1.Where is the proof the OP is baseless

2.Where is the proof the OP is uninformed

3.Show the OP that he has wrong understanding of various things

check your mentions...
I know you love listing out logical fallacies to appear smart..
Even though you're a well known commiter of fallacies...

4kings:
BTW 4evergod you've not answered my question.
Is Progressive Creationism to be considered a "Valid Theory", why or why not?
Damogul you can help him out.

4everGod can answer his own questions but i will tell you this. Intelligent Design aka progressive creationism is not a theory. Those who see it as one do so myopically. I see it as truth.

There are always 2 sides to an opinion and mine is declared above.

Perhaps i would have a thread deal with the truth about intelligent design later then we can do a comparison alright? This is not a thread for that.

hopefulLandlord:


copout just as expected

just that you should've done that long before now rather than engaging me and getting exposed then using this to save the little face you have left

Enjoy until your time comes

MrMontella:

check your mentions..

Please address those 3 I mentioned . The only mention I had from you was the animal's spirits argument . That's all .

You never addressed the OP .

I know you love listing out logical fallacies to appear smart.Even though you're a well known commiter of fallacies....

You are the one who loves listing out logical fallacies to appear smart . Anytime I list a logical fallacy , I prove the statement is one . But you just scream reductio ad absurdum and when you are asked to prove it , you run away like a coward

ambassagod:


this guy deserves some ban.

why would any sane person act in such a ridiculous manner of screaming one, two three..., on a thread like this? what connection has 1 2 3 4 got to do with the evolution lies the op just exposed?

only insane people would act in such a manner.

please mind yourself a bit.

relax dude...
Was booking space...

KingEbukasBlog:


Please address those 3 I mentioned . The only mention I had from you was the animal's spirits argument . That's all .

You never addressed the OP .



You are the one who loves listing out logical fallacies to appear smart . Anytime I list a logical fallacy , I prove the statement is one . But you just scream reductio ad absurdum and when you are asked to prove it , you run away like a coward

Hahahahaha. Lol

DoctorAlien:
Perhaps the most famous of all observations in Dr. Lenski’s long-term evolution experiment was when an E. coli population began to utilize a new energy source (citrate) that they normally could not use under aerobic conditions. It is important to note that E. coli already have the ability to transport and metabolize citrate, but the bacteria typically cannot do so in oxic conditions as it does not produce an appropriate transporter in this type of environment (among other required factors). The genetic changes that underlie this particular adaptation are complex, but a key event involved the replication of a genomic region that regulates a citrate transporter. This amplification captured apreviously existing and aerobically expressed promoter (the promoter forrnk) which could then direct transcription of the citrate transporter (citT). Repeated tandem amplifications refined this function.

Cc: MrMontella

maybe the author of your article forgot the part where ''mutation'' made this possible..


And two... on the ''promoter''
You need to understand a ''term'' before using it vaguely..

damogul:


4everGod can answer his own questions but i will tell you this. Intelligent Design aka progressive creationism is not a theory. Those who see it as one do so myopically. I see it as truth.

There are always 2 sides to an opinion and mine is declared above.

Perhaps i would have a thread deal with the truth about intelligent design later then we can do a comparison alright? This is not a thread for that.

OK
I'll really love that thread.

KingEbukasBlog:


Please address those 3 I mentioned . The only mention I had from you was the animal's spirits argument . That's all .

You never addressed the OP .



You are the one who loves listing out logical fallacies to appear smart . Anytime I list a logical fallacy , I prove the statement is one . But you just scream reductio ad absurdum and when you are asked to prove it , you run away like a coward

www.nairaland.com/3511938/demystifying-evolution-exposing-it-fraud/28#51897412
And posts below it
seems you love making ''noise''

well can you now keep quiet?

And stop being a logical fallacy promoter

Blitzerz:


Hahahahaha. Lol

The guy wants to form Zeno of Elea , a Greek philosopher who always rubbishes people's arguments by revealing contradictions through reductio ad absurdum . But MrMontella does not know how to refute arguments through reductio ad absurdum , he just mentions it to appear smart .

DoctorAlien:


If your brain cannot understand the fact that I was addressing "ape to human" evolution, then don't mention me again.

The bolded above: it's either you're deliberately lying or you didn't read well about Richard Lenski's long-term evolution experiments.

i dont know where you get your facts from but addition of genes to a chromosome has been confirmed by researches to exist through mutations..


