Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by garbonzo, Sep 30, 2015.

  1. garbonzo Registered Senior Member

    Just because something exists in nature doesn't mean it was invented or made by Nature. If all the chemicals necessary to make a cell were left to themselves, "Mother Nature" would have no ability to organize them into a cell. It requires an already existing cell (with a directing genetic code and biological machinery) to bring about another cell. The cell exists and reproduces in nature but Nature didn't invent or design it! Nature didn't originate the cell or any form of life. An intelligent power outside of nature had to be responsible.

    Stanley Miller, in his famous experiment in 1953, showed that individual amino acids (the building blocks of life) could come into existence by chance. But, it's not enough just to have amino acids. The various amino acids that make-up life must link together in a precise sequence, just like the letters in a sentence, to form functioning protein molecules. If they're not in the right sequence the protein molecules won't work. It has never been shown that various amino acids can bind together into a sequence by chance to form protein molecules.

    Also, what many don't realize is that Miller had a laboratory apparatus that shielded and protected the individual amino acids the moment they were formed, otherwise the amino acids would have quickly disintegrated and been destroyed in the mix of random energy and forces involved in Miller's experiment. A partially evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate in the open environment, not wait millions of years for chance to make it complete and then become living.

    Miller's experiment produced equally both left-handed and right-handed amino acids, but all living things strictly require only left-handed amino acids to be in the right sequence. If a right-handed amino acid gets into the chain the protein won't work. DNA and RNA, comprising the genetic code, require strictly only right-handed nucleic acids to be in an exact sequence.

    The probability of just a single average protein size molecule arising by chance is 10 to the 65th power. Mathematicians have said any event in the universe with odds of 10 to 50th power or greater is impossible! Even the simplest cell is made up of many millions of various protein molecules. The late great British scientist Sir Frederick Hoyle calculated that the the odds of the simplest cell coming into existence by chance is 10 to the 40,000th power! How large is this? Consider that the total number of atoms in our universe is 10 to the 82 power.

    The odds of even the simplest DNA code originating by chance is similar to that of a monkey producing a dictionary (with all the letters, words, and punctuation in the right sequence) by randomly pressing the keys on a computer keyboard or typewriter.

    Natural laws can explain how an airplane or living cell works, but it's irrational to believe that mere undirected natural laws can bring about the origin of an airplane or a cell. Once you have a complete and living cell then the genetic program and biological machinery exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how could the cell have originated naturally when no directing code and mechanisms existed in nature? All of the founders of modern science believed in God. Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM

    Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from sea sponge to human). How did species survive if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Survival of the fittest would actually have prevented evolution across kinds! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! (2nd Edition).

    Natural selection doesn't produce biological traits or variations. It can only "select" from biological variations that are possible and which have survival value. For example, if a variation occurs (i.e. change in skin color) that helps an animal to survive, that survival is called being "selected." The real issue is what biological variations are possible, not natural selection.

    Modern evolutionists believe and hope that over, supposedly, millions of years, random genetic mutations in the genes caused by environmental radiation will generate entirely new genes for natural selection to use. This is total blind and irrational faith. It's much like believing that randomly changing the sequence of letters in a romance novel, over millions of years, will turn it into a book on astronomy! That's the kind of blind faith macro-evolutionists have.

    Mutations are accidents in the genetic code, are mostly harmful, and have no capability of producing greater complexity in the code. Even if a good accident occurred, for every good one there would be hundreds of harmful ones with the net result, over time, being harmful, even lethal, to the species. At best, mutations only produce further variations within a natural species. Even so, mutations are not the best explanation for variations within a natural species.

    Since it isn't rational to believe that genetic information, like any other form of information, can arise by chance, then it is totally rational to believe that God (the Supreme Genetic Engineer), from the beginning, placed within all natural species the recessive and dominant genes to produce the varieties we find within natural species.

    If life on earth had really existed for millions of years, all species would have become extinct by now due to the colossal number of accumulated mutations over time (please read the author’s popular Internet article, ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD?).

    What about genetic and biological similarities between species? Genetic information, like other forms of information, cannot happen by chance, so it is more logical to believe that genetic and biological similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Only genetic similarities within a natural species proves relationship because it's only within a natural species that members can interbreed and reproduce.

