Macroevolution examples

[natureisawesome]

Except it's not a "retroviral gene insertion". (what an imaginative name was made up there) As a side note, it's commonly understood that when animals breed different characteristics and become more specialized they can have a loss of genetic information. I think it's possible this may be the case with thie cats as well. There are other possibilites perhaps.

natureisawesome Reviewed by natureisawesome on 08-21-2007. Macroevolution examples Supporters of Creationism believe that there are no example(s) of Macroevolution - put simply most supporters of creationism don't believe that living things have become more complex over time. This is a broad generalisation but it will fit most peoples understanding of the concepts. From Wikipedia: Some Creationists have also adopted the term "macroevolution" to describe the form of evolution that they reject. They may accept that evolutionary change is possible within species Rating: 5

[Delta9 UK]

Rubbish

It shows clear common descent and you don't like it.

You ignored what this post is about.

I'm too busy to argue with someone like you today.

[Delta9 UK]

LMAO you post a link to CreationWiki and your genesis website again....

Dude, give it up - the rest of the scientific community has it covered.

[Delta9 UK]

This is microevolution. Not increase in information. This is genetic variability. Creationists believe in this. They believe all cats came from a common anscestor - a cat. They don't believe that cats and dogs came from a common anscestor - that's magical fantasy land.

Read it properly or I will no longer respect your ability to cut and paste something ever again! I was giving another example of HERV-K insertion and how they are passed down.

READ MORE - POST LESS

This is common descent another really good example.

[couch-potato]

Nobody liked my link?

[natureisawesome]

Read it properly or I will no longer respect your ability to cut and paste something ever again! I was giving another example of HERV-K insertion and how they are passed down.

READ MORE - POST LESS

This is common descent another really good example.

I know what you were doing. You conclusion is based upon the already made assumption that " Endogenous retroviruses are molecular remnants of a past parasitic viral infection. ". You state this like a fact when it's not a fact at all.

What orginally was hastilly and foolishly called junk dna by evolutionists, after research there has been more and more functions found for these so called useless remnants. It's alot like the old vestigial organs myth. Over 100 organs were pronounced useless leftovers of evolution. This was once a popular idea for evolution, but as it turns out, the list of vestigial organs has shrunk to almost nothing.

You're blinded by your pressupposition. It looks like humans and some primates have the same "junk" dna but you fail to consider that they're not junk at all, and they serve a common purpose created by a common design.

So it's similar with the cat arguement. It could be argued that they both had the dna but when the larger cats became more spe cialized they lost that information. Or maybe there's another reason why.

We're dealing with a topic that is one of the most incredibly complicated of all sciences. I don't even come close to understand all of the technical data and terms and no doubt neither do you.

There are four major kinds of junk DNA:

introns, internal segments in genes that are removed at the RNA level;

pseudogenes, genes inactivated by an insertion or deletion;

satellite sequences, tandem arrays of short repeats; and

interspersed repeats, which are longer repetitive sequences mostly derived from mobile DNA elements.


Some of the now known functions of what was once thought useless are genome structure and function, gene regulation and rapid speciation.

Here are some ideas of what the dna might be also. They don't rule out the possibility that there is some truly junk dna, but not like evolutionists think of it, but rather as previously useful dna that has been affected by mutations. But there is still much work to be done in weeding out the working dna that currently serves a purpose with the other stuff.

All non-coding sequences could have been created with functions, but some have lost their functions due to Godâ??s purposeful limitations, and/or accumulation of mutations post-Fall. This would fit in with our observation of the rest of creation, where, though the perfection of Godâ??s design can be seen, it has become obscured by consequences of the Fall, allowing death and suffering to enter the world.

There is the possibility that some of the elements, such as the mobile elements in particular, have never had designed functions. Rather, they are pieces of degenerate DNA affected by the Fall that randomly move about and mutate genomes, causing only deleterious effects.

....The ability of DNA sequences to rearrange and/or to move about in the genome or even between genomes, was originally a heretical idea for both evolutionist and creationist, but now is one that is strongly supported as being an integral part of gene regulation. Many systems utilizing similar recombination and rearrangement mechanisms are necessary for important cellular functions, such as the process of DNA repair, rearrangement of DNA segments to form the genes for the thousands of different antibodies, the yeast mating type switching system, the flagellar switching system of Salmonella, and the antigen switching system of the malaria parasite. Therefore, the second scenario seems the most likely.

So no, it's not established as a fact that " Endogenous retroviruses are molecular remnants of a past parasitic viral infection. " And it shows how far you're willing to go to believe in evolution. The evidence is showing more and more that the genome is more complex than we ever expected.

