Uh Oh: Rick Perry Gets Popped With The Dreaded Evolution Question. (Click For Answer)

[FurthurBB]

You people still trying to spin dawkins comments who cares iof they were up front with him he gave an answer and you're trying to cover for him. Imagine that a hardened evolutionist admits to design but dnies that design could have been carried out by a divine creator,that really is a joke.

Bacterium Flagellum Motor my butt this was a creation of random chance.

Bacterium Flagellum Motor - YouTube

Do you watch youtube videos for your science all the time? Why do you keep choosing arguments that have already been debunked? The flagella one was proven false in a court of law.

Since having a stroke, I don't get to do what I use to do, so I read a lot and watch videos and support my beloved Arizona Cardinals. Oh and ride the mountain bike daily whether I need it or not.

For your information ,someone offering an explanation is not debunking a problem for your theory. It's an opinion and nothing more it sure was not proven wrong by evidence. Do you expect evolutionists to just dismiss their theory that only natural processes are responsible for all living things and accept what a creationist said ? get real, all along evolutionist have looked the other way when intelligence is introduced to the theory. Even though they feel that there were no way a random chance non-intelligent process created some of the things observed.

Will you explain how the Bacterium Flagellum Motor evolved ?

While you're at it ,can you explain how the giraffes neck,blood vessels that open and close so the giraffe don't blow it's brains out when it bends to get a drink of water,and the sponge in the brain that holds oxygenated blood so when the giraffe sunddenly raises his head he don't pass out and become a meal to predators,how did they all evolve over time ?

If none of those abilities were present the giraffe would no longer be with us but be extinct.

So, you would really rather relegate your god to the god of gaps in our knowledge than believe he created living things through the amazing process of evolution?

 

[FurthurBB]

I am actually not avoiding any question, since I already answered it. Bacteria are very successful, there are very few new niches to be filled. That = no selective pressure. Which is what I said before.

That is a very poor answer considering all things are always evolving according to evolutionist.

This is not a poor answer unless you are not understanding. Evolution involves natural selection. There is no selective pressure for bacteria to evolve into anything else other than bacteria. Does that clear things up for you?

 

[FurthurBB]

Oh that is right, everyone who disagrees with your side, are ignorant ,and uneducated, and can't understand your absurd theory.

Many educated, who were once evolutionist no longer support the theory,because they saw the truth for themselves.

over 99% of biologist believe in evolution. Now, don't get angry and start posting nonsense. I never said anyone was uneducated, just unqualified. Would you let me take out your appendix? What about give you a heart transplant? I am not uneducated, I have 6 degrees and three of them are advanced, but I am unqualified to perform surgery on living people.

Really ?creationist that hold degrees in molecular biology and genetics ,and chemistry are not qualified to disagree with evolutionist ?

They are more qualified than the average person, but creation scientists are always disingenuous in their experimentation. Also, you do know that most scientists who believe in creation also agree with the theory of evolution. That is why in a country were >90% believe in a god 99% of biologists agree with the theory of evolution

 

[FurthurBB]

Really ?



Evolution Hopes You Don't Know Chemistry: The Problem with Chirality

by Charles McCombs, Ph.D. *

Download Evolution Hopes You Don't Know Chemistry: The Problem with Chirality PDF

When the newspaper headline, "Life in a Test-tube," appeared in 1953, the evolutionary community became very excited because they viewed the work of Stanley Miller and Harold Urey as scientific proof that life could have been formed from chemicals by random chance natural processes. In that classic experiment, Miller and Urey combined a mixture of methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water vapor and passed the mixture through an electric discharge to simulate lightning. At the end of the experiment, the products were found to contain a few amino acids. Since amino acids are the individual links of long chain polymers called proteins, and proteins are important in our bodies, newspapers quickly reported there was laboratory evidence that now proved life came from chemicals.

