davidylan:

Some of the staunchest advocates of evolution are theist and christians

Do the above sound the same to you?

and just as an aside, there was no case such court case in 2002 and Ken Miller appeared as a witness NOT as a lawyer.

Really this is getting redundant. Its clear you have no understanding of what you are talking about.

I repeat some of the staunchest advocates of evolution are christians. . . .Ken Miller, . Richard Colling, David Livingstone, Howard Van Till, Stanly Jaki . . .Just to mention a few. . . These are all Christians no? There are also christian websites that defend evolution. . . .

http://www.polkinghorne.org/

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/evolution/christian_evolution.html

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/babinski/evangelicals.html

But you clearly advance science to debunk the God "myth"? Which is it dude?

Sure, evolution is not the only aspect of science that is out there. . .And yes science has shown that your God is a fiction of human imagination, once he was thought to be living in the sky above the clouds and was afraid that people were going to build a tower to reach him, now science has shown that it is a lie because science has sent men into space and your God that is supposed to be living in the sky is no where to be found. . .

Stup[i]i[/i]d. I write my own protocols and papers . . . empirical evidence does sometimes prove that your null hypothesis is true. too many charlatans bleating about science all day when they've never been at a bench before in their lives.

I don't know what you are on about here. . .Science is just an objective map . . .the keyword is map. Does the map work, or not? that is the question the scientist must answer and prove and it involves some probability as well.

Neither does evolution accept criticism. When was the last time you saw Richard Dawkins being willing to listen to the God view outside of ridiculing it?

How does evolution not accept criticism? May be its because your criticism is baseless and of no value. . . Its a field of science and as we all know science welcomes criticism all the time, that how it advances and keeps moving forward. . .How do you promote the God view without anything to work with, when you guys are challenged your quickly throw out the faith card, no?. . .

mazaje:

I repeat some of the staunchest advocates of evolution are christians. . . .Ken Miller, . Richard Colling, David Livingstone, Howard Van Till, Stanly Jaki . . .Just to mention a few. . . These are all Christians no? There are also christian websites that defend evolution. . . .

http://www.polkinghorne.org/

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/evolution/christian_evolution.html

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/babinski/evangelicals.html

And these are your examples of the "staunchest" defenders of evolution? Really? These guys are better known than Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawkins and co?

Get real dude. You cant even get historical facts on Ken Miller right yet you just keep plowing away with your misinformed comments.

mazaje:

Sure, evolution is not the only aspect of science that is out there. . .And yes science has shown that your God is a fiction of human imagination, once he was thought to be living in the sky above the clouds and was afraid that people were going to build a tower to reach him, now science has shown that it is a lie because science has sent men into space and your God that is supposed to be living in the sky is no where to be found. . .

This clearly foolish comment should be better left as is.  Clearly you believe the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence. A serious scientific fallacy if there is one.
Next you'll tell us volcanoes are proof satan doesnt exist right . . . afterall if he did the hot lava should have burnt him abi? Oh boy!

Dont worry, i will send you God's email address very soon.

mazaje:

I don't know what you are on about here. . .Science is just an objective map . . .the keyword is map. Does the map work, or not? that is the question the scientist must answer and prove and it involves some probability as well.

you're confused and all over the map yourself.  Do you even know what you said earlier that led us to this?

mazaje:

How does evolution not accept criticism? May be its because your criticism is baseless and of no value. . . Its a field of science and as we all know science welcomes criticism all the time, that how it advances and keeps moving forward. . .How do you promote the God view without anything to work with, when you guys are challenged your quickly throw out the faith card, no?. . .

Try debating this with Stephen Hawkin and see whether evolution does accept criticism.

Yawn. The problem with debating people like you is that you essentially contribute nothing of intellectual value. You simply fill space with circular arguments that lead no where and provide no information to the reader.

davidylan:

And these are your examples of the "staunchest" defenders of evolution? Really? These guys are better known than Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawkins and co?

They like Dawkins and Hawkings have books and run websites that promote evolution. . .One of the books used in the US high schools for evolution was written by Ken Miller he remains one of the most famous evolutionary biologist in the US today. . . .

Get real dude. You cant even get historical facts on Ken Miller right yet you just keep plowing away with your misinformed comments.

