The Primary Axiom or Evolution is just a lie and should be replaced by Intelligent Design

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

Once again, common ancestry doesn't mean you were once an amoeba.

wtf? Of course not.

It means that all life on this planet has a common denominator.

Yes, which is the unicellular organism which is theoretically our greatest grandparent.

And this is how silly your analogy is - a grandparent could only reproduce with a like species i.e. a human. A unicellular organism CANNOT reproduce with a human (although sometimes I wonder:duh

a reply to: cooperton

Read my next post. It's as clear as a bell!

originally posted by: Phantom423

And this is how silly your analogy is - a grandparent could only reproduce with a like species i.e. a human.

Didn't you notice my purposeful sexually ambiguous declaration, "grandparent"? It is the parent cell of all of life, and therefore our greatest grandparent.

A unicellular organism CANNOT reproduce with a human (although sometimes I wonder:duh

I never said that. Where are you getting these rediculous assumptions? All I am saying, according to the phylogeny, our greatest grandparent was the original lifeform, the first (theoretical) unicellular cell.

a reply to: Phantom423

Divergence, speciation and transitional life forms have been observed for a long time by archaeologists. It's no mystery and it's not new information.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Phantom423

Divergence, speciation and transitional life forms have been observed for a long time by archaeologists. It's no mystery and it's not new information.

Yes but if you trace their divergence back, you will arrive at the common ancestor; a unicellular organism.

a reply to: cooperton

Oh a joke? IS that the best you can do to counter my points? Go on, show that the theory of evolution is what you want it to be. Otherwise, you are wrong. So move along citizen.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423

And this is how silly your analogy is - a grandparent could only reproduce with a like species i.e. a human.

Didn't you notice my purposeful sexually ambiguous declaration, "grandparent"? It is the parent cell of all of life, and therefore our greatest grandparent.

A unicellular organism CANNOT reproduce with a human (although sometimes I wonder:duh

I never said that. Where are you getting these rediculous assumptions? All I am saying, according to the phylogeny, our greatest grandparent was the original lifeform, the first (theoretical) unicellular cell.

I'm a scientist - I don't give a rat's ass about sexually ambiguous bs.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

Oh a joke? IS that the best you can do to counter my points? Go on, show that the theory of evolution is what you want it to be. Otherwise, you are wrong. So move along citizen.

You showed no points, you self-gratified yourself by talking about your background in bioinformatics and then some erroneous insults. The truth is, You're a chauvinistic textbook parrot - but I still love you and I don't think its too late for you.

originally posted by: Phantom423

I'm a scientist - I don't give a rat's ass about sexually ambiguous bs.

Nice side-tracking post. Just so you know, because it appears as though you do not, but, by adhering to the theory of evolution, and believing in the phylogenetic tree, you inherently believe that your long-lost greatest ancestor is a unicellular organism.

a reply to: Phantom423

Oi of all things to inject into one of these threads, someone tries to be gender neutral?

I'd tell him "exually ambiguous, you use that phrase, I do not think it means, what you think it means"

But that would make me a joke, and that hurts my wittle feelings, we scientists are such emotional types after all ....

Ok in all seriousness, I would like one of these threads to start with an accurate depiction of evolution (definition, evidence etc) then they try to deconstruct that.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Phantom423

Oi of all things to inject into one of these threads, someone tries to be gender neutral?

I'd tell him "exually ambiguous, you use that phrase, I do not think it means, what you think it means"

But that would make me a joke, and that hurts my wittle feelings, we scientists are such emotional types after all ....

Ok in all seriousness, I would like one of these threads to start with an accurate depiction of evolution (definition, evidence etc) then they try to deconstruct that.

Still no substance.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

Oh a joke? IS that the best you can do to counter my points? Go on, show that the theory of evolution is what you want it to be. Otherwise, you are wrong. So move along citizen.

You showed no points, you self-gratified yourself by talking about your background in bioinformatics and then some erroneous insults. The truth is, You're a chauvinistic textbook parrot - but I still love you and I don't think its too late for you.

originally posted by: Phantom423

I'm a scientist - I don't give a rat's ass about sexually ambiguous bs.

Nice side-tracking post. Just so you know, because it appears as though you do not, but, by adhering to the theory of evolution, and believing in the phylogenetic tree, you inherently believe that your long-lost greatest ancestor is a unicellular organism.