As a Ph.D. Organic Chemist, I have to admit that the formation of amino acids under these conditions is fascinating, but there is a major problem. Life was never formed in that experiment. The product was amino acids, which are normal everyday chemicals that do not "live." Even unto this day, there is no known process that has ever converted amino acids into a life form, but this fact does not stop evolutionists from claiming that this experiment is proof that life came from chemicals. Evolutionists know that amino acids do not live, but they call this proof anyway because they claim that amino acids are the building blocks of life. This claim suggests that if enough building blocks are present, life would result, but this conclusion is only an assumption and has never been demonstrated. Amino acids may be the building blocks of proteins, and proteins are necessary for life, but that does not mean that amino acids are the building blocks of life. I could go to an auto parts store and buy every single part to construct a car, but that does not provide me with a functioning motor vehicle. Just as there had to be an assembler to make a moving vehicle from those auto parts, there had to be an assembler of those amino acids to make the proteins so that life could exist in our bodies.

Ever since 1953, scientists have been asking if the formation of amino acids in those experiments proves the claim that life came from chemicals? Many have debated if this experiment validates evolution or does the evidence point to an Omnipotent Creator? For 50 years, scientists have been asking questions; for 50 years, the discussion ends in debate. Call it professional curiosity, but as a scientist, I always wondered why there are more debates on this issue than discussion of the facts. Then I realized that a discussion of the facts would inevitably lead to a discussion of the subject of chirality. Chirality is probably one of the best scientific evidences we have against random chance evolution and chirality totally destroys the claim that life came from chemicals. Obviously, this is one fact they do not even want to discuss.

Chirality is a chemical term that means handedness. Although two chemical molecules may appear to have the same elements and similar properties, they can still have different structures. When two molecules appear identical and their structures differ only by being mirror images of each other, those molecules are said to have chirality. Your left and right hands illustrate chirality. Your hands may appear to be identical, but in reality, they are only mirror images of each other, hence the term handedness. For this reason, chirality can exist as a right-handed or a left-handed molecule, and each individual molecule is called an optical isomer.

What is the problem of chirality? In our bodies, proteins and DNA possess a unique 3-dimensional shape, and it is because of this 3D shape that the biochemical processes within our bodies work as they do. It is chirality that provides the unique shape for proteins and DNA, and without chirality, the biochemical processes in our bodies would not do their job. In our body, every single amino acid of every protein is found with the same left-handed chirality. Although Miller and Urey formed amino acids in their experiments, all the amino acids that formed lacked chirality. It is a universally accepted fact of chemistry that chirality cannot be created in chemical molecules by a random process. When a random chemical reaction is used to prepare molecules having chirality, there is an equal opportunity to prepare the left-handed isomer as well as the right-handed isomer. It is a scientifically verifiable fact that a random chance process, which forms a chiral product, can only be a 50/50 mixture of the two optical isomers. There are no exceptions. Chirality is a property that only a few scientists would even recognize as a problem. The fact that chirality was missing in those amino acids is not just a problem to be debated, it points to a catastrophic failure that "life" cannot come from chemicals by natural processes.

Let's look at chirality in proteins and DNA. Proteins are polymers of amino acids and each one of the component amino acids exists as the "L" or left-handed optical isomer. Even though the "R" or right-handed optical isomers can be synthesized in the lab, this isomer does not exist in natural proteins. The DNA molecule is made up of billions of complicated chemical molecules called nucleotides, and these nucleotide molecules exist as the "R" or right-handed optical isomer. The "L" isomer of nucleotides can be prepared in the lab, but they do not exist in natural DNA. There is no way that a random chance process could have formed these proteins and DNA with their unique chirality.

If proteins and DNA were formed by chance, each and every one of the components would be a 50/50 mixture of the two optical isomers. This is not what we see in natural proteins or in natural DNA. How can a random chance natural process create proteins with thousands of "L" molecules, and then also create DNA with billions of "R" molecules? Does this sound like random chance or a product of design? Even if there were a magic process to introduce chirality, it would only create one isomer. If such a process existed, we do not know anything about it or how it would work. If it did exist, how were compounds with the other chirality ever formed? Even if there were two magical processes, one for each isomer, what determined which process was used and when it was used, if this was a random chance natural process? The idea of two processes requires a controlling mechanism, and this kind of control is not possible in a random chance natural process.

