Поставите питања везана за еволуциону биологију

[Aquilius Cratus]

http://creation.com/toy-car-rocks-million-year-belief

Woooow "it looked old". How scientific. t4431 0110_hahaha 0110_hahaha 0110_hahaha 0110_hahaha 0110_hahaha 0110_hahaha 0110_hahaha 0110_hahaha 0110_hahaha 0110_hahaha 0110_hahaha 0110_hahaha 0110_hahaha 0110_hahaha 0110_hahaha 0110_hahaha 0110_hahaha 0110_hahaha 0110_hahaha 0110_hahaha 0110_hahaha 0110_hahaha 0110_hahaha 0110_hahaha

Ovo je neki novi naucni argument

Grisa: 1+1=300

Akvi: Hahahahahahahah

Grisa: Jel to hahahahahah neki naucni argument?

Ne bato ti prvo treba da izneses nesto sto ima veze sa naukom pa da ti odgovorim ovo je neka detinjasta zezancija.

[grigorije22]

http://creation.com/toy-car-rocks-million-year-belief

Woooow "it looked old". How scientific. t4431 0110_hahaha 0110_hahaha 0110_hahaha 0110_hahaha 0110_hahaha 0110_hahaha 0110_hahaha 0110_hahaha 0110_hahaha 0110_hahaha 0110_hahaha 0110_hahaha 0110_hahaha 0110_hahaha 0110_hahaha 0110_hahaha 0110_hahaha 0110_hahaha 0110_hahaha 0110_hahaha 0110_hahaha 0110_hahaha 0110_hahaha 0110_hahaha

Ovo je neki novi naucni argument

Grisa: 1+1=300

Akvi: Hahahahahahahah

Grisa: Jel to hahahahahah neki naucni argument?

Ne bato ti prvo treba da izneses nesto sto ima veze sa naukom pa da ti odgovorim ovo je neka detinjasta zezancija.

http://creation.com/vige-function

[Aquilius Cratus]

http://creation.com/vige-function

Jel toliko tesko konacno shvatiti posle masovnog ponavljanja da ovo o cemu Borger prica ne moze

da se odnosi na sve ERVove?!

Primer: ERV-3. Prvi sisari su bili monotreme: bića koja su imala mlečne žlezde, ali su pritom legla jaja kao i njihovi preci (dva predstavnika ove grupe postoje i danas: kljunar i ehidna). Jaja monotrema imaju ljusku i jajnu membranu. U daljoj evoluciji, ljuska jajeta je omekšala, stopila se sa jajnom membranom, i postala ono što danas zovemo placenta: membrana koja okružuje novonastali embrion.

    U jednom trenutku u toku ove evolucije, predak svih placentalnih sisara je postao zaražen retrovirusom. Između ostalih gena, ovaj virus je nosio gen koji potiskuje imuni sistem, što je omogućavalo virusu da se lakše odupre imunim napadima. Kod jedne jedinke, virus se integrisao u semene ćelije, i to u delu DNK koji je aktivan u placentalnom tkivu.

    No, u ovom slučaju, rezultat integracije je bio da se ovaj gen aktivira u placentalnom tkivu: tkivu koje okružuje embrion i štiti ga od imunog sistema majke. Prisustvo ovog gena je imalo pozitivan efekt na reprodukciju, smanjenje šanse da dođe do imunološkog odbacivanja fetusa. Samim tim, ovaj gen je potpao pod prirodnu selekciju, i postao je deo opšteg placentalnog genetskog sistema. Danas svi placentalni sisari i dalje nose ostatak ovog virusa u svom genomu; svi drugi delovi su degenerisali, ali ovaj imunosupresivni gen je ostao aktivan, prisutan, i pod konstantnim selektivnim pritiskom

http://www.teorijaevolucije.com/transfer_i_mesanje.html

[grigorije22]

Vise ti ERV virusi mi se popese na glavu gore nego split brain

Most biologists assume endogenous retroviruses are remnants of ancestral germ line infections (Belshaw et al. 2005). Since humans and primates share similar ERVs, not only in sequence but also in position, it is assumed that exogenous retroviruses infected the common ancestor of both (Belshaw et al. 2005; Bonnaud et al. 2005). The best alternative explanation is that orthologous ERVs were created to occupy similar genomic loci in separate species by a single designer to carry out similar physiological functions.

Tu temu o ERV virusima sam postavio na jednu grupu pa cu da postavim odgovore

It has been noticed recently that integration of human and animal retroviruses into the host genome is not entirely random. For example, the murine leukemia virus prefers transcription start sites, while the human immunodeficiency virus prefers to insert in actively transcribed genes (Mitchell et al. 2004). While the preferred sites of modern pathogenic retroviruses may have deviated from the intended targets at the time of their creation, the phenomenon does suggest precise insertion as a designed feature of retroviruses. The yeast Ty elements demonstrate even stricter target site preference.”

