Jump to content

root

Members
  • Content Count

    9
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Neutral

About root

  • Rank
    Lepton
  1. This seems prity relavent, any comments in reference to the Comment: http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2006/12/neanderthal-genome-my-testable.html
  2. I hate to be blunt but this seems gobble-gook, can someone please explain in a more general point to what the actual issue is here. Thanks......
  3. Hi Guys, Thanks for your input so far. I am wondering about the following scenario. Is genetic recombination always a mutational process, with the recent example of the Galapagos finch rapidly evolving a smaller beak size then this evolutionary change could be said to have occured without a "smaller beaksize mutation" unless of course recombination changes are classed as "mutation"? Thanks for all who have contributed. Rapid Evolution of Darwins finches
  4. Hi Guys, Here is a quote from the original post; In respect to the insertion selection site. Does this recent scientific discovery have any relavence to this subject: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/25/science/25dna.html?ex=1311480000&en=34d8e6ced8d42f47&ei=5089&partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss A small snippet: Biologists have suspected for years that some positions on the DNA, notably those where it bends most easily, might be more favorable for nucleosomes than others, but no overall pattern was apparent. Drs. Segal and Widom analyzed the sequence at some 200 sites in the yeast genome where nucleosomes are known to bind, and discovered that there is indeed a hidden pattern.
  5. Thanks for that. I probably should have indicated that I am being specific to current examples such as the dwarthed elephants, mammoths and even the hobbit. I am trying to establish the mechanism by which the species will reduce as per question 2 and 3. If you could clarify points 2 & 3 that would be great....
  6. Hi, Wonder if someone can educate me in the way of the Ozone hole(s). Are they open or have they closed? Root
  7. Cool, an interesting read. Might surprise some when I say I am not religous at all and would "consider" not "brand" myself an "atheist", why do you seperate the issues into two groups, can a theory of creationism be credible in the absence of religion. Which makes me pleased I am British since Bush does not accept Atheists as real US citizens at this time. Still, as an atheist my mind is still open to the fact of creationism. Since this is a science forum (And i am not a scientist) I wonder how you are all accounting for the theory (multiverse) & the theory of a (Closed Universe). Their I go again mentioning "Theory". If theory is a fact then surely only one of these theories can be correct, Is this not so............. Root
  8. Well, I have to say I certainly don't want to cloud this thread in the sense of what is theary and what is fact. Generally it's accepted that a theory predicts and a fact qualifies, but we don't need to bother ourselves with that to understand my point. Firstly, creationisms does not imply a biblical connection for much the same as evolutionists beleif's differ within the theory of evolution and so to does creationists. The simple fact of the matter is. How did life start on this planet! One could simply read a bible and find out, or reject that notion and go for evolutionism. But how do evolutionists account for life developing on the planet? Since some say it was chemical related with amino acids and I presume (though I don't know) close to the beginning of the DNA trail, or life came to the planet on the back of a meteorite or comet and has it's DNA origins in an infinate past. And Evolution as you seem to suggest is wrong, though evolvement was inevitable and did occur but in a creationist way. I hate evolutionists that pass off the theory of evolution as a fact, and try to ram down our throats without keeping an open mind to a created past but not at all God as the bible suggest's. It's a very plausable theory, not fact. Root
  9. Hi Guys, Wehey my first post. I think it's lame to ask a creationist to prove themselves right! Afterall their proof is that they are here. On the same tune I think it is lame to suggest one can prove "The theory of evolution". It is to this day just a theory, a theory has yet to establish itself as fact. Not only are evolutionists really struggling with the theory, your failing yourself for what you accuse others as being "Uneducated". Thoughts? Root
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.