However, the problem with chirality goes even deeper. As nucleotide molecules come together to form the structure of DNA, they develop a twist that forms the double helix structure of DNA. DNA develops a twist in the chain because each component contains chirality or handedness. It is this handedness that gives DNA the spiral shaped helical structure. If one molecule in the DNA structure had the wrong chirality, DNA would not exist in the double helix form, and DNA would not function properly. The entire replication process would be derailed like a train on bad railroad tracks. In order for DNA evolution to work, billions of molecules within our body would have to be generated with the "R" configuration all at the same time, without error. If it is impossible for one nucleotide to be formed with chirality, how much less likely would it be for billions of nucleotides to come together exactly at the same time, and all of them be formed with the same chirality? If evolution cannot provide a mechanism that forms one product with chirality, how can it explain the formation of two products of opposite chirality?

Chirality is not just a major problem for evolution; it is a dilemma. According to evolution, natural processes must explain everything over long periods of time. However, the process that forms chirality cannot be explained by natural science in any amount of time. That is the dilemma, either natural processes cannot explain everything, or chirality doesn't exist.

If you're in doubt as to which is correct, you are a living example of the reality of chirality. Without chirality, proteins and enzymes could not do their job; DNA could not function at all. Without properly functioning proteins and DNA, there would be no life on this earth. The reality of chirality, more than any other evidence, did more to convince me of the reality of an all-powerful Creator. I hope it will do the same for you.

I find it interesting that when creationists start talking about God's supernatural creation, evolutionists usually counter by saying that everything must be explained by natural science and divine intervention is not science. I find this remark extremely amusing. When we show them that the laws of natural science cannot explain the existence of chirality, evolutionists say that the process happened a long time ago by some unknown method that they cannot explain. Now who's relying on a supernatural explanation? Although they would never call it divine intervention, they certainly are relying on faith and not on scientific facts. Evolution just hopes you don't know chemistry.

There is another problem with DNA and how it works in the human body. As part of the normal replication process for DNA, an enzyme travels down the DNA strand so that a copy strand of DNA can be produced. As the enzyme reads the sequence of molecules along the strand, and if an incorrect nucleotide is detected in the strand, there is a mechanism that uses other enzymes to cut out the bad nucleotide and insert the correct one, thus repairing the DNA.

Let's look at DNA and this repair mechanism, if indeed they were formed from random chance natural processes. If the repair mechanism evolved first, what use is a repair mechanism if DNA has not evolved yet? If DNA evolved first, how would the DNA even know it would be better off with a repair mechanism? Can molecules think? DNA is not a stable chemical molecule, and without a repair mechanism, it would easily deteriorate by chemical oxidation and other processes. There is no mechanism to explain how DNA could exist for millions of years while the repair mechanism evolved. DNA would just decompose back into pond scum before the alleged billions of random chance mutations could ever form the repair mechanism.

Once we realize that design does not happen by chance, then we realize that the entire universe is not the product of a random, chance process; it is the result of an omnipotent Creator who created everything by just His Word. I hope you are beginning to see the problem. Evolution can give you a theory that might on the surface seem possible, but when true science gets involved and scientists start asking questions, the problems and false logic of the theory become apparent. This is why evolution just hopes you don't know chemistry.

* Dr. Charles McCombs is a Ph.D. Organic Chemist trained in the methods of scientific investigation, and a scientist who has 20 chemical patents.

Evolution Hopes You Don't Know Chemistry: The Problem with Chirality

Yeah, already read that and since it has already been debunked by chemists and biologists, why keep repeating it?

Explain how it was debunked ?