There is no misinformed comment here, Ken Millier is a very staunch advocate of evolution, he was a witness at the trial and he helped debunk the arguments of intelligent design movement. . .David Livingstone is another staunch advocate of evolution. . .He has written books and holds lectures  promoting Darwinian evolution. . .

This clearly foolish comment should be better left as is.  Clearly you believe the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence. A serious scientific fallacy if there is one.
Next you'll tell us volcanoes are proof satan doesnt exist right . . . afterall if he did the hot lava should have burnt him abi?  Oh boy!

Firstly we were told that God lives in the sky and was afraid of people getting to see him, so he confused their tongue . . .Science comes and shows us that there is no such God hiding in the sky. Science showed us that such a story can only be the imaginations and thinking of primitive men ,science has also shown that languages evolve over time, not as a result of some God confusing people's tongues because doesn't want them build a high tower and see him hiding in the clouds. . . 

you're confused and all over the map yourself.  Do you even know what you said earlier that led us to this?

I made a simply statement and all you are doing is dancing around it since. . .

Try debating this with Stephen Hawkin and see whether evolution does accept criticism.

Yawn[b]. The problem with debating people like you is that you essentially contribute nothing of intellectual value[/b]. You simply fill space with circular arguments that lead no where and provide no information to the reader.

If you have valid point then why not? Look who is talking. . .How have you contributed any thing of value beside snide remarks?. . . .

mazaje:

They like Dawkins and Hawkings have books and run websites that promote evolution. . .One of the books used in the US high schools for evolution was written by Ken Miller he remains one of the most famous evolutionary biologist in the US today. . . .

There is no misinformed comment here, Ken Millier is a very staunch advocate of evolution, he was a witness at the trial and he helped debunk the arguments of intelligent design movement. . .David Livingstone is another staunch advocate of evolution. . .He has written books and holds lectures  promoting Darwinian evolution. . .


Firstly we were told that God lives in the sky and was afraid of people getting to see him, so he confused their tongue . . .Science comes and shows us that there is no such God hiding in the sky. Science showed us that such a story can only be the imaginations and thinking of primitive men ,science has also shown that languages evolve over time, not as a result of some God confusing people's tongues because doesn't want them build a high tower and see him hiding in the clouds. . . 

I made a simply statement and all you are doing is dancing around it since. . .

If you have valid point then why not? Look who is talking. . .How have you contributed any thing of value beside snide remarks?. . . .

I do not understand the head or tail of whatever he is trying to bring across. One min, the insects do not evolve resistance but still writes as if he was there when the first theory of evolution was brought forth.
Seriously, a scientist? What is the use of being a scientist if you keep all your "findings" and "proofs" in your bedroom because you have a "private life"? Are you the first "scientist" on this planet to have a "private life"? Abeg, lets hear word. .

Olugboo:

Few points to make:

1. An Athesist must either be an evolutionist, scientist, biologist or any other similar "ist". That is the only way they can sound intelligent and to some certain point, logical
2. If they are neither none of above, then, they are all dumb because if they don't believe in one creator how can the explain their existence and the world.
3. If those who belive in God are called unintelligent,narrow minded and dreamers, then Atheists are even bigger dreamers beacuse all they do is quote from other peoples books and theory. None them leaving or dead witnessed evolution, big slam thingy or some other scientic jargons they are throwing about.
4. They said they are free minded, logical and factual people, bull! logic and facts in evolution =0, logic and facts in big slam = 0. Any logic or fact should have created another world or human so we all can see the logic and fact. What i logically know is that until science creats a world and human and all the other species from NOTHING, its all fantacy and mega dream.
5. If i am a betting man and i have to bet on one super unfathomable being that made all conditions perfectly suitable for my existence or some 7million yrs accidental creation and subsequent evolution that ensued, i know where exactly where i will put my money.
Finally for those that want common sense and logic in believing in God, Look up "Mere Christianity" by C. S Lewis or "Reasons to Believe" by Scott Harn. And one more thing, try and be openmined.

