Cambridge professor Sir Waker Lewis and Me on Darwinism ( Random debate)'

Ape to human evolution. Genetic matter of ape and human is 98% identical. Genes that make us human. Nothing is wrong there. Apes evolved into humans because of gradual changes to their genome. The biological instrument for "ape to human evolution" is changes in the genome, especially the genes. There were changes in the apes geneses but it was minor and over the course of over six million years, the accumulation of such small changes in the genes of apes resulted in "ape to human evolution." To evolve into the human genome through changes in apes' genes and very few changes were necessary Chimpanzee Y chromosome evolved into the human Y chromosome. It is based on re-association kinetics, has set a ‘98 to 99% Gold Standard’ and the results of subsequent DNA sequence-based research conformed accordingly. Reports depend on the success in grantsmanship.

It was "gene duplication", organisms can create new genes and "chromosome fusion" of two ape chromosomes into a single chromosome resulted in humans having only 23 pairs of chromosomes. While apes have 24 pairs and by gene duplication 24 turned into 23. It has ability to create new genes. Can’t bacteria duplicate existing genes through "gene duplication? If that is possible, then why not for other species? Do you want to void fused chromosome among human babies?

ME: How Ape's genome evolved? The information you provided is Wrong, incomplete, bogus. Ape to human evolution, is absolutely impossible. There is no genetic mechanism that could have rearranged the genes. Apes do not have any gene generating system or gene insertion system. Can you say tat genetic matter of ape and human is 98% identical? But buried and obfuscated data related to Eugene Dubois and such reports said otherwise. Bacteria can duplicate through existing genes but this only occurs in single sex bacteria and this is not evidence that apes and humans can create new genes with new functions. Yes I want to void fused chromosome among human babies. Wot are you talking is translocations not fused chromosomes and it does not result in a change in the chromosome number.

HUMAN FOSSILS Waker Lewis Eugene Dubois found a skullcap a molar and a femur on the banks of Solo River, Java. Enough to prove the missing ling. It was Pithecanthropus erectus and he at last proved it . How can you ignore transitional fossil?

ME: So it is helping you to set human fossils? Another mistake. The skullcap, a molar and a femur he found also suggests it was not erect ape-man but Archaeopteryx. Even most modern scientists say some of the teeth found similar to be from an orangutan, rather than Homo erectus. Your Dubois did hide the reality of Wadjak skulls. It was in the middle Pleistocene age. Gish said , it is apelike qualities of the skullcap. Wot Mehlert stated? Java man skullcap might be of a large ape but not giant ape.

CHROMOSONAL ISSUE WakerLewis Listen my nerdy geek the genetic code is highly similar among all organisms and can be expressed in a simple table with 64 entries.

ME: It is proving nothing. It tells about a common design and astonishingly, man and the chicken were paired off as closest relatives in almost all the cases. The next closest relative is the crocodile. Not giant apes. S Carl Linnaeus, who first systematized living things according to their similar structures, and Richard Owen regarded these structures as examples of common design. According to this idea, similar organs or, nowadays, similar genes are held to be so because they were intelligently designed to serve a particular purpose, not because they evolved by chance from a common ancestor. Ape and human DNA are far too different for humans to have evolved from apes. The human Y chromosome has twice as many genes as the chimpanzee Y chromosome and the chromosome structures are not at all similar. The chimpanzee Y chromosome has 37 genes and the human Y chromosome has at least 78 genes. There is no genetic mechanism that creates new genes. For new genes there must hv morphological changes, such as gills into lungs or more efficient brains. Can they? Your so called "gene duplication" is not an evidence that organisms can create new genes.

WakerLewis : Haha you are a freak. It is not wrong. We shall again engage on it now my time is over. Hey don’t brag cya . Ba ba ....................................................................

CONTINUED FULL DISCUSSION ON DARWINISM BETWEEN Waker Lewis and ME Waker Lewis Is this only replicatin? Hey cheese don’t try word game .Why not recombination? Techie did ya try only on replication? you ws tryin to play game with me, it would have been repair &recombination. Okay now come to your point. And also tell me ma bookman do you exactly know what the fuck is DNA-repair enzymes?

ME: Recombination occurs during meiosis so I better say repairing is mutation. Just to be clear, I propose that mutations, which r changes in the sequence of DNA due to errors in replication or repair, cannot produce the information, I mean adding change necessary for Darwinian evolution.

ME: Just to be clear, I propose tat mutations, which r changes in the sequence of DNA due to errors in replication or repair, cannot produce the information, I mean adding change necessary for Darwinian evolution. lol yes all cells possess those enzymes, they attempt to minimize the number of mutations . So wot?

Waker Lewis So a lot now you say haha. But mind it, you are again only takin on replication.

ME: Yes cuz recombination is meant to be transcription and replication. So I shall stand on replication to void your recombination anyway. Wot I said above is macro-evolution but it can’t generate replicated full information thus mutation doesn’t mean cloning the same DNA. Then hw cn it be healthy evolution? It doesn’t match with the Darwin’s hypothetical tree of life.

Waker Lewis haha haha imao,, do you really think so? rashiee does it disallow mutation?Boo!!! This is your definition but what are you tryin to reveal by this opinion of yours? Clarify it. Darwin didn’t surmise a tree of life. Talk on mutation or application of allele frequency. Why is it not possible by Mendelian genetics to changes in trait frequency? Okay boy why duplicatin or changin can’t make any change? Okay do you think changin colour of a gold fish is addin information or tell me do you have any idea of pre-replicative enzyme ? They are replaced before replication. What the fuck you wanna say about mutation?Is this only replicatin? Hey cheese don’t try word game .Why not recombination? . First tell me ma bookman do you exactly know what the fuck is DNA-repair enzymes?Haha do you think so? This is the basis of the structure you are tryin to touch ma Baldwin.

ME: sure and how do you shout of great mechanism of change? Sequence of DNA is like replicating. Recombination occurs during meiosis so I better say repairing is mutation. Just to be clear, I propose that mutations, which r changes in the sequence of DNA due to errors in replication or repair, cannot produce the information, I mean adding change necessary for Darwinian evolution.