    "JUNK" DNA ISN'T JUNK. It's we who were ignorant of its usefulness. Recent scientific research published in scientific journals such as Nature and RNA has revealed that the “non-coding” segments of DNA are essential in regulating gene expression (i.e. when, where, and how genes are expressed, so they're not "junk").

    Even more recent scientific evidence shows that they do code for proteins, after all, and that we need to readjust our thinking of how the cell reads the genetic code (Read "Human Proteome More Complex Than Previously Thought," Internet article by Dr. Jeffrey Tomkins). Recent research also shows that repetitive (or so-called "useless") structures in DNA are vital in forming the chromosome matrix, which, in turn, enables chromosomes to be functional and operative.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    In a way, turtle evolution is an easy story to follow: the basic turtle body plan arose very early in the history of life (during the late Triassic period), and has persisted pretty much unchanged down to the present day, with the usual variations in size, habitat and ornamentation. As with most other types of animals, though, the turtle evolutionary tree includes its share of missing links (some identified, some not), false starts, and short-lived episodes of gigantism.

    Turtles that Weren't - The Placodonts of the Triassic Period
    Before discussing the evolution of genuine turtles, it's important to say a few words about convergent evolution: the tendency of creatures that inhabit roughly the same ecosystems to develop roughly the same body plans. As you probably already know, the theme of "squat, stubby-legged, slow-moving animal with a big, hard shell to defend itself against predators" has been repeated numerous times throughout history: witness dinosaurs like Ankylosaurus and Euoplocephalusand giant Pleistocene mammals like Glyptodon andDoedicurus.

    This brings us to the placodonts, an obscure family of Triassic reptiles closely related to the plesiosaurs and pliosaurs of the Mesozoic Era. The poster genus for this group, Placodus, was an unremarkable-looking creature that spent most of its time on land, but some of its marine relatives--including Henodus, Placochelys and Psephoderma--looked uncannily like genuine turtles, with their stubby heads and legs, hard shells, and tough, sometimes toothless beaks.

    Compare Electricity Plans

    Find a Range of Plans to Match Your Needs. You Could Save at iSelect.
    These marine reptiles were as close as you could get to turtles without actually being turtles; sadly, they went extinct as a group about 200 million years ago.

    The First Turtles
    Paleontologists still haven't identified the exact family of prehistoric reptiles that spawned modern turtles and tortoises, but they do know one thing: it wasn't the placodonts. Lately, the bulk of the evidence points to an ancestral role for Eunotosaurus, a late Permian reptile whose wide, elongated ribs curved over its back (a striking adumbration of the hard shells of later turtles). Eunotosaurus itself seems to have been a pareiasaur, an obscure family of ancient reptiles the most notable member of which was the (completely unshelled) Scutosaurus.

    Until recently, fossil evidence linking the land-dwelling Eunotosaurus and the giant, marine turtles of the late Cretaceous period was sorely lacking. That all changed in 2008 with two major discoveries: first up was the late Jurassic, western European Eileanchelys, touted by researchers as the earliest marine turtle yet identified. Unfortunately, only a few weeks later, Chinese paleontologists announced the discovery ofOdontochelys, which lived a whopping 50 million years earlier. Crucially, this soft-shelled marine turtle possessed a full set of teeth, which subsequent turtles gradually shed over tens of millions of years of evolution. (A new development as of June 2015: researchers have identified a late Triassic proto-turtle,Pappochelys, that was intermediate in form between Eunotosaurus and Odontochelys and thus fills an important gap in the fossil record!)

    Odontochelys prowled the shallow waters of eastern Asia about 220 million years ago; another important prehistoric turtle, Proganochelys, pops up in the western European fossil record about 10 million years later. This much bigger turtle had fewer teeth than Odontochelys, and the prominent spikes on its neck meant that it couldn't fully retract its head under its shell (it also had an ankylosaur-like clubbed tail). Most important, the carapace of Proganochelys was "fully baked": hard, snug and pretty much impervious to hungry predators.