Gbam. . .confused buncha peeps

kandiikane:

I do not understand the head or tail of whatever he is trying to bring across. One min, the insects do not evolve resistance but still writes as if he was there when the first theory of evolution was brought forth.
Seriously, a scientist? What is the use of being a scientist if you keep all your "findings" and "proofs" in your bedroom because you have a "private life"? Are you the first "scientist" on this planet to have a "private life"? Abeg, lets hear word. .

And they try to invade God's privacy and know His secrets.

kandiikane:

I  do not understand the head or tail of whatever he is trying to bring across. One min, the insects do not evolve resistance but still writes as if he was there when the first theory of evolution was brought forth.
Seriously, a scientist? What is the use of being a scientist if you keep all your "findings" and "proofs" in your bedroom because you have a "private life"? Are you the first "scientist" on this planet to have a "private life"? Abeg, lets hear word. .

Those who have more of a brain than you have seen and can confirm. I dont parse my life story to little children. thanks. Its difficult for you to understand head or tail here largely because of the following reasons:

1. Many of you have ZERO ideas on how biology really works beyond the nonsense you read off websites. So of course arguing the nitty gritty of biological processes just flies over your heads.
2. You already have a predetermined narrow mindset that says evolution = good, religious nuts = bad . . . but then lie to us that science is what makes you "open-minded". Being open-minded involves being able to constructively criticize your own science which you seem unable to do. You've been bleating about insects for the last 3 days, is that the length and breadth of your knowledge base? quite shallow i might say.

Secondly lets get real here, if your own claim that evolution is real is that insects evolve resistance to pesticides then that is a very ignorant mindset.
a. You can easily make the same argument for man, we develop resistance to antibiotics very quickly by expressing MDR channels (ever heard of that mechanism? I guess not yet they yell as if they know anything).
b. Some caucasoid races do not express CCR5 and thus can avoid HIV infection even when exposed to it (see the HIV "cure" recently reported in Germany).

the above, just like your over-flogged case are EXAMPLES of MICRO EVOLUTION or mutations at work. Every serious scientist acknowledges this fact. To now extrapolate this to indicate that macro evolution is real is just bogus nonsense. You will have to perform intellectual gymnastics of no mean feat to explain where exactly this macro-evolution started from (primordial soup?), why we have no intermediate life forms to document this process, the cambrian exposion e.t.c.

Just picking one random, well-known example of mutation doesnt cut it. Yes insects develop resistance to certain pesticides does not mean they have "evolved" into an entirely more complex or new specie. They still remain the exact same insects they were 2 mins ago. Even man's immune system is equipped with such possibilities . . . have you developed into a half-man half mutant hybrid yet?

I love you sexkillz , no homo.

sexkillz:

Who missed me?

Everybody! LooL!

davidylan:

and pray what would be your own "level of knowledge" on immunobiology? I just had to read this a second time . . . my dear - evolution is but a theory that depends on science to validate it. it is NOT a science of its own. That is why you can take immunology or biology as major's in college but you cant go take evolution as a major now can you? Big diff there.

Secondly, immunology is simply the "logy" or study of the immune system i.e. how your body equips itself to fight off foreign antigens while recognizing self-antigens long enough to prevent triggering autoimmune diseases . . . what has that to do with evolution?

You folks should put your heads in cold water . . . you zeal to "prove david wrong" is driving you to make me wonder if you ever stepped into a classroom in your lives. And to think these are the "scientific" atheists . . .

You previously made the unbelievably stüpid claim that "immunology has nothing to do with evolution". I have only one response: T-Cell maturation.

If you had even a basic understanding of the workings of human cellular immunity you would not need any further explanation. But since you and I know that you're at best a lowly lab technologist (or perhaps a cleaner who happens to work in a lab) I suggest you go and dust off both your immunology textbooks, read a little, let the knowledge settle into your lab technologist mind, then come back and face me.

*Hint: If the textbook grammer is too hard to understand, maybe you should try wikipedia.

Evil Brain:

You previously made the unbelievably stüpid claim that "immunology has nothing to do with evolution". I have only one response: T-Cell maturation.

If you had even a basic understanding of the workings of human cellular immunity you would not need any further explanation. But since you and I know that you're at best a lowly lab technologist (or perhaps a cleaner who happens to work in a lab) I suggest you go and dust off both your immunology textbooks, read a little, let the knowledge settle into your lab technologist mind, then come back and face me. 