By showing that the parts are used alone and in different conformations for other things. If it was irreducibly complex that would be impossible.

 

[FurthurBB]

When have I ever or any creationist ever disagreed with variations within a family ?

But that is not macro-evolution,it is micro-adaptations or micro-evolution,your point ?

Geeze, you are sensitive, this was not directed at you. I was correcting the statement that E. coli is Salmonella because it is not.

 

[waltky]

Granny says...

... mebbe he'll get pooped...

... an' drop outta the race.

 

[FurthurBB]

Explain how it was debunked ?

Chirality is an interesting feature of evolution. You see it in nature when certain compounds come into contact with feldspars, also in light driven chirality in space.

https://hazen.gl.ciw.edu/files/publications/my-pdfs/ChiralFaces2004.pdf

http://www.pnas.org/content/95/7/3370.full.pdf

The Astronomist: The Universe and Life is asymmetric: Chirality

Why does chirality pose a problem to evolution ?
I have been doing research and have unanswered questions involving the Idea of evolution as opposed to Intelligent design. Am I missing something?
In our bodies, proteins and DNA possess a unique 3-dimensional shape, and it is because of this 3D shape that the biochemical processes within our bodies work as they do. It is chirality that provides the unique shape for proteins and DNA, and without chirality, the biochemical processes in our bodies would not do their job. In our body, every single amino acid of every protein is found with the same left-handed chirality. Although Miller and Urey formed amino acids in their experiments, all the amino acids that formed lacked chirality.
As I said before,it is a universally accepted fact of chemistry that chirality cannot be created in chemical molecules by a random process.
Another problem with Chirality is that homochiral biological substances racemize in time. This is the basis of amino acid racemization dating method. This method is not very reliable because of the variables such as temperature and pH and the particular amino acid. Racemization is a big problem during peptide synthesis and hydrolysis for it shows that the tendency of undirected chemistry is towards death, not life. This presents enormous problems for chemical evolution ideas as well.
This is why it is such a problem to explain away. Here is a site for some further explantion of my facts.

Now explain how a random process can create chirality?

http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/archaeology/

Why does chirality pose a problem to evolution ? - Yahoo! Answers

Are catalysts random? Obviously chirality is not because you see it in so many different things all over the earth and the universe. We know that magnets and light can create chirality. So the fact that it exists is not surprising, since lights and magnets are known to exist. When I first read the argument about chirality, I thought it was possible that there were self replicating molecules with either both chiralities or only left handed or only right handed and the left handed was selected for. Makes sense, not a problem. Then I read that in 1998 3 chemists discovered homochirality catalysts accidentally and won a Nobel prize, obviously because that used to be a problem in chemistry and is no longer. Even more recently it has been discovered that some snRNAs and snRNPs act as homochirality catalysts in animals. Chiral n,n'-dioxides: new ligands and organocataly... [Acc Chem Res. 2011] - PubMed result , Enantioselective catalysis with homochiral metal, ScienceDirect - Tetrahedron: Asymmetry : Selfcondensation of 2-methylpropanal with homochiral BINOL catalysts as a model asymmetric aldol–Tishchenko reaction, also some molecules act as their own catalyst to prevent the production of their mirror image http://www.pnas.org/content/101/16/5732.full.pdf Here is one that is easy to read it is just a quip about chemical catalysts Imperial College London - How left-handed amino acids got ahead: a demonstration of the evolution of biological homochirality in the lab These experiments more agree with my original thought Faculty Page, I cannot link the newer papers about RNA catalysts even the abstracts are not free. I could also find you 1000s of papers on why DNA and RNA are in the orientation that they are, which could also according to chemists drive the other molecules to be the same handedness. Mostly it is because nucleotides can self assemble faster in that orientation. Now, see chirality is not at all the problem it was made out to be, it was just a gap in our knowledge and understanding which is being rigorously filled. Can we move on please?

