Evoltuion's Big Lie [Spirituality & Religion]

@newjaninev2 Says someone who is so dishonest as to deny time. Too Funny!!!

@newjaninev2 [quote]Would you like me to give you a few hints?[/quote]

Be my guest.

@GodSpeed63 Which science would you prefer? General biology, genetics, anatomy & physiology, or comparative morphology?

Pick any of those... in fact, you can have them all if you want that.

@newjaninev2 What would be the point you don't understand any of them. You are a source of great mirth. Please keep it up.

@newjaninev2 [quote]Which science would you prefer? General biology, genetics, anatomy & physiology, or comparative morphology?[/quote]

God created science, so you pick one.

@GodSpeed63 What’s your problem? Your claim is that [i]none[/i] of those disciplines show evidence for evolution, so you’re at no particular risk from any of them.

@GodSpeed63 This one combines genetics and comparative elements, so will do for a starting point.

You’ve seen it may times... and run away from it just as often... so it should be reassuringly familiar for you.

All species carry ‘silenced’ genes… these are genes that once caused certain proteins to be produced, but now no longer function in the original manner. Such genes are called pseudogenes.

Nearly all mammals have functional genes for expressing an enzyme (L-guluno-γ-lactone oxidase) that allows the production of vitamin C, which is essential for proper metabolism.

I say ‘nearly all mammals’ because primates cannot produce their own vitamin C. In humans, there is a set of four genes that code for vitamin C production. As you may know, these genes are composed of many, many smaller units called nucleotides, so these four genes contain a very large number of such nucleotides (the human genome has 64 billion nucleotides forming 32 billion base pairs}. The first three genes are fully functional, but the final gene in the sequence has a mutation in a single nucleotide, and this mutation prevents the sequence from completing. That’s why humans need to obtain vitamin C from their food… because the mechanism for producing it has become a pseudogene.

Across [i]all[/i] primates (chimpanzees, bononbo, humans, and apes) not only is it the final gene in the sequence that is silenced, but within that gene [i]the same nucleotide[/i] carries the mutation that is responsible.

Now, why would this be?

1. astonishing coincidence

2. when the gods created all the species they put genetic pathways for vitamin C production into all mammals, but then inactivated a single nucleotide from among the four genes necessary for that production, inactivated the same nucleotide in all cases, and did that only in primates. They obviously thought this to be a tremendous joke to play, because we carry around 2,000 such pseudogenes.

3. All mammals developed the ability to produce vitamin C, but around 40 million years ago, in the ancestor common to all primates, that ability was removed by a mutation in a single nucleotide, and the deficit was passed to all primates due to common descent during evolution.

@GodSpeed63 Are there any points I have not made clear?
I’d be happy to offer clarity around any part of this comment.
I’ve limited the possibilities to a three-part multi-choice, but I don’t claim that the list is exhaustive, so if you can conjure up any other possibilities, feel free to offer them.

@newjaninev2 [quote]Are there any points I have not made clear?[/quote]

Everyone of them.

@GodSpeed63 [b]Are there any points I have not made clear?[/b]

If not, then why are we waiting?

Surely it must be a minor matter, the work of but minutes, for you to explain identical pseudogenes

After all, according to your claim they [i]cannot[/i] be evidence for evolution

@GodSpeed63 So your silence is caused by your inability to comprehend what I have written?

Very well... I will simplify the lesson, and we will work through it piece by piece.

Once you are assured that you doo indeed comprehend its meaning, we shall return to the question of whether or not it constitutes evidence for evolution

@newjaninev2 [quote][/quote]