Migration or genetic drift or other natural selection formulas r verified as wrong becuz if we human’s to be the common ancestor of apes as the product of changed mechanism then the mutation must hv larger amount of information.All cells possess those enzymes, they attempt to minimize the number of mutations. So wot?These pre-replicative enzymes are all formation of unusual structures and immature enzyme cn never carry any code of full information. Clear and out. I am not scrathing any thing those are much healthier than the average and u know tat , come to the point. I am stressing on information to say that without information a DNA is an empty faggot. DNA is DNA cuz it carries information to build a life. Why changing colour ll need additional information? There are the information within for its colour changing mechanism. I am talking about a new DNA to for a man from ape. Mutations to duplicate or inverse or delete cn never produce new information for macro-evolution. It cn be scrambling, not another high profiled new DNA. It is necessary for another DNA same as the previous one and this is not possible by distorted mutation. But why r u only taking about mutation?

Your formula of mutation is backed up with insufficient information of evolution. Lol wot is the difference between deletion and mutation? Deleting some chromosomes and adding some other typo chromosomes are the life line of your evolution. Why r u negating migration, genetic drift? Definitely mutation plays a vital role in evolution. Regarding mutation you hv to come to one point. Shaping up totally a different thing like a snake into tiger, tis is impossible. This is your rubbish. If I do agree in evolution then I hv to say it occurs I mean evolution occurs by the change of genetic material. Genes are inherited. It is the segments of DNA and the information of the DNA can be changed by mutation. Thus is it possible to change the fin into legs not a tiger into a falcon? So it needs additional information not deleting or scrambling.

Darwin’s Tree of Life. All life generated from a common ancestor? This is yours Darwin’s tree of life. Listen Darwin said all life descends from a common ancestor. This is crystal clear. But he did not or cud not say about genetic mutation cuz he was not aware of it. He was invested on natural selection that is fins are changed into legs. Ok cn u explain hw changes in allele frequencies cn change a fish into bear and hw mutation cn provide new unknown structure tat was not existed before? Not necessarily a new species ll be formed in the change of allele frequency. It cn even get changed as a cyclic response during the period of drought or due to crisis population. Like diabetics or blood pressure, therefore it is not mutation. So no way to convert microbes to man. I am talking about thrifty genotype.

Waker Lewis rashiee does it disallow mutation?

ME: Absolutely so my above mentioned comment vilifies the nature of definition of mutation by the Darwinists. Migration or genetic drift or other natural selection formulas r verified as wrong becuz if we human’s to be the common ancestor of apes as the product of changed mechanism then the mutation must hv larger amount of information.

Waker Lewis Why is it not possible by Mendelian genetics to changes in trait frequency? Why are you always scratchin your balls on addin information? wait let me write not finished yet. Okay boy why duplicatin or changin can’t make any change? Okay do you think changin colour of a gold fish is addin information or tell me do you have any idea of pre-replicative enzyme ? They are replaced before replication.

ME False… did u understand wot r u talking about? These pre-replicative enzymes are all formation of unusual structures and immature enzyme cn never carry any code of full information. Clear and out. I am not scarthing any thing those are much healthier than the average and u know tat , come to the point. I am stressing on information to say that without information a DNA is an empty faggot. DNA is DNA cuz it carries information to build a life. Why changing colour ll need additional information? There are the information within for its colour changing mechanism. I am talking about a new DNA to for a man from ape. Ok u tell me how is tat possible?

INFORMATION THEORY Waker Lewis Ma pundit ,what the fuck you understand by information? This is a property of mathematics. It is a claimed truth but it can be false too. You can’t bring this information theory in physical world. DNA carries information but this is not innately part of DNA. If I say the buildin is 400 meters high means it is containin information and this is an imposed property but not the buildin itself. You are fuckingly misinterpretin evolution. Changin through mutation can provide new code of information. Haha…

ME: Lol never but wot u r saying is out of context. I cn never admit it as an evolution. Be rational. Mutations to duplicate or inverse or delete cn never produce new information for macro-evolution. It cn be scrambling, not another high profiled new DNA.

Waker Lewis why addin information be necessary? What are the basics of your refutation?

ME I am saying read me well, it is necessary for another DNA same as the previous one and tis is not possible by distorted mutation.

Waker Lewis Rubbish, Are you a mud dabbler? By mutation any organism shall add & loss some the information. Altered chromosomes, endin organism’s trait, you puddle duck. New chromosome with new information.Shut the fuck up with your deletion theory, it is change not deletion, chanin always add some information & loose some information.

ME: Why r u only taking about mutation? Your formula of mutation is backed up with insufficient information of evolution. Lol wot is the difference between deletion and mutation? Deleting some chromosomes and adding some other typo chromosomes are the life line of your evolution. Why r u negating migration, genetic drift? Definitely mutation plays a vital role in evolution. Regarding mutation you hv to come to one point. Shaping up totally a different thing like a snake into tiger, tis is impossible. This is your rubbish. If I do agree in evolution then I hv to say it occurs I mean evolution occurs by the change of genetic material. Genes are inherited.

It is the segments of DNA and the information of the DNA cn be changed by mutation. Thus is it possible to change the fin into legs not a tiger into a falcon? So it needs additional information not deleting or scrambling.

Waker Lewis I never said mutations are not important. Don't fuck around. Darwin never talked evolution in terms of a tree. He tried to say how it plays its role in language & how it is used not the definition of information. Information never exists as an inborn part of any object. This is descriptive property. What is your problem with change? Deletion means zero. There was no zero. Who said about zero?

ME: Listen Darwin said all life descends from a common ancestor. This is crystal clear. But he did not or cud not say about genetic mutation cuz he was not aware of it. He was invested on natural selection that is fins are changed into legs. Ok cn u explain hw changes in allele frequencies cn change a fish into bear and hw mutation cn provide new unknown structure tat was not existed before?

Waker Lewis Haha ma smart boy. Okay listen evolution never proposes huge mutation changes. This is a slow buildup of changes. Mutation changes the DNA thus it changes the alleles, changed chromatophores in consequence. Alleles changes slowly in the gene pool. GP increases when mutation changes an allele so a new gene established by genetic drift.

ME Not necessarily a new species ll be formed in the change of allele frequency. It cn even get changed as a cyclic response during the period of drought or due to crisis population. Like diabetics or blood pressure, therefore it is not mutation. So no way to convert microbes to man.I am talking about thrifty genotype.

Waker Lewis Ew as if!! so when you are talkin on thrifty genotype then why shall you leave to discuss on drifty gene as genetic drift? Genotype comes from phenotype variations which one is essential for evolution.

