national geographic october 2002 p6.. `princess idut died about 2330bc.. father;teti.
grandfather;unas.
how does the noachian fit in?
i think the idea is so absurd (for hundreds of reasons) that it doesn't require any more evidence to disprove it
one link with many historic dates...all prior to the supposed flood
http://ragz-international.com/ancient_civilization.htm
Edited by - realist on 19 October 2002 9:8:38
any of you evolutionists ever crunch the numbers?
oh man...you are quite a stickler with definitions...
just to give you something else to look up ... what is the difference between a peptide and a protein?
so the question remains...have you understood the point of the article?
any of you evolutionists ever crunch the numbers?
did you at least read the abstract i copy-posted?
btw...peptide = small protein
any of you evolutionists ever crunch the numbers?
yes great replies...have you understood the point or not?
proteins that catalyze a chemical reaction are called enzymes.
any of you evolutionists ever crunch the numbers?
for instance as the quoted review shows there are molecular mechanisms which cause certain amino acids to form peptide bonds with higher frequency.
Which has nothing to do with evolution.
are you really so stupid or do you just pretend?
certain amino acids get linked together preferentially! that means right handed aa are excluded. so your calculation is bogus outdated!
any of you evolutionists ever crunch the numbers?
pom,
>>>b) there are transitional forms. take archeopterix as the most prominent example. there are many many others. however transitional forms are of course rare since species stay in more or less the same form for most of their existence. transitional forms gain importance only if environmental changes occur that allow the adaptaion to a new niche.
If evolution were true, there would be BILLIONS of transitions in the fossil record. There would be species NOW in the transitional MODE. Both are NOT TRUE. <<<
you have obviously NO idea about evolution! you simply don't know how it works. READ A BOOK ABOUT IT BEFORE YOU ARGUE! a new species developes if environmental conditions change!!! because only then new niches open! once a species is adapted to the new conditions further changes reduce its fitness again...therefore they develop a form that is perfect for the environment...take the dingos in australia for instance.
by the way ...there are many transitional forms observable today. birds, mice etc.etc.
again GET A SCIENCE BOOK MAN!!!!
the point was that you don't need 300 amino acids to get a selfreplicating enzyme...or any enzyme to that effect.
any of you evolutionists ever crunch the numbers?
it is pointless to calculate probabilities as long as one doesn't know the mechanism!!!
for instance as the quoted review shows there are molecular mechanisms which cause certain amino acids to form peptide bonds with higher frequency.
zach ...i read creationists scientific arguments...all of them can be refuted. if you have new ones let me know!
any of you evolutionists ever crunch the numbers?
i guess i should hit myself for writing back again...
a) your calculation is irrelevant because no one is talking about a 300 amino acid long protein. very short polypeptides have already enzymatic activity.
b) there are transitional forms. take archeopterix as the most prominent example. there are many many others. however transitional forms are of course rare since species stay in more or less the same form for most of their existence. transitional forms gain importance only if environmental changes occur that allow the adaptaion to a new niche.
c) if you would have a scientific mind then you would try to come up with an alternative scientific explaination instead of refering to God who somehow and miracously put everything here (despite a gigantic pile of evidence against that idea)
d) just on the side: biological evolution does NOT depend on how the first cell formed.
e) here is an abstract from a rather new review about peptide formation:
Peptides and the origin of life. Rode BM.
Department of Theoretical Chemistry, Institute for General, Inorganic and Theoretical Chemistry, University of Innsbruck, Austria. [email protected]
Considering the state-of-the-art views of the geochemical conditions of the primitive earth, it seems most likely that peptides were produced ahead of all other oligomer precursors of biomolecules. Among all the reactions proposed so far for the formation of peptides under primordial earth conditions, the salt-induced peptide formation reaction in connection with adsorption processes on clay minerals would appear to be the simplest and most universal mechanism known to date. The properties of this reaction greatly favor the formation of biologically relevant peptides within a wide variation of environmental conditions such as temperature, pH, and the presence of inorganic compounds. The reaction-inherent preferences of certain peptide linkages make the argument of 'statistical impossibility' of the evolutionary formation of the 'right' peptides and proteins rather insignificant. Indeed, the fact that these sequences are reflected in the preferential sequences of membrane proteins of archaebacteria and prokaryonta distinctly indicates the relevance of this reaction for chemical peptide evolution. On the basis of these results and the recent findings of self-replicating peptides, some ideas have been developed as to the first steps leading to life on earth.
any of you evolutionists ever crunch the numbers?
it becomes really pointless to discuss science with people who have no idea what they are talking about. i don't blame anyone for not having the time to study physics, biology or whatever science. but then they should at least not try to argue against proven scientific facts.
non of the people here who are defending creation have a clue about the facts that support evolution. in fact they have no clue about how science works. otherwise they would keep their rediculous statements to themselfs.
i think decency would require that they read the scientific facts and explanations before they post. but unfortunately they are not even willing to read summaries like that provided on talkorigins.
the best is probably to leave them in their ignorance and if it makes them really happy let them keep their naive views about the world.
this will be complicated ( if you think any watchtower study article is 'deep', .
give up now).
so, according to popular images, god sits on a throne.
metatron,
sounds like pantheism to me! did you read Spinoza? einstein as pantheist loved his reasoning.
about the siamese twins...this is not in the genetic code...it occurs early in development. the fertilized egg cell starts to divide. sometimes the embryo divides in 2--> normal twins...however if the embryo only partially devides you get siamese twins. this has nothing to do with adaption ...its rather an accident...like loosing a limb in an accident.
Francois,
red shift affects all the spectral lines...not just that of hydrogen...so it would require a more complex explanation!