Pseudogene nonfunctionality tacitly assumes that any functional peptide synthesized should be the same or very similar to that encoded by the paralogous protein-coding gene. The actual or perceived inability of the pseudogene to direct synthesis of such a peptide is conventionally taken as proof of its ‘junk’ status. However, this long-held premise can no longer be sustained. It is now known that a snail’s pseudogene can direct the synthesis of a useful shortened peptide. This truncated peptide can form a complex with the full-length peptide produced by the paralogous gene, thus functioning as a regulator of the abundance of this full-length protein. Nor is it correct to suppose that the pseudogene ‘copy’ of a protein-coding gene must necessarily be translated into any peptide in order to be functional. The snail’s antiNOS (pseudo)gene functions as a regulator of the paralogous protein-coding nNOS gene by producing antisense RNA that forms a duplex with some of the gene’s mRNA, thus regulating the latter’s abundance. The recently discovered Makorin1-p1 pseudogene, the subject of this report, provides further evidence that the pseudogene copy of a protein-coding gene can not only function, but perform a function that is completely unrelated to protein-coding ability. Nor can RNA-only function be stereotyped. As described below, the RNA-only function of the murine Makorin1-p1 pseudogene is completely different from the RNA-only function of the snail’s antiNOS (pseudo)gene, a fact that further underlines the unpredictability of pseudogene function. Many discoveries in science occur by accident, and the discovery of function in the Makorin1-p1 pseudogene certainly qualifies as one of them. The investigators, Hirotsune et al., were experimenting with the transfer of Drosophila genes into the mouse genome. They noticed that the expression of the mouse’s Makorin1 gene was altered, and eventually realized (and demonstrated by experiment) the fact that they had inadvertently disrupted the regulatory effects of the Makorin1-p1 pseudogene upon the expression of the Makorin1 gene. Clearly, the pseudogene acts as a ‘switch’ that governs gene expression. There are two possible mechanisms proposed to account for this regulatory effect. Both of these mechanisms involve the pseudogene acting as a ‘sponge’ that absorbs a repressor substance that would otherwise flood the gene and prevent its expression. Unlike the case in the earlier-discussed antiNOS (pseudo)gene, the respective RNA species of gene and pseudogene do not interact directly, and no antisense RNA is produced by the Makorin1-p1 pseudogene. It is perhaps ironic that even if the functional Makorin1-p1 pseudogene is taken to be a unique occurrence, it nevertheless retains a broad significance that cannot be minimized: It certainly does. Of course, one does not have to accept the evolutionary spin about functional pseudogenes having been ‘recruited for function’ by evolutionary processes. Instead, we can consider functional pseudogenes as a type of unconventionally behaving gene that, like all genes, were designed to function in their present manner since being specially created. Well, there you have it.

@newjaninev2 Most of the cells in your body contain DNA (red blood cells, for example, do not). Here we are concerned with certain aspects of that DNA, in general errors in that DNA, and specifically an error in one part of that DNA... an error that is copied over from genehation to generation
I suppose it would be helpful for us to now establish the nature of DNA, yes? Then you’ll be able to better visualise the nature of the error, and the effect it has on every animal that carries the error.

@newjaninev2 Can I ask why you're trying to explain science to a fuckwit?

@GodSpeed63 [quote]perform a function that is completely unrelated to protein-coding ability[/quote]

What relevance does such piffle have for the expression of L-guluno-γ-lactone oxidase to allows the production of vitamin C

All that waffle says (and by the way, it is demonstrably incorrect in at least three places) is that something that is broken might, perhaps, be used in the future to help with a completely unrelated and unforeseen task.

[i]Quelle surprise![/i]

Now, back to examining the nature of the pseudogene and its commonality with all other mammals...

@newjaninev2 [quote]What relevance does such piffle have for the expression of L-guluno-γ-lactone oxidase to allows the production of vitamin C[/quote]

You asked about Pseudogenes and I gave them to you.

@GodSpeed63 I did not ask about pseudogenes.

I gave you an example of a simple nucleotide mutation that causes an effect on all mammals... a single nucleotide mutation that is found on the same nucleotide in all mammals.

You now seem bent on diverting away into a general discussion about pseudogenes.

Once we are finished here I would be happy to enter into such a discussion with you (you might prepare by reading Zheng and Gerstein in Trends in Genetics, Volume 23, Issue 5, May 2007, Pages 219-224). That will save us much time.

Anyway, to return to our discussion around specific nucleotide mutations, can I now take it that you are, in fact, very familiar with the genetics underlying nucleotide mutations?

@GodSpeed63 Can I now take it that you are, in fact, very familiar with the genetics underlying nucleotide mutations?

or were you just copy pasting science-stuff in the hope that it would in some magical way dig you out of a hole?

Surely not! After all, how desperate would a muppet need to be in order to resort to such a laughable tactic?

So, confident that no such thing has occurred, let’s now return to our discussion around specific nucleotide mutations

Obviously you understand the nature of nucleotides, base pairs, and single-point mutations, so perhaps we can skip directly to your explanation of the nucleotide mutation I have specified... the one that is [i]identical[/i] across [i]all[/i] mammals

@newjaninev2 [quote]Can I now take it that you are, in fact, very familiar with the genetics underlying nucleotide mutations?[/quote]

Even if that were true, that doesn't change the fact that God created them in the first place and evolution has not occurred as you suppose.