ME: I am very much happy on genetic drift . Accept genetic drift at least. Lol. R u ready to depend of mathematics of chance? Mind it genetic drift hv very little chance to alter allele frequency.

Waker Lewis listen ma boy you are tryin to divert the attention. You need to concentrate on single nucleotide in the gene sequence. Lemme give the practical example. In sexual contraction multicellular organisms comes out then nucleotide substitution arises from the sex cells ....and in embryo the mutation contribute a new allele. This is neutral alleles. Genetic drift then actin on neutral alleles. Haha how shall you know about sex?

ME: So wot?

Waker Lewis . This formation is DNA replication. This is neutral theory you nerdy geek.This is for the molecular cloak & in time it becomes fixed for evolution. You are beatin around genetic drift & was tryin to disapprove changes in allele frequency.

ME: lol bro this is 2016 not 1960. This neutral mutation is invalidated by your guru Darwin himself. You are also drifting from selections to neutralist controversy. Darwin himself said there are traits tat my exist without natural selection."Variations neither useful nor injurious would not be affected by natural selection, and would be left either a fluctuating element, as perhaps we see in certain polymorphic species, or would ultimately become fixed, owing to the nature of the organism and the nature of the conditions."

Genetic drift is not about neutral mutation bcuz if I take this formula for the sake of argument then I hv to say advantageous mutations are lost.

Waker Lewis Imao haha, I may twist from selectionism to neutralism because both the branches are talkin about evolution. Haha.

ME: This is not the point but the point is Very simple. Gene is composed of chromosomes and chromosomes are divided by DNA. So I shall go directly to the DNA. DNA carries the information and it passes generation to generation so if my DNA was from apes then I wud be an ape not a human being. On the other hand if mutation is to be considered then it cn at best can be said as distortion. If there is the same mutation of the DNA then it is carrying the same amount of information but if there is another replica of the original DNA then it can never carry the healthy information from a weak DNA.It cn be called as noise or entropy and entrophy in physics is from usefulness to uselessness. Noise can never give better sound but it decreases the sound then how the DNA of a Chimp started to give magnificent information tat formed human DNA? This is absurd and I know wot ll be you next answer so carry on.lol

Waker Lewis Haha Imao , no I shall not go directly to the polymer. I shall ask you to look at the nucleotide bases those are attached inside each backbone of the molecule so that the nucleotides is one helix or strand of the DNA There the human evolutionary lineage.. chromosomes of apes were fused

ME: Why r you skipping the hydrogen bond as another strand? These two are creating the double helix of the DNA.

Waker Lewis Because Nucleotide pairin between strands allows the sequence in one strand to determine the sequence in the complementary strand.

ME: How cn you formulate Nucleotide paring without the backbone? The backbone of your Nucleotide is sugar-phospate with nitrogen bases? Are these two not forming the helix? Waker Lewis Haha because the deoxyribose sugar is free.It’s not goin to effect Nucleotide pairin. None of the two strands are identical.

ME: But the hydrogen bonds hold these two strands. Thus your Nucleotide is not identical in a DNA. They cn be free but in order to form DNA it must depend on hydrogen. If so hw fusion is possible?

Waker Lewis Dissimilarity of the two ends of a strand creates the ability to uniquely distinguish each end of the strand. They are antiparallel.

ME: This is not my point. My point is how Nucleotide activate polymere to fuse when itself is not a complete phenomenon . It alone even cannot make any cell then how cn there be mutation?

Waker Lewis Fanatic !! When Nucleotide is not parallel then why the fuck it can’t as a minor groove regulate gene transcription ba bindin proteins?

ME: Bcuz in order to gene transcription there must hv some other ingredients like guanine-cytosine base pairs,It also pairs with cytosine in other strand and tat other strand may be hydrogen bond and may contain a phosphate

Waker Lewis haha just tell me can a minor groove work independently?

ME: Never. Both the major groove and minor groove must work together ........................................................... ON MICROEVOLUTION

ME: Microevolution is not possible. Little changes to lead into another spices is absurd cuz for new spices it needs full genetic information. It may create variations with a kind of animal or plant but they shall not have total genetic information of a new organism. Dog can produce numerous dogs with this allele frequency change and by gene flow, but they will never produce fundamentally different kind of animal, such as cat.

The genetic information of dog is different than cats. If the genetic information is completely mutated then it can be said as distorted information of the genome which can never form different spices. In order for different things to happen, something very fundamental must occur: new genetic information must arise in an organism. The organism must then pass on its genes on to its descendents, and with later accumulation. We talked on it. Therefore I shall again post my early comments:-

…………………….. Recombination occurs during meiosis so I better say repairing is mutation. Just to be clear, I propose that mutations, which r changes in the sequence of DNA due to errors in replication or repair, cannot produce the information, I mean adding change necessary for Darwinian evolution.

Recombination is meant to be transcription and replication. So I shall stand on replication to void your recombination anyway. Wot I said above is macro-evolution but it can’t generate replicated full information thus mutation doesn’t mean cloning the same DNA. Then hw cn it be healthy evolution? It doesn’t match with the Darwin’s hypothetical tree of life. All life generated from a common ancestor? This is yours Darwin’s tree of life.

Absolutely so my above mentioned comment vilifies the nature of definition of mutation by the Darwinists. Migration or genetic drift or other natural selection formulas r verified as wrong becuz if we human’s to be the common ancestor of apes as the product of changed mechanism then the mutation must hv larger amount of information.

All cells possess those enzymes, they attempt to minimize the number of mutations. So wot?These pre-replicative enzymes are all formation of unusual structures and immature enzyme cn never carry any code of full information. Clear and out. I am not scarthing any thing those are much healthier than the average and u know tat , come to the point. I am stressing on information to say that without information a DNA is an empty faggot. DNA is DNA cuz it carries information to build a life. Why changing colour ll need additional information? There are the information within for its colour changing mechanism. I am talking about a new DNA to for a man from ape.