“So the ERV-W elements in OWMs and hominoids are not necessarily related by descent, but are created to perform related functions in different primate families. This view is supported by another related finding of an ERV-H element immediately upstream of the ERV-W element. Unlike the ERV-W, the ERV-H element is present in NWMs, as well as in Catarrhines. However, the element is so different between Platyrrhines and Catarrhines that different symbols, ERV-H(p) and ERV-H©, are used, and they are considered “lineage specific,” implying independent origins (Bonnaud et al. 2005). So even evolutionists sometimes acknowledge that orthologous sequences at similar loci are not necessarily phylogenetic twins. “

This whole field of discovery is relatively new. Like I said above, our understanding of ERVs is radically different from that just 10 years ago. Creationists have been predictiing all along that ERVs will come to have more and more functions as research continues. These predictions are coming true. So, although I admit, we do not have all the answers (who does when it comes to science!), I do believe we will not be having this particular discussion in a few years.

Regarding ERV and pseudogene functionality from the secular literature:

‘There seems to be the case that some functionality has been discovered in all cases, or nearly all, whenever this possibility has been pursued with "suitable investigations." One may well conclude that most pseudogenes retain or acquire some functionality and, thus, that it may not be appropriate to define pseudogenes as non-functional sequences of genomic DNA originally derived from functional genes, or as “genes that are no longer expressed but bear sequence similarity to active genes (99, p. 114) [sic] [emphasis added]”.’

‘An extensive and fast-increasing literature does not justify a sharp division between genes and pseudogenes that would place pseudogenes in the class of genomic “junk” DNA that lacks function and is not subject to natural selection.’

Balakirev, E.S. and Ayala, F.J., Pseudogenes: are they ‘junk’ or functional DNA? Annual Review of Genetics 37:123–151, 2003.

Here’s the problem Michael, when it comes to the genome, for all we’ve discovered to date, we still know very, very little. Take this comment form Watson of Watson and Crick regarding the genome (not including ERVs and pseudogens which are even more mysterious):

‘The most humbling aspect of the Human Genome Project so far has been the realization that we know remarkably little about what the vast majority of human genes do.’

Watson, J.D., DNA: The Secret of Life, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, p. 217, 2003

The fact is, there are some real problems with the 0442_feel of ‘shared mistakes.’ It is first of all assumed that pseudogenes are actually non-functional and ‘mutated.’ But are you aware of how the secular scientific community decide what is and what is not a pseudogene?

They actually compare what are called synonymous and non-synonymous ratios in codons (this is related to the degree of mutation). This ratio method is called the Ka and Ks ratio. Yet are you aware of the many assumptions that go into this ratio determination? Here is a quote from Wiki:

“Methods for estimating Ka and Ks can be classified into three groups: approximate methods, maximum-likelihood methods, and counting methods. However, unless the sequences to be compared are distantly related (in which case ML methods prevail), the class of method used makes a minimal impact on the results obtained; more important are the assumptions implicit in the chosen method.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ka/Ks_ratio

Secondly, it is also assumed that ‘shared mistakes’ cannot occur independently. Yet this is an evolutionary ‘assumption.’

Take the GULO gene of guinni pigs. They share the exact same ‘shared mistakes’ with humans, which is about 36%.

Yet prosimians, a lower primate have all of the same genes in perfect working order! Remember, the guinni pig is not even closely related to the prosimian and even further removed from primates such as humans.

So, we’re supposed to believe that the guinni pig inherits these ‘shared mistakes,’ then, millions of years later the prosimian primates evolved, and then the GULO genes ‘all’ changed back to normal before humans acquired the ‘exact’ same mistakes again!??!!

That independent mutations occur is evidenced in this secular paper:

‘One exceptional change is a duplicated segment of GGGATGCC in intron 4, which is shared by the gorilla and the orangutan. However, because this change is phylogenetically incompatible with any of the three possible sister-relationships among the closely related trio of the human, the chimpanzee, and the gorilla, it might result from two independent duplications. Alternative, though less likely, a single duplication occurred in the ancestral species of the great apes and had been polymorphic for a sufficiently long time to permit fixation of the duplicated form in the orangutan and the gorilla on the one hand and loss in the human and chimpanzee on the other hand.’

Oda, M., Satta, Y., Takenaka, O. and Takahata, N., Loss of urate oxidase activity in hominoids and its evolutionary implications, Molecular Biology and Evolution 19(5):640–653, 2002

Michael, like I said, I don’t know that much about micro-biology. However, a little bit of research brought these many, many ‘assumptions’ to the forefront of this incredibly tricky subject. I predict that in the future, some of the things outlined above will cause this entire argument, like many other anti-creationist ‘proofs’ to fall by the wayside.

My prayer is that you see your need for Christ and believe that he really is the Son of God who died for our sins.

Science if fraught with fickleness Michael. We need to stand on the authority of God’s word and not that of human reason:

Col 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.

[cloudking]

Grigorije... svaki drugi post ti je kilometarski copy/paste sa drugih izvora.. nebitno na kojoj temi diskutujes...

[grigorije22]

Grigorije... svaki drugi post ti je kilometarski copy/paste sa drugih izvora.. nebitno na kojoj temi diskutujes...