Not necessarily. The evidence points to a common ancestor. How the initial phases of life formed and distributed is hypothesis to everyone INCLUDING YOU. We've observed evolution in real time. How speciation and divergence actually occurs will remain a subject of research. But we certainly know enough about genetics and molecular biology to understand that a statement like I WAS ONCE A UNICELLULAR ORGANISM, or I WAS ONCE A GORILLA or A CHIMPANZEE is highly inaccurate. YOU are a human. I am a human. The next phase of evolution which is occurring as we speak will produce another life form of common ancestry BUT WILL NOT BE HUMAN.

a reply to: cooperton

Chauvinistic? I don't see any injection of national superiority and glory in this discussion from myself. I've not waved the silver fern here? Nor talked about Gallipoli, the All Blacks, or any such thing.

I have stated the theory of evolution. I've stated that YOUR supposition is wrong. Which led you to having this little tantrum. quod erat demonstrandum..

As for the rest. No thanks, I gave at the office, and my wife would prefer you stop making a pass at me We pagans are moral beings.

a reply to: cooperton

At this point it is clear you don't know what IS of substance in a discussion based on evolution, creation, or anything outside of a sector of Abrahamic faith. Get back to me when you've experienced a bit more of life.

a reply to: Noinden

There's a wealth of information in the ATS library that I developed. Not to mention the information in all these topics on this board contributed by posters like BARCS, Peter Var and others who understand the science and know that WE DON'T KNOW EVERYTHING. On the other side, however, THEY KNOW NYET (as we say in my language).

a reply to: Phantom423

I've waded into the library. It is a crying shame that they (creationists) do not understand the purpose of the library. Myself I have access to a lot of things, Reaxis and Scifinder make my work life, and my down time very interesting

a reply to: Noinden

Well science is about an open mind. Big questions still to be answered. But making declarations without evidence is just stupid. If a person had never seen an airplane, knew nothing about it, and then they were asked to take a ride in it, what would be the logical thing to ask? The EVIDENCE that it flies and I won't be killed. What a concept! Evidence!

a reply to: Phantom423

You don't have to tell me what science is about It is also about being stubborn, there are very few "eureka" moments, and lots of "damn it" ones. Well in the wet lab sciences there are.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Phantom423

You don't have to tell me what science is about

It is also about being stubborn, there are very few "eureka" moments, and lots of "damn it" ones. Well in the wet lab sciences there are.

Absolutely. As a bench scientist, I know that. But the AhHa moment is usually few and far between - and comes after a lot of hard work.

This article appeared in Phys.Org in March.

Without ancestral gene life on Earth might not have evolved beyond slime
March 3, 2016
phys.org...

"From sequencing the genomes of humans, we knew that about 500 genes for different protein kinases all had similar blueprints," said Pelech. "Our new research revealed that the gene probably originated from bacteria for facilitating the synthesis of proteins and then mutated to acquire completely new functions." Read more at: phys.org...

For more than 30 years, researchers have known that most protein kinases came from a common ancestor because their genes are so similar. Read more at: phys.org...

The original article in the Journal of Biological Chemistry

Evolutionary Ancestry of Eukaryotic Protein Kinases and Choline Kinases*
Shenshen Lai‡1, Javad Safaei§1 and Steven Pelech‡,¶2


www.jbc.org...

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Phantom423

Divergence, speciation and transitional life forms have been observed for a long time by archaeologists. It's no mystery and it's not new information.

Yes but if you trace their divergence back, you will arrive at the common ancestor; a unicellular organism.

You make some good points. Maybe they will need to phone another friend to find some answers. Here's some more info:

Is DNA a Code?

Code is defined as the rules of communication between an encoder (a “writer” or “speaker”) and a decoder (a “reader” or “listener”) using agreed upon symbols.

DNA’s definition as a literal code (and not a figurative one) is nearly universal in the entire body of biological literature since the 1960’s.

DNA code has much in common with human language and computer languages

DNA transcription is an encoding / decoding mechanism isomorphic with Claude Shannon’s 1948 model: The sequence of base pairs is encoded into messenger RNA which is decoded into proteins.

Information theory terms and ideas applied to DNA are not metaphorical, but in fact quite literal in every way. In other words, the information theory argument for design is not based on analogy at all. It is direct application of mathematics to DNA, which by definition is a code.

cosmicfingerprints.com...

You have sequences of DNA with multiple meanings and the same sequences can be read and expressed in different ways. Again, saying evolution without intelligence can encode multiple meanings on sequences of DNA and then make the machinary to read and decode this information is ABSURD. to say the least. Check out this video that talks about multiple meanings in sequences in DNA. It goes over some basic stuff, so you can jump to the 7:14 mark.

The book Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life is written by Hubert Yockey, the foremost living specialist in bioinformatics. The publisher is Cambridge University press. Yockey rigorously demonstrates that the coding process in DNA is identical to the coding process and mathematical definitions used in Electrical Engineering. This is not subjective, it is not debatable or even controversial. It is a brute fact:

“Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies.” (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005)

cosmicfingerprints.com...