Mutations to duplicate or inverse or delete cn never produce new information for macro-evolution. It cn be scrambling, not another high profiled new DNA. It is necessary for another DNA same as the previous one and this is not possible by distorted mutation. But why r u only taking about mutation? Your formula of mutation is backed up with insufficient information of evolution. Lol wot is the difference between deletion and mutation? Deleting some chromosomes and adding some other typo chromosomes are the life line of your evolution. Why r u negating migration, genetic drift? Definitely mutation plays a vital role in evolution. Regarding mutation you hv to come to one point. Shaping up totally a different thing like a snake into tiger, tis is impossible. This is your rubbish. If I do agree in evolution then I hv to say it occurs I mean evolution occurs by the change of genetic material. Genes are inherited. It is the segments of DNA and the information of the DNA can be changed by mutation. Thus is it possible to change the fin into legs not a tiger into a falcon? So it needs additional information not deleting or scrambling.

Genetic Drift…. I am very much happy on genetic drift. Accept genetic drift at least. Lol. R u ready to depend of mathematics of chance? Mind it genetic drift hv very little chance to alter allele frequency.

Neutral mutation is invalidated by your guru Darwin himself. You are also drifting from selections to neutralist controversy. Darwin himself said there are traits tat my exist without natural selection. "Variations neither useful nor injurious would not be affected by natural selection, and would be left either a fluctuating element, as perhaps we see in certain polymorphic species, or would ultimately become fixed, owing to the nature of the organism and the nature of the conditions." Genetic drift is not about neutral mutation bcuz if I take this formula for the sake of argument then I hv to say advantageous mutations are lost. Gene is composed of chromosomes and chromosomes are divided by DNA. So I shall go directly to the DNA. DNA carries the information and it passes generation to generation so if my DNA was from apes then I wud be an ape not a human being. On the other hand if mutation is to be considered then it cn at best can be said as distortion.

If there is the same mutation of the DNA then it is carrying the same amount of information but if there is another replica of the original DNA then it can never carry the healthy information from a weak DNA.It cn be called as noise or entropy and entrophy in physics is from usefulness to uselessness. Noise can never give better sound but it decreases the sound then how the DNA of a Chimp started to give magnificent information tat formed human DNA? This is absurd and I know wot ll be you next answer so carry on.lol

The hydrogen bond is another strand. These two are creating the double helix of the DNA. How cn you formulate Nucleotide paring without the backbone? The backbone of your Nucleotide is sugar-phospate with nitrogen bases? Are these two not forming the helix? Hydrogen bonds hold these two strands. Thus your Nucleotide is not identical in a DNA. They cn be free but in order to form DNA it must depend on hydrogen. If so hw fusion is possible? How Nucleotide activate polymere to fuse when itself is not a complete phenomenon .

It alone even cannot make any cell then how cn there be mutation? In order to hv gene transcription there must hv some other ingredients like guanine-cytosine base pairs, It also pairs with cytosine in other strand and tat other strand may be hydrogen bond and may contain a phosphate. Both the major groove and minor groove must work together. ...................................................................... SUMMARIZED BY Mehreena Shehrash . lol let me make it little easy After reading it read the whole again. ………… Bro Waker and that man who posted in your blog want to say the same thing. They want to say we are the process of evolution. From an algae. Ok algae had its genes and DNA, RNA. Suppose gene is a molecule of a living thing. I am not going details or it may become complicated. DNA and RNA is closely related with genes. This DNA and genes carry information of the nature of that species.

The evolutionists are saying genes or DNA is changed in the course of time and start to change the information inside it. In this process of changing algae turns into reptiles and so on. It ends up at human being. This is mutation or drifting.

But another argument is gene and DNA of a particular species have information of that particular living thing and it transports the same information to its descendants. That is why cat is from cat and dog is from dog. The information of a particular species cannot be changed but it can be distorted or broken then there can be different kind of dogs and cat can be turned into tiger. Tiger can be the distorted version of cat. The gene of a fish can be changed into dolphins but not as a bird or buffalo.

Human being is totally different than a cat with different genetic information. A can be changed as A+ or A- but it cannot become B. B is B, A is A .

==============

দ্বিতীয় দফা আমাদের বিবর্তনবাদের উপর Argument. আমি এবং Melikh Azad।MUJIBUR =============

N:B: Here {}is my early comments. () is Melikh Azad’s latest replies and ** ও আমি is my latest reply.(Azad এর বর্তমান বক্তব্য: I follow a method where I put your points, and then put my refutation. This way people see what is being refuted. Just putting random points without any relevance with what was being discussed before does not help. Nor does it help the reader.)

==

{ আমার পূর্ববর্তী বক্তব্য : Mujib: //Melikh Azad , I can understand you hv problem to understand what I said thus m posting that one again below//} ==

(Melikh: বর্তমান This is unnecessary commentary. The discussion should not have comments about each other, rather on the topic. The readers can comment. Ok here I start:) ===

[Mujib // পূর্ববর্তী Even you missed the line where I said, “Mutations to duplicate or inverse or delete cn never produce new information for macro-evolution.”//]

====

(Melikh: বর্তমান So you are saying mutation can never produce new information. You have to define what you mean by new information. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of ) ……

**আমি: বর্তমান First let me say again. The word, “EVOLUTION” in linguistics has morphology which one is the study of words, how they are formed, and their relationship to other words . The theory of evolution by natural selection, first formulated in Darwin's book "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, is the process by which organisms change over time as a result of changes in heritable physical or behavioral traits. Changes that allow an organism to better adapt to its environment will help it survive and have more offspring. That is why the very word evolution is incorrect cuz Darwinian tree of evolution is a bad theory and I differ with this Darwinian word evolution therefore whether it is said as micro or macro level evolution both hv a connotation related with Darwinism which I hv serious objection. Thus I said it is not micro evolution but variations, modifications or changes within kinds.

Yes mutation is not giving pure different information but it is distortion . Even in the law of thermodynamics it is entropy not new information.

===

(Melikh 1.বর্তমান Increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991) 2. Increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)3. Novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996) novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)) ..

** আমি বর্তমান I can provide names too who r not agreed on their opinions u hv provided. But I won’t cuz I know their hypothesis are unproven fairy tales.

===

( Melikh : বর্তমান According to Shannon-Weaver information theory, random noise maximizes information. The random variation that mutations add to populations is the variation on which selection acts. Mutation alone will not cause adaptive evolution, but by eliminating nonadaptive variation, natural selection communicates information about the environment to the organism so that the organism becomes better adapted to it. Natural selection is the process by which information about the environment is transferred to an organism's genome and thus to the organism (Adami et al. 2000). )

===

**আমি: বর্তমান I differ with you provided example of Shanon information theory .

Actually the Shannon information theory is: "If a message source can send only one possible message, the chance that the receiver will receive that particular message is one out of one or 100%. Therefore, the receiver is 100% certain about which message will be received. Another way of saying this is that the receiver has 0% uncertainty about which message will be received".