Zapravo svaki treci nije...

Moram da kopiram ocu da vidim Aquilijev odgovor. Nije bas na svakoj temi.

[Aquilius Cratus]

“So the ERV-W elements in OWMs and hominoids are not necessarily related by descent, but are created to perform related functions in different primate families. This view is supported by another related finding of an ERV-H element immediately upstream of the ERV-W element.

Odgovor na ovo je data i crtan u detalje i tebi i onom nesrecnom Androniku pre oko pola godine.

Narvno da u sklopu genoma ne samo hominida nego i svih vrsta postoje ERV elementi koji nisu dospli

u genom infekcijom ali je izmedju njih i klasicnih moguce napraviti razliku na osnovu oziljka koje ERV ostavi

kad se inkorporia u genom.

Zasto odbijate da shvatite tu cinjenicu i konstanto ponavljate jednu te istu glupost?!

[Aquilius Cratus]

Grigorije... svaki drugi post ti je kilometarski copy/paste sa drugih izvora.. nebitno na kojoj temi diskutujes...

Vala bas nikad ni jendu recenicu kao argument pro kreacionizma nije napisao samonstalno. Sve su mu ili

linkovi ka kilometarskim stranicama ili c/p kilometarskog teksta.

[grigorije22]

“So the ERV-W elements in OWMs and hominoids are not necessarily related by descent, but are created to perform related functions in different primate families. This view is supported by another related finding of an ERV-H element immediately upstream of the ERV-W element.

Odgovor na ovo je data i crtan u detalje i tebi i onom nesrecnom Androniku pre oko pola godine.

Narvno da u sklopu genoma ne samo hominida nego i svih vrsta postoje ERV elementi koji nisu dospli

u genom infekcijom ali je izmedju njih i klasicnih moguce napraviti razliku na osnovu oziljka koje ERV ostavi

kad se inkorporia u genom.

Zasto odbijate da shvatite tu cinjenicu i konstanto ponavljate jednu te istu glupost?!

The best alternative explanation is that orthologous ERVs were created to occupy similar genomic loci in separate species by a single designer to carry out similar physiological functions.

[grigorije22]

Grigorije... svaki drugi post ti je kilometarski copy/paste sa drugih izvora.. nebitno na kojoj temi diskutujes...

Vala bas nikad ni jendu recenicu kao argument pro kreacionizma nije napisao samonstalno. Sve su mu ili

linkovi ka kilometarskim stranicama ili c/p kilometarskog teksta.

http://www.teorijaevolucije.com/transfer_i_mesanje.html

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

Ko stalno daje linkove sa kilometaskim tekstovima

[Aquilius Cratus]

The best alternative explanation is that orthologous ERVs were created to occupy similar genomic loci in separate species by a single designer to carry out similar physiological functions.

This is no explanation at all. It's an absurd claim. If that would be the case we wouldn't be able to tell

the difference between the inherited and the developed ERV element.

[Aquilius Cratus]

Grigorije... svaki drugi post ti je kilometarski copy/paste sa drugih izvora.. nebitno na kojoj temi diskutujes...

Vala bas nikad ni jendu recenicu kao argument pro kreacionizma nije napisao samonstalno. Sve su mu ili

linkovi ka kilometarskim stranicama ili c/p kilometarskog teksta.

http://www.teorijaevolucije.com/transfer_i_mesanje.html

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

Ko stalno daje linkove sa kilometaskim tekstovima

Jeste bato ali hajde stavimo na vagu, od momenta kad ti pises na forumu, koliko si ti otkucao svojerucnih

objasnjena + linkovi a koliko sam ja kucao svojerucno svojim recima + linkove. Ti si posledji koji moze da mi

izadje na crtu prema tim parametrima jer uopste ne pises stavove svojerucno samo nas gadjas linkovima.

[Гост]

Jeste bato ali hajde stavimo na vagu, od momenta kad ti pises na forumu, koliko si ti otkucao svojerucnih

objasnjena + linkovi a koliko sam ja kucao svojerucno svojim recima + linkove.

Мислим да је ово одличан предлог.Имајући у виду ових тричавих 6000 порука  4chsmu1

Пардон, ближе је 7000.

[grigorije22]

Bato koliko ti imas poruka a koliko ja? Koliko si dugo na forumu?

[Aquilius Cratus]

Jeste bato ali hajde stavimo na vagu, od momenta kad ti pises na forumu, koliko si ti otkucao svojerucnih

objasnjena + linkovi a koliko sam ja kucao svojerucno svojim recima + linkove.

Мислим да је ово одличан предлог.Имајући у виду ових тричавих 6000 порука  4chsmu1

Пардон, ближе је 7000.

Zato sam i naveo boldovoano jer bi na tom vremenskom uzorku zanemarili sve moje prethodne poruke i gledali

samo sta sam ja pisao a sta on pocev od grigorijevog prvog posta na forumu.

Ali vidim da cu morati da pocnem pisati sve po tri puta jer nista ne citate sta vam covek pise.