Posts by cofty

32

Cancer has been with us for a long time

by Coded Logic in

a 2 million year old hominid has been discovered that had cancer in its foot - making it the oldest neoplasia found in the human lineage.

now, as to why cancer predates original sin by nearly 2 million years, i'd love to hear christian apologists try and explain.. http://sajs.co.za/osteogenic-tumour-australopithecus-sediba-earliest-hominin-evidence-neoplastic-disease/patrick-s-randolph-quinney-scott-williams-maryna-steyn-marc-r-meyer-jacqueline-s-smilg-steven-e.

cofty

The fact they they walked upright has nothing to do with the price of eggs. Some apes do that. - Vidqun

No they don't.

Walking upright doesn't prove anything. - Vidqun

Yes it really does.

In our previous conversation you told me about a very impressive array of professional qualifications that you have. I am certain it included anatomy.

So what are some of the anatomical differences between humans who walk upright and primates who can imitate upright walking for short distances?

How about the knee for example? What is the most significant difference between the human and primate knee joints?

If you are stuck let me know and I will give you a clue.

32

Cancer has been with us for a long time

by Coded Logic in

a 2 million year old hominid has been discovered that had cancer in its foot - making it the oldest neoplasia found in the human lineage.

now, as to why cancer predates original sin by nearly 2 million years, i'd love to hear christian apologists try and explain.. http://sajs.co.za/osteogenic-tumour-australopithecus-sediba-earliest-hominin-evidence-neoplastic-disease/patrick-s-randolph-quinney-scott-williams-maryna-steyn-marc-r-meyer-jacqueline-s-smilg-steven-e.

cofty

Vidqun - Australopithecus, literally "Southern Apes" were hominin ancestors of our genus. They walked upright.

Australopithecus sediba shows features of the transition from partial arboreality to one primarily adapted to bipedal walking.

We have an embarrassment of riches of pre-human fossils. Even if we had none at all, the conclusive proof of human evolution from non-human ancestors is in your DNA.

532

I conclude evolution is guided

by KateWild in

your qualifications are way above mine so i'd love to hear more about the specifics of what you have researched and how that supports the existence of a deity.

k99, i am not really convinced that you're interested in my conclusions.

in nature amino acids formed to then form dna.

cofty

Kate this thread is about a very specific feature of chemistry.

It has nothing to do with atheism. Nobody converts to atheism. An atheist is somebody who fails to be impressed by the grandiose claims of theism. You don't believe in the god of theism therefore you are already an atheist.

532

I conclude evolution is guided

by KateWild in

your qualifications are way above mine so i'd love to hear more about the specifics of what you have researched and how that supports the existence of a deity.

k99, i am not really convinced that you're interested in my conclusions.

in nature amino acids formed to then form dna.

cofty

Kate - A few days ago you started a thread specifically designed to damage my reputation. I won't be sending any Facebook requests.

If you think you have evidence of something relevant you can describe it here. If it's an image and it won't upload it's probably too big, try reducing it.

532

I conclude evolution is guided

by KateWild in

your qualifications are way above mine so i'd love to hear more about the specifics of what you have researched and how that supports the existence of a deity.

k99, i am not really convinced that you're interested in my conclusions.

in nature amino acids formed to then form dna.

cofty

Kate - Just post a link here or a description.

532

I conclude evolution is guided

by KateWild in

your qualifications are way above mine so i'd love to hear more about the specifics of what you have researched and how that supports the existence of a deity.

k99, i am not really convinced that you're interested in my conclusions.

in nature amino acids formed to then form dna.

cofty

BTW thanks for proof reading for me and picking up on my grammar mistakes.

That's a free service.

Look at your messenger on Facebook I have sent you photographic evidence

Facebook must have lost it in cyberspace.

Photographic evidence of what exactly?

532

I conclude evolution is guided

by KateWild in

your qualifications are way above mine so i'd love to hear more about the specifics of what you have researched and how that supports the existence of a deity.

k99, i am not really convinced that you're interested in my conclusions.

in nature amino acids formed to then form dna.

cofty

can I change my mind again

About what?

This was on Facebook

What was?

532

I conclude evolution is guided

by KateWild in

your qualifications are way above mine so i'd love to hear more about the specifics of what you have researched and how that supports the existence of a deity.

k99, i am not really convinced that you're interested in my conclusions.

in nature amino acids formed to then form dna.

cofty

Clearly you're [sic] chemistry is correct and mine is incorrect... I am sorry about all the errors I have made you are right. - Kate

At last!

532

I conclude evolution is guided

by KateWild in

your qualifications are way above mine so i'd love to hear more about the specifics of what you have researched and how that supports the existence of a deity.

k99, i am not really convinced that you're interested in my conclusions.

in nature amino acids formed to then form dna.

cofty

In racemic mixtures there is a tiny difference in size of “the competing populations” or the l- and d- enantiomers - Kate

Yes that is what I said.

and the molecules do not amplify exponentially.

If the reaction is AUTOcatalytic they amplify exponentially. Why are you avoiding this simple irrefutable fact? Oh wait a minute I think I might know why.

Only in meso compounds is there no tiny difference.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the price of fish as you well know.

Ask cantleave he will tell you your chemistry is wrong

I am sure he won't. No disrespect to Cantleave but I am more interested in things that Kenso Soai wrote in a peer reviewed paper.

I don’t need hard facts - Kate

On page 7 you admitted to being biased and "twisting facts".

I believe intellectual honesty and using facts carefully really matters. By your own admission you don't. Therefore this conversation is doomed to failure.

532

I conclude evolution is guided

by KateWild in

your qualifications are way above mine so i'd love to hear more about the specifics of what you have researched and how that supports the existence of a deity.

k99, i am not really convinced that you're interested in my conclusions.

in nature amino acids formed to then form dna.

cofty

Kate I think you still don't get the significance of a point that I explained pages back.

1 - A catalytic reaction results in linear growth of the end product.

2 - An autocatalytic reaction results in exponential growth of the end product.

3 - Amino acids are autocatalytic.

4 - A tiny difference in the size of two competing populations of autocatalytic molecules will be amplified exponentially.

F.C. Frank postulated this as a solution to homochirality in 1974 and Kenso Soai first proved he was correct with a groundbreaking experiment in 1995. He has continued to confirm his results in a series of experiments and papers since then.

In his latest success he started with a chiral mixture with a tiny 'ee' (enantiomeric excess) of just 0.00005%. Following the autocatalytic reaction the 'ee' was over 99.5%.

The puzzle is solved.