So according to this theory we shall eliminate the uncertainty of information to get certain information.Therefore we shall get more probable certain information. ......... Complexity versus specified complexity.

Iuinsdysk]idfawqnjkl,mfdifhs-----Shanon information Time and tide waits for none--- Functional information.

“By information I mean the specification of the amino acid sequence in (the) protein.. information means here the precise determination of sequence, either of bases in the nucleic acid or on amino acid residues in the protein” Francis Crick

I am tryin to say informations in a DNA gathers trough sequence then , there are some deletion of informations and restoration of probable informations those are functional for the new DNA. He is trying to say how exact probable functional informations are restored & how ithe process of nonfunctional informations are determined.

Iuinsdysk]idfawqnjkl,mfdifhs have functional alphabets if few of the alphabets are deleted and rest are prearranged. His question is who is arranging the functional information. Even in order to have a better DNA or totally different DNA then in da passage of time there must be an intelligent sender with newer informations.

By the by how prokaryote got information?

Suppose the first DNA consisting a functional information, “LOVE”. But in order to feed Darwinian theory we need a better and more functional information of the future DNA coping from the ancestors. To become a human suppose we need a DNA consisting with functional better information with grammar too , “ I LOVE YOU” . Now the question is how deletion and addition of fully functional sentence as such got embedded in the latest DNA? Lol read, Charles B . Thaxton, “The Mystery of life’s Origin”

Darwinian tree of evolution profess gradual mutation of the development of species. But Darwin himself even present day Neo Darwinists are yet to prove why there was a sudden explosion , ( wot I call absence of Darwinistic gradual progression) that created totally different kind and structure of different species. Wot is the missing link?

Totally a new form of animals emerged after a short gap of evolutionary process. For new form of animal new massive information in the DNA is required. How this new information had come?

First what is Darwinism. His hypothesis is we are from a common ancestor. Therefore, he gave us a tree of evolution.

Darwin is saying every living creatures had evaluated from a common ancestor.

Darwin predicted evolution ll be developed through gradual mutation from their immediate past.

Now let's we see the life of the earth since the life was appeared.

The Cenozoic Era is the current and most recent of the three Phanerozoic geological eras, following the Mesozoic Era and covering the period from 66 million years ago to present day.

1.Phanerozoic geological eras: 541 million to 252 million years ago. 2. Mesozoic Era: 252 million to 66 million years ago. 3. Cenozoic Era: 66 Millions ago to the present.

The Cambrian explosion was the first geological period of the Paleozoic Era, The Cambrian lasted more or less 55.6 million years .

In terms of geological period 55. 6 million is very little period of time when different , totally different kind of species are found. The question is how totally different types of species from pre Cambrian period came into being within this short period of time.

*************

বিবর্তন হচ্ছে ডারউনিয়ান ট্রি অর্থাৎ gradual mutation of the development of species।

কিন্তু ফসিল রেকর্ডে এই ক্রমানুক্রমিক বিবর্তনের কোন প্রমান আজ পর্যন্ত পাওয়া যায় নি। ফসিল রেকর্ডে প্রচুর বলতে গেলে বিশাল বিশাল গ্যাপের পর একটা কিছু ফসিল আবিষ্কার হয়েছে আর এই বিশাল শূন্য স্হানগুলি বিবর্তনবাদীরা চিত্র অন্কন করে আন্দাজের মাধ্যমে পূরন করার চেষ্টা করে চলেছেন কোন প্রকার evidence ব্যাতিত। যার তিনটি উদাহারন দেওয়া যায়।

Single cell থেকে একলাফে Arthropods । ৪ লক্ষ থেকে ১২ কোটি cells? ফসিল রেকর্ডে তো এর মাঝে আর কোন ক্রমাগ্রসমান cells এর কোন চিহ্ন নাই।

Where did the information come from to Cambrain fish? In between this two species noting is found. From five cell types it jumped into 60 cells types of species.

ক্যাম্বেরিয়ান মাছে এত তথ্য আসলো কোথা থেকে। এই দুপ্রজাতির কে যুক্ত করে মাছের বিবর্তনের কথা বলা হয় তো five cell types থেকে লাফ মেরে ৬০ types of species কি করে হলো?

ঐ Phyium Ctenophora এর পরে Phylum Chordata কেই ফসিল রেকর্ড এ পাওয়া যায় মাঝে আর কিছু নাই।

It's totally not Darwin,s gradual evolution but sudden spark.

In between Phyium Ctenophora to Phylum Chordata. Nothing in between so far. It is definitely not Darwin evolution. Then wot?

….

{Mujib পূর্ববর্তী /“Microevolution is not possible. Little changes to lead into another spices is absurd cuz for new spices it needs full genetic information. It may create variations with a kind of animal or plant but they shall not have total genetic information of a new organism. Dog can produce numerous dogs with this allele frequency change and by gene flow, but they will never produce fundamentally different kind of animal, such as cat.//}

..

(Melikh: বর্তমান Again this the strawman that I had refuted already. A strawman is a logical fallacy where you try to refute what was not claimed in the first place.Evolution does not say a dog will become cat - a completely different animal with very different genetic information. Dogs bring down their prey through long chases, and cats ambush their prey; dogs are made for long-distance running, and cats are made for short sprints with high acceleration from a standing start. These requirements are quite different, and it is hard to achieve both in a single body. Compromises between the two have disadvantages in competition with specialists for either type, and thus natural selection culls them. Intermediates are competitive only so long as specialists are absent; so when specialists evolve, the intermediates are likely to become extinct. Evolution says that a dog will evolve into something that has very similar genetic information as that of a dog. But it is not a dog because it can't breed with a dog. At that point it is a speciation.You don't need to generate 100% new genetic information from nothing. Even a 2% change can be enough for speciation if that change leads to no interbreeding.Bonobo and Chimps had the same ancestor, they are genetically very similar as well. Chimps did not evolve from a tortoise - they were close relatives with bonobos that are very similar to chimps. Slightly farther relatives - orangutans and gorillas - they are still apes. Not that a snake grew legs and became an ape. That is a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of evolutionary prediction.)