 

[FurthurBB]

According to your definitions it shows macro-evolution but that is not the case they are still bacteria. Remember me saying it is the theories and your vocabulary that show macro-evolution not the evidence.

Changes within a family is all you are presenting. If you want to classify different breeds of bacteria as a different species go ahead but that is not showing macroevolution because they still remain bacteria.

That is the very reason you call different breeds of the same family different species to make a case for macroevolution. Because variations happens within a family it does not prove that these new breeds will turn in to something destinctly new which is the explanation by evolutionist for the diversity we see. Your side made the claim a human came from apes,your side made the claim birds came from dinosaurs.That is the objection here.

both sides agree on variations within a family we just don't agree on groups diverging in such a major way as evolutionist claim.

That is just semantics. Biologists agreed on these definitions of family, species, group, macroevolution. You cannot change the definition because you don't like the answers.

 

[FurthurBB]

If you don't like incorrect ideas in science you might want to clean up evolutionist ideas.

I've been spending most of my time in this thread correcting your ideas, not only about biology, but physics as well.

How have you proved me wrong ?

The miller and urey experiment did not create life it produced non-living amino acids absent of chirality. And you and I both know that chirality is needed for life. For the building blocks of life to do their job.

I have taken more biology classes than I can count and no one ever told me anything other than they created amino acids and it was a break through experiment, but that we do not know what the real environment was like when life came about. Also, most scientists believe RNA was before protein but would require amino acids to make proteins later on. If RNA can act as a homochirality catalyst but was not available in the experiment, then the results they got would be expected. Also, since we have found amino acids on space rocks, they could have come about someplace completely different. There are many more interesting experiments today, we know that RNA can self assemble in the environment that we live in, RNA can act as an enzyme, since it is single stranded it is very reactive and can take on almost as many diverse forms as proteins, and proteins can be made directly from the -sense RNA strand.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Will you explain how the Bacterium Flagellum Motor evolved ?

While you're at it ,can you explain how the giraffes neck,blood vessels that open and close so the giraffe don't blow it's brains out when it bends to get a drink of water,and the sponge in the brain that holds oxygenated blood so when the giraffe sunddenly raises his head he don't pass out and become a meal to predators,how did they all evolve over time ?

If none of those abilities were present the giraffe would no longer be with us but be extinct.

Oh created. I wiped your face across this entire forum on these topics last time. I come back to find you're playing the same games with someone else now? Here's let's summarize where we left off.

• You claimed evolution is made up.
• I provided supporting evidence.
• You ignored supporting evidence.
• You made the claim that evolution was completely debunked because you personally don't understand certain traits found in organisms.
• I pointed out that your lack of education and understanding on the topic in no way proves the topic wrong or proves your backwoods ideas correct.
• You claimed, several times, that I couldn't reliably describe how the universe began because I wasn't there.
• I reiterated several times that the origins of the universe have nothing to do with evolution. This was a very difficult concept for you to grasp.
• You once again made the claim evolution is made up.
• I provided more supporting evidence.
• You retreated to the ignorant and unsupported claim of arbitrarily splitting the topic into "macro" and "micro" which are terms that have no real definition aside from "all evidence for evolution can't count as macroevolution" so you could once again claim the evidence doesn't count. Circular reasoning works wonders that way.
• I provided evidence to macroevolution.
• You ran away.

Shall we restart this game again, my ignorant acquaintance?

 

[Youwerecreated]

You can use words like 'breeds' and 'families' all you want, but everyone will think you're daft. Speciation has been observed as occurring, could we get off this dead point of yours? Because all you have now is just flat out denying what I've said, with no rebuttal.



The definition of macro-evolution is there to show bigger evolutionary change from the smaller ones. Micro and macro differ in terms of time scales, however they both indicate change in an organism.