*Hint: If the textbook grammer is too hard to understand, maybe you should try wikipedia.

Really? And how does t-cell maturation advance the theory of evolution? Evidence please. Enough of name dropping with no shred of evidence to advance your claims.

I agree that i am a lowly lab technologist if that suits your fancy  But please come back and explain yourself dear sir Phd. I'll be waiting. I wont be surprised if V(D)J recombination is what you are driving at but i'll let you be the master and educate lab techs like me.

Those who have more of a brain than you have seen and can confirm. I dont parse my life story to little children. thanks. Its difficult for you to understand head or tail here largely because of the following reasons:

Oh please, spare us the bull. . Like I said before what is the use of being a scientist if you keep your life's work in the bedroom. .No one cares about you or your life story just your damn work. .

For the rest of your post I did not read because I don't give a damn.

Scientist? Rubbish!

kandiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

Hi toba

kandiikane:

Oh please, spare us the bull. . Like I said before what is the use of being a scientist if you keep your life's work in the bedroom. .No one cares about you or your life story just your damn work. .

For the rest of your post I did not read because I don't give a damn.

Scientist? Rubbish!

you dont give a damn but you responded all the same eh? My work is on pubmed for serious scientists and colleagues to see. You dont fall into that category so too bad. If that makes me a lab tech liek evil brain claims then so be it abi? Man no go kill himself.

Of course you dont give a damn about the rest of the comment because this discussion has been way over your head from the word go. This is not elementary biolgoy pls.

Oh, boo hoo!! If you say it is for serious scientists why have you mentioned it on here? Anyone can be a Professor on nairaland. Abeg, lets hear word.

kandiikane:

Oh, boo hoo!! If you say it is for serious scientists why have you mentioned it on here? Anyone can be a Professor on nairaland. Abeg, lets hear word.

Note i didnt mention it to you. I did to those for whom such information may (or may not) be relevant. Each person takes it as they see fit.
And yes i am a lab tech ala evil brain, i'm sure that shld satisfy you. Next?

I'd rather focus on the science . . . you're way in over your head here. Go back to romance.

Are you going to make me go back? Rubbish!

In fact, I have a feeling you are one of those Africans in Europe working in train stations or cleaning the streets then calling back home telling your people you are a scientist. .

Where you not the one who opened a thread in romance "bitc[i]h[/i]ing" about a female nairalander? Ahaha, rubbish!!

kandiikane:

Are you going to make me go back? Rubbish!

In fact, I have a feeling you are one of those Africans in Europe working in train stations or cleaning the streets then calling back home telling your people you are a scientist. .

Where you not the one who opened a thread in romance "bitc[i]h[/i]ing" about a female nairalander? Ahaha, rubbish!!

1. Sure, i clean streets for a living in Europe. _{You're way in over your head ma'am}.

2. You must have me confused with someone else . . . open a thread in romance? lol since when.

3. Perhaps you may want to adjust the focus of your posts to the thread title, that may be too hard to ask of empty-heads who agitate for a "science" thread as if they have anything to say there.

Ahaha, you really want me to find the thread?



You bore me, davidlyan. .

kandiikane:

You bore me, davidlyan. .

My interest lies in ensuring half-baked ignoramuses like you dont get away with commenting on issues you have a very poor understanding of. Stick to your area of expertise - playing with dolls.

I'm not here to entertain you, feel free to ignore the thread the minute you realize your posts are not being regarded as anything more than the psychobabble of a child trying too hard to prove he/she is more intelligent than he/she thinks.

When many of you lose the plot and realize you can no longer get by with a rudimentary knowledge of elementary science, all of a sudden you start derailing the thread with irrelevancies. If you no longer have anything to say regarding the topic, please feel free to leave. Under no circumstance are you compelled to respond to my posts.

Ahaha, and you think your posts are regarded as something? You are indeed delusional. .

Me, trying to prove I am intelligent? Never!! I don't have to.

Anyways, like I said before "you bore me". You have nothing relevant to write so just stick your "I am a scientist " in a place where the sun don't shine.

^^Take you head out of his as[i]s[/i]. .

kandiikane:

^^Take you head out of his as[i]s[/i]. .