@GodSpeed63 so perhaps we can skip directly to [i]your[/i] explanation of the nucleotide mutation I have specified... the one that is [i]identical[/i] across all mammals

Perhaps you’ll even stop trying to dodge away and actually try to substantiate your claims... starting now.

Three multi-choice explanations... but feel free to add to them if you can justify it.

Only... make a choice!

@newjaninev2 [quote]so perhaps we can skip directly to your explanation of the nucleotide mutation I have specified... the one that is identical across all mammals[/quote]

So? What about it?

@GodSpeed63 The nucleotide mutation that isn’t going to go away.

You can pee your panties like a little girl, but it isn’t going to go away.

You said there was no evidence... well, here’s some evidence, and it isn’t going to go away.

I even did the hard work for you, and now it’s down to three multi-choice questions, and they’re simple enough... and they’re not going to go away.

Time for you to chose... or go away

@newjaninev2 [quote]The nucleotide mutation that isn’t going to go away.[/quote]

So? That still not evidence for evolution.

@GodSpeed63 How do you account for the fact that it’s on the [i]same[/i] nucleotide for [i]every[/i] species of ape?

The same nucleotide out of 6.4 billion nucleotides.

@newjaninev2 [quote]How do you account for the fact that it’s on the same nucleotide for every species of ape?

The same nucleotide out of 6.4 billion nucleotides.

Content: Regular Nudity
Post Comment
Dan193 · 26-30
globalization
kodiac · 18-21, M
The religious have been doing that for centuries. Forcing religion on the younger generation without any evidence to back it up .
View more 2 replies »
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@kodiac However for evolutionists claim that only their view is scientific is a flat out lie. Their point of view is just as much a religion as any other. If you are going to ban one religion you must ban them all including science.
kodiac · 18-21, M
@hippyjoe1955 No one is suggesting banning anything ,just that it not be forced on anyone.
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@kodiac can you see a difference?
BetweenKitttensandRiots · 31-35, TVIP
THere is tons of evidence t o support it where the fuck have you been?
View more 4 replies »
BetweenKitttensandRiots · 31-35, TVIP
@GodSpeed63 You don't even understand the definition of the word evidence so there's no point. Other's have gotten into this debate with you in the past and it's evident to me that what you take to be evidence is naught in fact evidence at all.

For instance you act like the fact of creation is self evident merely by the supposed irreducible complexity of certain organs on the human body which I have linked you in the past to content that proved the human eye was horribly flawed if you actually took the time to watch you would be aware of that fact.

nothing that was said in that video could not have been verified by five minutes of research on your own

https://thehumanevolutionblog.com/2015/01/12/the-poor-design-of-the-human-eye/

just another link on the same topic.

To anyone with the brain required to understand what actually constitutes evidence or as you put it the "Eyes to see" the bible for instance is not proof of the claims in the bible and there's no rational reason to take it seriously at all.

Further Design is NOT self evident as you believe it to be, again there are too many problems, your eye can be devoured by insects that borough inside and eat it from the inside out-WHat kind of "loving" designer would make us prey to such creatures? if there is a designer he is exceptionally cruel.

to the religious STDS are evidence of god's wrath but to my mind they are incompatible with a loving creator. no "loving" designer would create such horrors. This is one of the reasons that a blind dumb process like evolution makes far more sense to me.

You christians claim god is love yet children are born with cancer at time. The facts that exist out there in nature are not compatible with the idea of a loving designer.

like I said it's evident to anyone with the eyes to see that if there was in fact a designer of all of this that he's a cruel bastard who delights in torturing his creation. a fucking sadist to the extreme.

Nature proves there is a designer? who are you kidding? In the west perhaps we are removed from the consequences of the natural world due to our medical sciences and advanced technology but elsewhere people are subjected to the mercy of nature and out there it's a predator prey relationship. Consider how some animals are carnivores and must consume other animals to survive and either they eviscerate other animals or they starve to death neither of which is a pleasant death.

that is "Nature." We in the west are so removed from it, the only way you could be so delusional as to to think Creation was self evident is if you were living a comfortable first world life style.

You are evidently from the west. It's obvious because you see evidence all around you of your delusion. if you were really at the mercy of nature where would your faith be?
Pikachu
@BetweenKitttensandRiots

I like that the guy in the video makes that point that there are INDEPENDENT lines of evidence which all point in the same direction.