Biologists don't 'extrapolate' from it. We can trace genetic similarities through DNA in all organisms. It is the logical conclusion because the changes buildup over time. Every generation contains the mutations of the parent organism, plus their own mutations. Their children will contain their parents and their grandparents mutations, and then have thier own. And so on and so forth. These will gradually buildup overtime until you wouldn't recognize the original organism from the latest descendent (granted it will take thousands if not millions of years). There's nothing to suggest some 'glass ceiling' that prevents the changes from building up into truly significant change. We can see some truly significant change happening by looking at the natural history of the planet. We've unearthed many fossils of extinct species, and find modern species springing up after them.



You list sexual selection and isolation from the rest of a population as ways variations appear. You realize you more or less just admitted to evolution? Because that's how it works. Hell you just denied that new breeds aren't from natural selection, but just the sentence before listed examples of natural selection!

Mutations are what causes organisms to change. This is fact. Again, simply saying "no it's not" doesn't actually prove evolution wrong. If mutations and natural selection isn't how organisms change over time, how do you think it's done then? Have experiments been done showing some other way? Has it been observed in nature some other way?

I'm rather curious to find out, because there is a mountain of evidence for mutations and natural selection.

No,because according to your theory of macro-evolution your claims are new families of organisms can come from old families. You know like ape to human.

No mutations do not do what you say,new traits can arise from sexual reproduction and or because the information was already present in the population.

The proof of mutations is there are very few beneficial mutations.

Your theory in a nutshell is, mutations+natural selection+large scales of time equal Neo darwinism.

Creationist believe the information for variations within a family has always been present in the population.

My views are easily proven by the evidence yours on the other hand are exaggerations of the imagination.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Do you watch youtube videos for your science all the time? Why do you keep choosing arguments that have already been debunked? The flagella one was proven false in a court of law.

Since having a stroke, I don't get to do what I use to do, so I read a lot and watch videos and support my beloved Arizona Cardinals. Oh and ride the mountain bike daily whether I need it or not.

For your information ,someone offering an explanation is not debunking a problem for your theory. It's an opinion and nothing more it sure was not proven wrong by evidence. Do you expect evolutionists to just dismiss their theory that only natural processes are responsible for all living things and accept what a creationist said ? get real, all along evolutionist have looked the other way when intelligence is introduced to the theory. Even though they feel that there were no way a random chance non-intelligent process created some of the things observed.

Will you explain how the Bacterium Flagellum Motor evolved ?

While you're at it ,can you explain how the giraffes neck,blood vessels that open and close so the giraffe don't blow it's brains out when it bends to get a drink of water,and the sponge in the brain that holds oxygenated blood so when the giraffe sunddenly raises his head he don't pass out and become a meal to predators,how did they all evolve over time ?

If none of those abilities were present the giraffe would no longer be with us but be extinct.

So, you would really rather relegate your god to the god of gaps in our knowledge than believe he created living things through the amazing process of evolution?

No there are many things not known man is no more close to figuring out how God did it and we won't until he reveals it.

God is the creator. Are you saying we can't hold the view that God did it because we don't have all the answers ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

That is a very poor answer considering all things are always evolving according to evolutionist.

This is not a poor answer unless you are not understanding. Evolution involves natural selection. There is no selective pressure for bacteria to evolve into anything else other than bacteria. Does that clear things up for you?

Really ? what are the mechanisms working at removing mistakes in DNA ? what would stop harmful mutations spreading through the population making us go extinct ?

Do you really understand how it works or are you just forgetting important issues dealing with life ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Yeah, already read that and since it has already been debunked by chemists and biologists, why keep repeating it?

Explain how it was debunked ?

By showing that the parts are used alone and in different conformations for other things. If it was irreducibly complex that would be impossible.

You're not answering how a non-intelligent non-thinking process would think to create such molecular motors. If they have more then one function So what ! how did they come about through a natural process ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

over 99% of biologist believe in evolution. Now, don't get angry and start posting nonsense. I never said anyone was uneducated, just unqualified. Would you let me take out your appendix? What about give you a heart transplant? I am not uneducated, I have 6 degrees and three of them are advanced, but I am unqualified to perform surgery on living people.