==

আমি** বর্তমান I think you are actually circular reasoning . I said little changes to lead into another spices is absurd cuz for new spices it needs full genetic information. It may create variations with a kind of animal or plant but they shall not have total genetic information of a new organism. Dog can produce numerous dogs with this allele frequency change and by gene flow, but they will never produce fundamentally different kind of animal. Yes I know wot u r trying to say .

You said, “Dogs bring down their prey through long chases, and cats ambush their prey; dogs are made for long-distance running, and cats are made for short sprints with high acceleration from a standing start” and “ Bonobo and Chimps had the same ancestor, they are genetically very similar as well.” << these are just speculative theories without any real evidences.

Again u said, “ Evolution says that a dog will evolve into something that has very similar genetic information as that of a dog. But it is not a dog because it can't breed with a dog. At that point it is a speciation. “

That is wot I m saying as distortion or entropy not Darwinian mutation. I hv said earlier distortion is there but this distortion even in the passage of time is not going to form a different group of species or kinds. Dogs are remaining as different kind of dogs. Fishes are distorting into different kind of fishes and off course Hilsha fish is not capable to breed with Rohu fish but still they are fishes. Why are you bringing fragile deductive reason of breeding?

Off course in mutation entropy has been taking place but that is within the same trait.

{// পূর্ববর্তী Mujib: The genetic information of dog is different than cats. If the genetic information is completely mutated then it can be said as distorted information of the genome which can never form different spices. In order for different things to happen, something very fundamental must occur: new genetic information must arise in an organism. The organism must then pass on its genes on to its descendents, and with later accumulation. We talked on it. Therefore I shall again post my early comments:”//}

…

( Melikh: বর্তমান Again as demonstrated above in the studies of Lenski, Alves, Brown, Lynch, Conery new information happens through mutation all the time. You need not 100%, but a big change in genetic information to turn a dog into a cat. Which is a very big change and does not happen. Evolution does not claim that it will happen either.Evolution claims that slow changes will happen and when a progeny will not be able to mate with its existing ancestors, that is when speciation will happen. Even then, biological classification is hierarchical; when a new species evolves, it branches at the very lowermost level, and it remains part of all groups it is already in. Anything that evolves from a fruit fly, no matter how much it diverges, would still be classified as a fruit fly, a dipteran, an insect, an arthropod, an animal, and so forth).

*** আমি:বর্তমান “Evolution claims that slow changes will happen and when a progeny will not be able to mate with its existing ancestors,” ..

There is no evidence this slow changes among fishes but they are still fishes . Different kind of fishes are not capable to mate but they did not extinct. This is very poor hypothesis and far away from the fact

…… //

===

{Mujib: পূর্ববর্তী Look what I said “ Little changes to lead into another spices is absurd cuz for new spices it needs full genetic information. It may create variations with a kind of animal or plant but they shall not have total genetic information of a new organism.” And here by the ‘Microevolution’ I meant Darwinian Microevolution. Becuz “Deleting some chromosomes and adding some other typo chromosomes are the life line of your evolution. Why r u negating migration, genetic drift? Definitely mutation plays a vital role in evolution. Regarding mutation you hv to come to one point. Shaping up totally a different thing like a snake into tiger, tis is impossible.

==//}

(Melikh: বর্তমান More strawman arguments. Evolution does not say a snake will become a tiger. When a new species evolves, it branches at the lowermost level. That is why lions, tigers, leopards, jaguars are still considered big cats although they had a common ancestor they all branched out from. That ancestor was still a big cat, but modern lions and tigers can't breed to produce fertile offspring. So they are different species but they are still Panthera - big cats. One is not a snake, and the other is not a big cat.

…..

আমি:** বর্তমান As I said before distortion happened but this slow process of Darwinian evolution is proved wrong in Cambrian explosion . Cambrian explosion says it was not slow process but a sudden big bang .

….

{// পূর্ববর্তী Mujib : Yes there r little changes but that’s not darwinian evolution Micro-evolution, the type of “evolution” that is actually science.

In plain English, micro-evolution is what happens when, say for example, dogs interbreed and make a different breed of … dog. Or when corn pollinates and makes slightly different corn in the next generation of … corn. Or when human beings have human babies or apes have baby apes. But ironically it isn’t evolution. It is simply modification, variation, or change within kinds.//}

(Melikh:বর্তমান "Kind" is not a scientific term. Creationists have been unable to specify what the created kinds are. Don't give examples, define what a kind is. If kinds were distinct, it should be easy to distinguish between them. Instead, we find a nested hierarchy of similarities, with kinds within kinds within kinds. For example, the twelve-spotted ladybug could be placed in the twelve-spotted ladybug kind, the ladybug kind, the beetle kind, the insect kind, or any of dozens of other kinds of kind, depending on how inclusive the kind is. )

** আমি: বর্তমান As I said these are again distortion not Darwinian evolution . Different kinda lady bugs are distorted kinds of bugs and it ll remain as bugs.

And you hv contradicted Darwinism in order to stand your species logic with kinds. The research group working with Pavel Tomancak at the Max Planck Institute of Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics in Dresden discovered that the similarities among your species not only in morphology, but also in the expression pattern of the genes are greatest during the phylotypic stage. Thus similarities cannot be the yardstick to void anything in this case.

==

(Melikh: বর্তমান No matter where one sets the cutoff for how inclusive a kind is, there will be many groups just bordering on that cutoff. This pattern exactly matches the pattern expected of evolution. It does not match what creationism predicts.Speciation is distinct from microevolution in that speciation usually requires an isolating factor to keep the new species distinct. The isolating factor need not be biological; a new mountain range or the changed course of a river can qualify. Other than that, speciation requires no processes other than microevolution. Some processes such as disruptive selection (natural selection that drives two states of the same feature further apart) and polyploidy (a mutation that creates copies of the entire genome), may be involved more often in speciation, but they are not substantively different from microevolution. )

{//Mujib: পূর্ববর্তী I hv certainly agreed tat gradual changes, variations, and modifications within a single, specific kind occurs over time down through generations. However, no one with any common sense can say that this process proves or evidences any of the other grand claims made by Darwinism.//}

(Melikh: বর্তমান Small changes do imply large changes under some common circumstances. If there is some selective pressure for the changes to go in one direction, the changes will add up. Such a condition can happen, for example, under a gradual climate change or in evolutionary arms races. Even if there is no selective pressure at all, the changes will tend to diverge further and further from the starting point. Small changes will not lead to large changes only * if there is stabilizing selection for organisms to remain as they are, or * if there is too little time for much to happen, or * if there are genetic mechanisms limiting change.)