Copying my lines i see! Aren't we still friends?

kandiikane:

Ahaha, and you think your posts are regarded as something? You are indeed delusional. .

Me, trying to prove I am intelligent? Never!! I don't have to.

Anyways, like I said before "you bore me". You have nothing relevant to write so just stick your "I am a scientist " in a place where the sun don't shine.

No be today. All these over-zealous ITKs end up crashing and burning once their idiocy becomes truly manifest. Pele ma binu next time ehn.
I bore you and yet you still respond to my posts . . . abeg next!

[size=13pt]<sup>kandiikane DARLING , honestly speaking i am very sorry so many didn't know the answer to your question on the  RNA ~ not their fault , the true is that , so many love to claim what they dunno know - was so busy to respond u until now . RNA or Ribonucleic Acid is made up of sugars and phosphates as well as nucleotides, Adenine, Cytosine, Guanine and Uracil.(which takes the place of Thymine in DNA) The nucleotides connect up to the other ones in DNA which has been split apart by enzymes then it makes up an amino acid chain called a poly peptide.

The nucleolus is where RNA is made.

hope you are clear with what u haven't known 4 long?</sup>   [/size]

Hello ogaga, I did not ask that question it was sexkills. .

sexkillz:

Copying my lines i see! Aren't we still friends?

Yes, we are. .I was only kidding, na. Friends do argue, you know. .

[size=13pt]^{Okay darling i was making a mistake ~ u right and so much agree with u . now , sexkill overv to u} [/size]

kandiikane:

Hello ogaga, I did not ask that question it was sexkills. .

davidylan:

Really? And how does t-cell maturation advance the theory of evolution? Evidence please. Enough of name dropping with no shred of evidence to advance your claims.

I agree that i am a lowly lab technologist if that suits your fancy But please come back and explain yourself dear sir Phd. I'll be waiting. I wont be surprised if V(D)J recombination is what you are driving at but i'll let you be the master and educate lab techs like me.

I'll give you $1billion if you can find a post in this thread in which I name dropped. You're the one who's using your unproven status as a big man immunobiologist to try and disparage decades worth of biological research.

And I'm surprised you know about VDJ recombination. You've been reading your 2 Janeways abi? Very impressive for someone of your reasoning ability. But no, that's not what I meant. Nice try though, kudos.

And keep reading, with just a little more humility you could go far in this science business. I won't write you off yet. Being religious doesn't mean you have to be a mörön, you know.

[size=13pt]^{In cell biology, the nucleus is a membrane-enclosed organelle found in eukaryotic cells. It contains most of the cell's genetic material, organized as multiple long linear DNA molecules in complex with a large variety of proteins, such as histones, to form chromosomes. The genes within these chromosomes are the cell's nuclear genome. The function of the nucleus is to maintain the integrity of these genes and to control the activities of the cell by regulating gene expression — the nucleus is, therefore, the control center of the cell. The main structures making up the nucleus are the nuclear envelope, a double membrane that encloses the entire organelle and separates its contents from the cellular cytoplasm, and the nucleoskeleton (which includes nuclear lamina), a meshwork within the nucleus that adds mechanical support, much like the cytoskeleton, which supports the cell as a whole. Because the nuclear membrane is impermeable to most molecules, nuclear pores are required to allow movement of molecules across the envelope. These pores cross both of the membranes, providing a channel that allows free movement of small molecules and ions. The movement of larger molecules such as proteins is carefully controlled, and requires active transport regulated by carrier proteins . Nuclear transport is crucial to cell function, as movement through the pores is required for both gene expression and chromosomal maintenance.} [/size]

sexkillz:

@Ogaga, sure you can keep this up?   Ok! How come about the nucleus? Where did it originate from?

@Kandiikane 

@davidylan

Name Dropping (The Urban Dictionary)

The act of inserting the name of any obscure cultural institution into a conversation in an effort to accelerate the building of rapport with someone, or to make one's self appear to be more important. Typically considered by intelligent people to be a negative habit. Here is an example of name dropping in context.
"I have two copies of Janeway's Immunology at home and I read them quite often!"
With the intended response being: "OMG, that sounds like a really thick textbook! You must be a total genius! Anybody with two copies can't possibly be wrong. That means evolution must be a myth, then."

I'm just sayin'.