Really ?creationist that hold degrees in molecular biology and genetics ,and chemistry are not qualified to disagree with evolutionist ?

They are more qualified than the average person, but creation scientists are always disingenuous in their experimentation. Also, you do know that most scientists who believe in creation also agree with the theory of evolution. That is why in a country were >90% believe in a god 99% of biologists agree with the theory of evolution

Really / because there is plenty of evidence of evolutionist being disingenuous with their explanations and even faking evidence,i'm sure you remember the pigs tooth ? that was portayed as a nearest ancestor ?

Oh please this is just another silly reason on your part.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Chirality is an interesting feature of evolution. You see it in nature when certain compounds come into contact with feldspars, also in light driven chirality in space.

https://hazen.gl.ciw.edu/files/publications/my-pdfs/ChiralFaces2004.pdf

http://www.pnas.org/content/95/7/3370.full.pdf

The Astronomist: The Universe and Life is asymmetric: Chirality

Why does chirality pose a problem to evolution ?
I have been doing research and have unanswered questions involving the Idea of evolution as opposed to Intelligent design. Am I missing something?
In our bodies, proteins and DNA possess a unique 3-dimensional shape, and it is because of this 3D shape that the biochemical processes within our bodies work as they do. It is chirality that provides the unique shape for proteins and DNA, and without chirality, the biochemical processes in our bodies would not do their job. In our body, every single amino acid of every protein is found with the same left-handed chirality. Although Miller and Urey formed amino acids in their experiments, all the amino acids that formed lacked chirality.
As I said before,it is a universally accepted fact of chemistry that chirality cannot be created in chemical molecules by a random process.
Another problem with Chirality is that homochiral biological substances racemize in time. This is the basis of amino acid racemization dating method. This method is not very reliable because of the variables such as temperature and pH and the particular amino acid. Racemization is a big problem during peptide synthesis and hydrolysis for it shows that the tendency of undirected chemistry is towards death, not life. This presents enormous problems for chemical evolution ideas as well.
This is why it is such a problem to explain away. Here is a site for some further explantion of my facts.

Now explain how a random process can create chirality?

http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/archaeology/

Why does chirality pose a problem to evolution ? - Yahoo! Answers

Are catalysts random? Obviously chirality is not because you see it in so many different things all over the earth and the universe. We know that magnets and light can create chirality. So the fact that it exists is not surprising, since lights and magnets are known to exist. When I first read the argument about chirality, I thought it was possible that there were self replicating molecules with either both chiralities or only left handed or only right handed and the left handed was selected for. Makes sense, not a problem. Then I read that in 1998 3 chemists discovered homochirality catalysts accidentally and won a Nobel prize, obviously because that used to be a problem in chemistry and is no longer. Even more recently it has been discovered that some snRNAs and snRNPs act as homochirality catalysts in animals. Chiral n,n'-dioxides: new ligands and organocataly... [Acc Chem Res. 2011] - PubMed result , Enantioselective catalysis with homochiral metal, ScienceDirect - Tetrahedron: Asymmetry : Selfcondensation of 2-methylpropanal with homochiral BINOL catalysts as a model asymmetric aldol–Tishchenko reaction, also some molecules act as their own catalyst to prevent the production of their mirror image http://www.pnas.org/content/101/16/5732.full.pdf Here is one that is easy to read it is just a quip about chemical catalysts Imperial College London - How left-handed amino acids got ahead: a demonstration of the evolution of biological homochirality in the lab These experiments more agree with my original thought Faculty Page, I cannot link the newer papers about RNA catalysts even the abstracts are not free. I could also find you 1000s of papers on why DNA and RNA are in the orientation that they are, which could also according to chemists drive the other molecules to be the same handedness. Mostly it is because nucleotides can self assemble faster in that orientation. Now, see chirality is not at all the problem it was made out to be, it was just a gap in our knowledge and understanding which is being rigorously filled. Can we move on please?