To people like @GodSpeed63, this presents a problem which can only be address by rejecting the evidence rather than supplying anything resembling a reasoned refutation.
BetweenKitttensandRiots · 31-35, TVIP
@Pikachu He admitted that anything that contradict his worldview is inherently worthless. You remember what I said about it being pointless to engage bible thumpers at all? He proved my point, I think it's about time we all start screaming Hail Satan Hail Satan Hail satan endlessly at him until he runs away screaming. Seriously the next time he starts don't bother posting an actual argument just post Hail Satan, your post has inspired me to join/rekindle my membership in the Satanic Temple! Ave Satanas!



This screen shot is why it's meritless to engage. Make sure you post it too when you are screaming ave satanas.
Asificair · M
🙂 isnt it time for your medication?
BetweenKitttensandRiots · 31-35, TVIP
why do embryos have tails and why are some humans born with them if evolution is horse shit?
newjaninev2 · 51-55, F
“astonishing suddenness”?? Does Wells understand that the Cambrian ‘explosion' lasted for at least 25 million years? If so, why doesn’t he mention that?

Let me make that very clear... an increase in the number of organisms over a period of 25,000,000 years.

This guy is just trying to deceive his audience... and apparently it works (on some people).

The video goes on to talk about a list of “Ph.D. scientists who reject evolution”.

Let’s take a closer look at that list, shall we?

In fact, let’s start by removing all the Ph.D. sociologists, mathematicians, park rangers (yes, there’s one of those!), psychologists, art historians, employees of Jerry Falwell (yes, there’s one of those!), linguists, etc.

Can you guess what happens when we do that?

Can you guess what happens when we then contact those remaining?

Even better, can you guess what happens when we directly contact the few biologists remaining on the list, and ask them if they knew they were on that list, and ask them if they want to be on the list?

Can you guess?

Can you?

Go on... guess
View more 21 replies »
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@newjaninev2
Does Wells understand that the Cambrian ‘explosion' lasted for at least 25 million years? If so, why doesn’t he mention that?

He knows full well that the earth isn't that old in spite of what evolution scientists say.

Until you can show me that it isn’t sitting in my lounge drinking chardonnay and chatting with me about gardening, and bemoaning the stupidity of creationists, then it is

I will not tempt the Lord, my God. He will choose to find you in His own good time. Don't get me wrong, He knows exactly where you are, you're just choosing to get yourself lost.
Carazaa · 56-60, F
@GodSpeed63
I still drink coffee 🙂, But mostly green tea all day!
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@Carazaa
I still drink coffee 🙂, But mostly green tea all day!

👍 I'm glad it doesn't affect you the way it does me. 😀
TheWildEcho · 51-55, M
They'll discover the truth of God one day, sadly , for them ,it'll be one day too late
Emosaur · 18-21, M
Proves how you religious people are intellectually inferior; too ignorant and blinded by your retarded beliefs to grasp science and unable to back up your claims for your invisible sky fairy to be real for centuries.
View more 9 replies »
Emosaur · 18-21, M
@GodSpeed63 Done that many times. The fact you're still unable to grasp it only further proves how stupid and blinded by your beliefs you are.
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@Emosaur
Done that many times.

Name one time.
Emosaur · 18-21, M
@GodSpeed63 https://similarworlds.com/19-Spirituality-Religion/2672772-Are-human-beings-created-in-the-image-of-God-y-n?rid=30938802
whowasthatmaskedman · 61-69, M
God loves Morons.. Thats why he created so many. So the Creationists would nave an audience.😂
View more 2 replies »
newjaninev2 · 51-55, F
@GodSpeed63
free thinking human beings

and they have been the bane of religion ever since
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@newjaninev2
and they have been the bane of religion ever since

You got that right, at least. God wants us to think for our selves rather than be duped my man's dictation of thinking.
newjaninev2 · 51-55, F
@GodSpeed63 Meaningless and self-serving.
1-10 of 17
1 2 Next > Last »
Write a comment...

Content: Regular Nudity
Post Comment

10284 people say
Spirituality & Religion
Personal Stories, Advice, and Support
Ask a Question
Updated: 1 hr ago
Content Rating: Non-Adult
Group Members

[/quote]

So? It still doesn't mean that apes and mankind have a common ancestor.