…….

আমি** বর্তমান Cambrian explosion invalided such assumptions . There is no chronological evidences either.

{/Mujib পূর্ববর্তী:/“There are many different species of tomatoes. There are cherry and roma and heirloom and beefsteak to name just a few. Every species is all some KIND of tomato.

There are many different species of pears. There are bartlett and d’anjou and comice and bosc and the list goes on. They are all some KIND of pear.//}

A/ (Melikh: বর্তমান In part, distinctness is an illusion caused by our choice of which groups to give names to. Groups with unclear boundaries tend not to get separate names, or groups in which intermediate forms exist are chopped in half arbitrarily (especially obvious if fossil forms are considered; e.g., the line between dinosaurs and birds is arbitrary, increasingly so as new fossils are discovered).In many groups, such as some grasses and leafhoppers, different species are very hard to tell apart. At least ten percent of bird species are similar enough to another species to produce fertile hybrids (Weiner 1994, 198-199). The most obvious continua are called ring species, because in the classic case (the herring gull complex) they form a ring around the North Pole. If we start in Western Europe and move west, similar populations, capable of interbreeding, succeed each other geographically. When we have traveled all the way around the world and reach Western Europe again, the final population is different enough that we call it a separate species, and it is incapable of interbreeding with herring gulls, even though they are connected by a continuous chain of interbreeding populations. This is a big problem for creationists. We expect kinds to be easily determined if they were created separately, but there are no such obvious divisions: They are mistaken, who repeat that the greater part of our species are clearly limited, and that the doubtful species are in a feeble minority. This seemed to be true, so long as a genus was imperfectly known, and its species were founded upon a few specimens, that is to say, were provisional. Just as we come to know them better, intermediate forms flow in, and doubts as to specific limits augment. (de Condolle, quoted in Darwin, 1872, chap. 2)).

…….

{//Mujib: পূর্ববর্তী Likewise, in the animal kingdom, there are several different species of birds. There are giant ostrich and tiny hummingbird. There are delicious goose and less tasty crow. There are hundreds or thousands of subspecies of birds. They are all different KINDS of bird. There are several different species of fish and every species of fish is some KIND of fish.

Darwinists mock the use of the word “kind” because, unlike nearly everything within their idiotic theory, the word kind is accurate. Accurate terms and facts tend to threaten to destroy the foundation of fallacies upon which Darwinists base their religion of secular humanism worshiped through the dogma of methodological naturalism.”//}

B/ (Melikh: বর্তমান What is a "kind"? Define a kind. Don't give examples of a kind. Creationists have identified kinds with everything from species to entire kingdoms. By the narrower definitions, variation to new kinds has occurred. By the broader definitions, we would not expect to see it in historical time.Helacyton gartleri shows one example of change that would be hard to call anything other than a change in kind. It is an amoeba-like life form that came from a human (Van Valen and Maoirana 1991; evolved from a carcinoma, it spreads by taking over other laboratory cell cultures).Creationists have never hinted at, much less shown, any mechanism that would limit variation. Without such a mechanism, we would expect to see kinds vary over time, becoming more and more different from what they were at a given time in the past.)

…….

{//Mujib: পূর্ববর্তী “Pathetic game play between kind and species again.//}

C/ (Melikh: বর্তমান You mean wordplay, but I will excuse that mistake.) ….

{//Mujib: পূর্ববর্তী All dog kinds, for example, can bring forth, uh, more dogs. Now, I grant you that a poodle and a great dane might have some mechanical issues to overcome should they attempt to bring forth, but they are genetically compatible members of dog kind. Likewise a shetland pony and a clydesdale would face some geometric challenges, but they are still two species within the kind of animal we call horse and they can bring forth.//}

D/ (Melikh:বর্তমান Again, define what you mean by kind. Don't give examples. Do you mean a species, a phylum, a genus? A kingdom?)

……

{//Mujib পূর্ববর্তী: In terms of kinds, there is a very real genetic barrier that prevents species of different kinds from bringing forth with species of different kinds. My point being, this barrier is far more than a simple mechanical problem. There is a very real genetic barrier that prevents species within a certain kind from magically producing some completely different kind.//}

E/ (Melikh: বর্তমান The only barrier that anyone has ever proposed is time, and the hundreds of millions of years available for evolution show that time is not a real barrier.Evolution is not just extrapolated from observed microevolution; it is also interpolated from observed changes in the fossil record and from the pattern of observed similarities and differences between present species.)

……

{// Mujib: পূর্ববর্তী For example, Darwinists are sure to trumpet how “many genetic similarities” exist between the DNA of humans and apes. This is actually incorrect in terms of codons. By way of analogy, the collected works of Edgar Allan Poe and the latest New York City telephone book share 100% of alphabet letters, punctuation, and arabic numbers in common. They do not, however, share even one complete sentence in common. They are not the same kind. Likewise, genetically, human beings and apes genetically are not the same kind. Nor has it ever been shown that humans and apes can or could ever bring forth.//}

E/ (Melikh: বর্তমান While the genetic difference between individual humans today is minuscule – about 0.1%, on average – study of the same aspects of the chimpanzee genome indicates a difference of about 1.2%.Geneticists have come up with a variety of ways of calculating the percentages, which give different impressions about how similar chimpanzees and humans are. The 1.2% chimp-human distinction, for example, involves a measurement of only substitutions in the base building blocks of those genes that chimpanzees and humans share. A comparison of the entire genome, however, indicates that segments of DNA have also been deleted, duplicated over and over, or inserted from one part of the genome into another. When these differences are counted, there is an additional 4 to 5% distinction between the human and chimpanzee genomes.)

……..

(Mujib: // পূর্ববর্তী Darwinists have a real burden of proof. They have to convince people that all life sprang forth from a rock. Then that first “simple” single celled organism somehow decided that having two independent sexes provided a clear evolutionary advantage over asexual reproduction, and “evolved” into every living thing that now lives or has ever lived. In order to get there, you have to believe that the very real genetic barriers that separate and make distinct every living thing within each KIND does not exist.