How does this deal with chirality in humans ?

What does chirality do ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

That is just semantics. Biologists agreed on these definitions of family, species, group, macroevolution. You cannot change the definition because you don't like the answers.

Yes I can I am a creationist and I knew what they're doing with these terms.

You are blind if you can't see what they're doing.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Will you explain how the Bacterium Flagellum Motor evolved ?

While you're at it ,can you explain how the giraffes neck,blood vessels that open and close so the giraffe don't blow it's brains out when it bends to get a drink of water,and the sponge in the brain that holds oxygenated blood so when the giraffe sunddenly raises his head he don't pass out and become a meal to predators,how did they all evolve over time ?

If none of those abilities were present the giraffe would no longer be with us but be extinct.

Oh created. I wiped your face across this entire forum on these topics last time. I come back to find you're playing the same games with someone else now? Here's let's summarize where we left off.

• You claimed evolution is made up.
• I provided supporting evidence.
• You ignored supporting evidence.
• You made the claim that evolution was completely debunked because you personally don't understand certain traits found in organisms.
• I pointed out that your lack of education and understanding on the topic in no way proves the topic wrong or proves your backwoods ideas correct.
• You claimed, several times, that I couldn't reliably describe how the universe began because I wasn't there.
• I reiterated several times that the origins of the universe have nothing to do with evolution. This was a very difficult concept for you to grasp.
• You once again made the claim evolution is made up.
• I provided more supporting evidence.
• You retreated to the ignorant and unsupported claim of arbitrarily splitting the topic into "macro" and "micro" which are terms that have no real definition aside from "all evidence for evolution can't count as macroevolution" so you could once again claim the evidence doesn't count. Circular reasoning works wonders that way.
• I provided evidence to macroevolution.
• You ran away.

Shall we restart this game again, my ignorant acquaintance?

Since seeing you last i have debated three different threads on this issue and they used the same arguments as you nothing different.

No you have not presented any evidence for macro-evolutionist. By the way creationist are careful about not presenting information that can't be proven. Something your side should learn. Change within a family happens that we agree on. You know what we don't agree on. Let's continue as long as you remain civil agreed ?

 

[Woyzeck]

No,because according to your theory of macro-evolution your claims are new families of organisms can come from old families. You know like ape to human.

New species arise and diverge from old ones. The fossil record makes no sense otherwise. How do you explain the varied rise and fall of extinct species then?

No mutations do not do what you say,new traits can arise from sexual reproduction and or because the information was already present in the population.

Mutations are defined as changes in the genomic sequence. These changes can build up over time into evolutionary change. Mutations happen when producing offspring, everyone has mutations when they are born. New traits do not arise from sexual reproduction solely, they are caused by errors in DNA. If the information was already present in the population, well at one point it had to have come from some where. They came from mutations.

The proof of mutations is there are very few beneficial mutations.

The proof of mutations is in the DNA code of anything that has mutations. It will be different from another example of the organism that lacks the mutation. Biologists look into the DNA code of organisms all the time, and it's a prime way to see how related one is to another. We're all related.

Your theory in a nutshell is, mutations+natural selection+large scales of time equal Neo darwinism.

That sounds more like a definition for macro-evolution. The theory of evolution as a whole is much more nuanced.

Creationist believe the information for variations within a family has always been present in the population.

Well then new variations must pose a problem to what you believe then, we see new ones arising all the time.

My views are easily proven by the evidence yours on the other hand are exaggerations of the imagination.

So what's the scientific evidence for creationism? I still haven't really seen any. Hell, what's the scientific theory for creationism? What are its tenants? All I've seen in this thread is half-baked criticisms of evolution which merely show ignorance in biology.

On the other hand I have provided much evidence for evolution, both micro-evolution and macro-evolution.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Woyzeck I truly admire your patience.

You'd be the perfect type of parent who gets stuck with like quadruplets lol.