Genome size can increase by duplication, insertion, or polyploidization. Recombination can lead to both DNA loss or gain.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genome_evolution#Genome_size


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3076554/


Detailing insertion

Insertions add one or more extra nucleotides into the DNA. They are usually caused by transposable elements, or errors during replication of repeating elements.
Insertions in the coding region of a gene may alter splicing of the mRNA (splice site mutation), or cause a shift in the reading frame (frameshift), both of which can significantly alter the gene product

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation#Classification_of_mutation_types


[b][url=www.sci.sdsu.edu/~smaloy/MicrobialGenetics/topics/mutations/deletions.html]here's how insertions works[/url]

DoctorAlien:
The unobservable idea of molecules-to-man evolution hypothesizes that all living things have been derived from a common, simple ancestor in our distant past. This would require the accumulation of novel information over a long period of time through genetic mutations. However, Lenski’s experiment demonstrates that the vast majority of fitness benefits are actually due to the disruption, degradation, or loss of genetic information. A possible exception to this tendency is the evolution of citrate utilization in aerobic conditions; however, no novel information was gained in this instance as this ability was the result of previously existing information being rearranged and used in a different way.The novelty here was that no one had ever observed a promoter capture event for a gene involved in central metabolism.

Cc: MrMontella

the bolded is highly wrong and a misunderstanding of the experiment itself...

I'd advise you read the article published by the researchers themselves to see how wrong you are and how information was accumulated over generations with mutations
[url=myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/citrate2008/index.html]researchers article[/url]

---

I dont understand what you mean by information ''cant'' be added..

See..if this --- ATGCATGCGTA is a genome sequence...
And GTA is a stop codon...
If during replication...a mutation occurs on the stop codon and the stop codon is not intolerant to mutation...
E.g ATGCATGC''GTA''--replicates to ATGCATGC''GCA''...The mutation is GTA to GCA...if GCA happens to be a viable amino acid...the new genome sequence would be a different allele which means new information has been added..
Or has it not?
Read up :https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frameshift_mutation

---

on the molecule to man...
Speciation has been observed....

Atavism and vestigial organs are proof of some form of common ancestors..

All these baseless claims sef

MrMontella:

the bolded is highly wrong and a misunderstanding of the experiment itself...

I'd advise you read the article published by the researchers themselves to see how wrong you are and how information was accumulated over generations with mutations
www.myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/citrate2008/index.html

---

I dont understand what you mean by information ''cant'' be added..

See..if this --- ATGCATGCGTA is a genome sequence...
And GTA is a stop codon...
If during replication...a mutation occurs on the stop codon and the stop codon is not intolerant to mutation...
E.g ATGCATGC''GTA''--replicates to ATGCATGC''GCA''...The mutation is GTA to GCA...if GCA happens to be a viable amino acid...the new genome sequence would be a different allele which means new information has been added..
Or has it not?
Read up :https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frameshift_mutation

---

on the molecule to man...
Speciation has been observed....

Atavism and vestigial organs are proof of some form of common ancestors..

All these baseless claims sef

Can you list out these vestigial organs?

Like Wisdom teeth in humans


pelvic bones in snakes



limbs in whales


eyes of cavefishes





etc

MrMontella:
Like Wisdom teeth in humans


pelvic bones in snakes



limbs in whales


eyes of cavefishes





etc

Did you know that in the 1900s there were about 180 assumed vestigial organs before the number began being trimmed down when they discovered their functions? Now we have just 5 and even those 5 are still being trimmed down because the Appendix and the coccyx are almost as good as out of that list of 5.

There is no absolute empirical data backing up atavism...merely assumptions and speculations. If the evolutionary link between mans ancestors and man are still speculative then where did the fact that the tail bone being a vestigial organ come from?

Can you show me this empirical truthful link data?





cc seun

Vestigial means An organ that is functionless and generally reduced in size but bears some resemblance to the corresponding fully functioning organs found in related organisms.

Since the jaw bones of mans alleged ancestors are said to be bigger than ours today shouldnt we say our jaw is a vestigial organ since it is smaller?

Since the nostril of mans alleged ancestor is described as being bigger and ours smaller shouldnt our nose bones be seen as vestigial organs as well since they are smaller?

Your talk about vestigial organs is an assumption same way they had an assumption with 180 allegedly vestigial organs in the 1900s but today that is almost squashed.

Are assumptions fact?

Atavism and evolution have similar issues. They have not been proven as truth up to modern man. They only talk about e-coli but no other thing in truth. But someone somewhere is bent on pushing these assumptions across as FACT when they are just still assumptions....WHY?

You cannot look at a whale and simply because of some certain external similarities in some bones you suddenly jump ahead and claim he is mans ancestor without any proof to that effect besides artistic diagrams based on your imagination.

Are assumptions truth?