    The Giant Turtles of the Mesozoic and Cenozoic Eras
    By the early Jurassic period, about 200 million years ago, prehistoric turtles and tortoises were pretty much locked into their modern body plans, though there was still room for innovation. The most notable turtles of the Cretaceous period were a pair of marine giants, Archelon and Protostega, both measuring about 10 feet long from head to tail and weighing about two tons. As you might expect, these giant turtles were equipped with broad, powerful front flippers, the better to propel their bulk through the water; their closest living relative is the much smaller (less than one ton) Leatherback.

    You have to fast-forward about 60 million years, to the Pleistocene epoch, to find prehistoric turtles that approached the size of this duo (this doesn't mean giant turtles weren't around in the intervening years, just that we haven't found much evidence). The one-ton, southern Asian Colossochelys (formerly classified as a species of Testudo) can pretty much be described as a plus-sized Galapagos tortoise, while the slightly smaller Meiolania from Australia improved on the basic turtle body plan with a spiked tail and a huge, weirdly armored head. (By the way, Meiolania received its name--Greek for "little wanderer"--in reference to the contemporary Megalania, a two-ton monitor lizard.)

    The turtles mentioned above all belong to the "cryptodire" family, which accounts for the vast majority of marine and terrestrial species. But no discussion about prehistoric turtles would be complete without a mention of the aptly named Stupendemys, a two-ton "pleurodire" turtle of Pleistocene South America (what distinguishes pleurodire from cryptodire turtles is that they pull their heads into their shells with a sideways, rather than a front-to-back, motion). Stupendemys was far and away the largest freshwater turtle that ever lived; most modern "side-necks" weigh about 20 pounds, max!

    The following is a list of the most notable prehistoric turtles and placodonts; just click on the links for more information.

    Evolution is a fact, pure and simple.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Dr_Toad It's green! Valued Senior Member

    So is denial of reason in the very face of fact.

    Why is religiosity so important in the the social acceptance of abject stupidity, and so adamant in refusal to accept ideas that actually work out factually, instead of reliance on Thor, for instance, to "explain" thunder?

    Why is idiocy celebrated? (For those that need the short version.)
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Russ_Watters and spidergoat like this.
  8. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Nice plagiarism and/or spam (this exact post, nearly word for word, is all over the internet)

    Example of plagiarism and/or spam: (see comments from Babu Ranganathan)

    Please understand that plagiarism and spam are NOT tolerated per our site rules.
  9. Bells Staff Member

    Mod Note

    Garbonzo. I notice that your OP is posted in various other articles and sites, in comments section and all are written by the exact same person. Are you aware that plagiarism is against this site's rules?
  10. Bells Staff Member

    It was also posted in various other sites as well. Whether he is the same person spamming this across multiple sites, from university websites and their scientific and evolutionary articles, to news sites in all of their comments section or not, it would still classify as spam and trolling.

    The posts that are being copied and pasted on various other sites are all for different subjects, from bumble bees to the rare nautilus that was recently seen.
  11. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    Are you Babu G. Ranganathan?
  12. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    The opening post reads like an advertisement for various articles written by Mr Ranganathan.

    A few comments...

    Would you say your computer was made by Nature? Probably not. Yet humans were "made by nature" and we made computers, so in a roundabout way perhaps computers were made by nature after all.

    Or maybe just some kind of cell precursor thing that no longer exists in nature.

    Are you sure?

    If that's true, then it only points to the conclusion that there must have been a pre-cell stage of life that eventually led to the creation of a "fully-evolved" cell.

    It's a good thing that evolution doesn't depend solely on random chance, then, isn't it?

    Natural selection (and other selection processes) directs evolution.

    This would not refute evolution, even if it were true.

    The "kind" is a meaningless concept in biology.

    How do you survive when your vital tissues etc. are still evolving?

    A much more significant effect is the mixing of genes that results from sexual reproduction.

    It is nonsense to suggest that a random change could never produce greater complexity. A common genetic change is a duplication of a particular stretch of DNA. That obviously increases information in the genome, right there.

    No, because natural selection operates so that good changes tend to come to dominate a species over time.

    That's a false dichotomy. Also, why God? That's a huge leap. Why not aliens or something (for example)?

    How old do you think the Earth is, and how old do you think life on Earth is? It sounds like you're arguing for young earth creationism. Is that what you're doing?

    Why are the kinds of similarities exactly what we would expect if the modern evolutionary synthesis was correct?

Share This Page