[natureisawesome]

The evolutionary claim that pseudogenes and their respective variations are shared between primates in a nested hierarchy, and can only be explained through common evolutionary descent, is found wanting. Evidence for pseudogene function continues to accumulate, and is much more significant than the actual number of known functional pseudogenes. In addition, pseudogene-related phenomena show considerable differences between â??closeâ?? primates, and are neither self-consistent nor in agreement with other phylogenetic interpretations. Furthermore, pseudogene deployment and alteration are governed by strongly non-random events. Unless evolutionists can rigorously demonstrate that pseudogene-related phenomena cannot occur independently in different primates, their â??shared mistakesâ?? argument should be rejected.

Are pseudogenes ‘shared mistakes’ between primate genomes?

[BlueDevil]

"And God said to Peter: I shall make monkey and I shall make man and never the two shall interbreed, until the age of extreme fetishist internet pornography"

Oxford Professor of Theology, Paula Abdul

Heehee! Now all she needs is her own www.answersfrompaula.org site and voila! Instant credibility!

[natureisawesome]

blue devil said:

Quote:
"And God said to Peter: I shall make monkey and I shall make man and never the two shall interbreed, until the age of extreme fetishist internet pornography"

Oxford Professor of Theology, Paula Abdul

Heehee! Now all she needs is her own www.answersfrompaula.org site and voila! Instant credibility!

Character assassination

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Character assasination)
Jump to: navigation, search

Character assassination is an intentional attempt to influence the portrayal or reputation of a particular person, whether living or a historical personage, in such a way as to cause others to develop an extremely negative, unethical or unappealing perception of him or her. By its nature, it involves deliberate exaggeration or manipulation of facts to present an untrue picture of the targeted person. For living individuals, this can cause the target to be rejected by his or her community, family, or members of his or her living or work environment. Such acts are typically very difficult to reverse or rectify, therefore the process is likened to a literal assassination of a human life. The damage sustained can be life-long and more, or for historical personages, last for many centuries after their death.

In practice, character assassination usually consists of the spreading of rumors and deliberate misinformation on topics relating to one's morals, integrity, and reputation.

In politics, perhaps the most common form of character assassination is the spread of allegations that a candidate is a liar. Other common themes may include allegations that the candidate is a bad or unpopular member of his family, has a bad relationship with his spouse or children, is disrespected by his former co-workers, or routinely engages in disturbing, socially unacceptable behavior, such as sexual deviancy.

[The Marsh Wiggle]

It's amazing to hear most people speak of the Theory of Evolution as if it were a Law. Scientists have found bone fragments from Aust. Afarensis, Aust. Gigantus, Homo Habilis, Homo Sapien-Sapien, etc.

But it seems that no one finds things that are between species. Isn't that odd?

If A morphs into B, wouldn't we find more A.1, A.2, A.3... than either A.0 or B.0?

And this theory doesn't even make sense on the face. For example, the theory says that certain species have qualities about them that enable them to "win out" over their rival species. So, then we say, well what are those qualities. We look at the ones that survive and say, "Yes, these are the qualities."

So basically, the theory of evolution says the ones that survive are the ones who have the qualities of the ones that survived.

This is a tautology. It means nothing.

But find anyone who tries to go against this Theory-cum-Law and they are cast as the anti-scientist.

No proof of evolution exists. It's just a matter of opinion.

The fact that the fossil record indicates that many life forms have become extinct does not support evolution. The fossil record just proves that many life forms have become extinct. The idea that some of the life forms are similar in some ways is not surprising. However, this similarity does not mean one is the progenitor of the other.

The problem is that most people carry the theory of evolution to an extreme. Like the autobiogenisis idea and the idea that evolution is always toward a better more complex animal.

Autobiogenisis is against the natural laws of this particular universe. Autobiogenisis requires that organic life, the most organized matter in our universe, originated from less organized matter. This idea is not science but rather is wishful thinking.

Autobiogenisis by random chance would require more time than a few billions of years. This is why the world of science is clutching desparately at the notion that life must have come from outer space. But even with this "pie in the sky" idea there is not sufficient time involved to turn chaos into life. The everything from nothing or "big bang" idea doesn't help evolution it just adds to the wishful thinking.

The idea that the theory of evolution dictates that as organisms evolve they gain complexity is just plain not contained in the theory. Evolution theory says that as the environment changes the oganisims evolve adaptations and the best adaptation survives. This does not mean that this adaptation is more complex but rather only better for suvival in that particular environment.

The missing link debates are premature at this point because the theory of evolution has so far failed to justify it's own exsistance, scientifically.