Bad news for Darwinists. Those very real genetic barriers exist.//)F/ {Melikh: বর্তমান No they do not have to convince people that life sprang from a rock. Life springing from non-life is abiogenesis, not evolution. That's evolution basics. The theory of evolution applies as long as life exists. How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution. Claiming that evolution does not apply without a theory of abiogenesis makes as much sense as saying that umbrellas do not work without a theory of meteorology.

And as long as you do not define what a kind is, and evidence of barriers that discussion is pointless. Do you consider snow leopards and lions the same KIND? FYI, they can mate and have fertile offsprings. So define what is a KIND which KINDS have genetic barriers. What is your basis for calling something a KIND?}

….

{Mujib // পূর্ববর্তী So how to Darwinists convince you? By shifting the burden of proof. They proclaim, “Because Darwinism is true, one kind simply must have been able to produce a different kind at some point in the past. Prove me wrong.” This can keep people busy for years and removes the burden of proof from them to provide evidence that their fairy tale resembles reality.//}

G/ (Melikh: বর্তমান Not really. Modern Synthesis (that is the scientific name, not Darwinism) is supported by evidence from a multitude of scientific disciplines - Comparative anatomy, embryology, morphology, Molecular biology, Biogeography, Paleontology, and genetics. So instead of asking creationists to disprove it, they ask for an alternative model with more predictive power.Not only that like any other established scientific theory, Modern Synthesis makes predictions. For example, the theory predicts that stress-induced phenotypic variation can initiate adaptive divergence in morphology, physiology and behaviour because of the ability of developmental mechanisms to accommodate new environments. This is supported by research on colonizing populations of house finches, water fleas, and sticklebacks and, from a more macro-evolutionary perspective, by studies of the vertebrate limb. It makes several other short term predictions like heritable variation will be systematically biased towards variants that are adaptive and well-integrated with existing aspects of the phenotype. These are all empirically testable and thus falsifiable. )

……

{Mujib পূর্ববর্তী //So-called “micro-evolution,” or wot is more accurately called changes within kind, unquestionably has taken place since the Cambrian Explosion, continues to take place today, and will undoubtedly take place in the future. “ And Cambrian explosion is a big blow at evolution./

H(Melikh:বর্তমান The Cambrian explosion still followed an evolutionary tree of life and not any blow to evolution in any form. The length of the Cambrian explosion is ambiguous and uncertain, but five to ten million years is a reasonable estimate; some say the explosion spans forty million years or more, starting about 553 million years ago. Even the shortest estimate of five million years is hardly sudden.The Precambrian fossils that have been found are consistent with a branching pattern and inconsistent with a sudden Cambrian origin. For example, bacteria appear well before multicellular organisms, and there are fossils giving evidence of transitionals leading to halkierids and arthropods.Genetic evidence also shows a branching pattern in the Precambrian, indicating, for example, that plants diverged from a common ancestor before fungi diverged from animals. )

………

{Mujib: পূর্ববর্তী //“But there is not one shred of evidence that any other type of “Darwinian evolution,” has ever taken place, takes place today, or could possibly take place in the future. That includes macro-evolution where one kind of living thing can bring forth a completely different kind of living thing.//}

I/ (Melikhবর্তমান : Throughout my response I have given multiple examples. However examples are irrelevant unless you define what is a kind, and the basis of defining that kind. Kind is an english word, like type. It is not a defined biological term. So define what a kind is. I do not want examples, like dogs, or cats, or birds. )

……..

{Mujib: পূর্ববর্তী //The truth is that simply saying “millions of years ago, Darwinian evolution must have occured” does not make it factual. You may as well say, “A long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.” You are not presenting evidence. You are setting the foundation for a fanciful lark.//}

J/ (Melikh:বর্তমান These are again strawmen arguments. Modern Synthesis does not simply say "it happened billions of years ago, and you must believe it". Like any other scientific theory it is based on evidence and falsifiable predictions.)

…….

{Mujib: // পূর্ববর্তী The truth is that generational changes within a single kind have never been shown to produce any different kinds. The truth is that finding a dinosaur bone in the dirt tells you exactly one thing — that it died. It doesn’t tell you where it died, only where the corpse ended up. It doesn’t tell you when it died, only that it happened sometime in the past. It certainly doesn’t tell you if that animal, when living, ever even had any children at all — much less whether any children it had when living were magically a completely different kind of living thing.”//}

K/ (Melikh:বর্তমান Those are just claims. If I were to believe you, no murder mystery can ever be solved. Because a dead body just means that it died. But the reality is that the dead body tells many more stories. There are entire disciplines of science devoted to dating fossils, analyzing fossils. All observation requires interpretation. Even something as seemingly simple as seeing an object in front of you requires a great deal of interpretation to determine what it is, what properties it exhibits, how far away it is, and so forth (Sacks 1995). To dismiss absolutely everything we know because it is interpretation would be ludicrous.Most of the evidence of evolution is not the sort about which interpretation is in question. The evidence consists of such things as the following: * certain trilobite species are found in certain geological formations; * many more varieties of marsupials are found in Australia than elsewhere; * bacteria in test tubes have been seen to change in certain ways over time; * flies share some traits that other insects do not;and millions of other such facts, none of which are in dispute.The sort of interpretation to which creationists object is how all the evidence fits together. They do not deny the evidence (not most of it, anyway); they deny that it is evidence for evolution.However, a fact gets to be considered evidence for a theory if it fits that theory and does not fit or is not covered by competing theories. (Ideally, the theory should predict the fact before the fact is known, but that is not essential for the fact to be evidence.) The millions of facts referred to above fit this criterion, so they qualify as evidence for evolution.)

=====

Melikh Azad এর A থেকে K পর্যন্ত যা বুঝাতে চেয়েছেন তার উত্তর মৌলিক DNA, RNA function of Cambrian explosion হতে যা বোঝা গেছে তার মাধ্যমেই অচল হয়ে গেছে। আমি সেটা নিম্নে দুই স্তরে তুলে ধরলাম ।

1st আমি***My reply to you rest of the questions …. আমি: How Protein, DNA, RNA work

…………..

My following article is a baffling conundrum to the evolutionist purpose and directed information exchange orchestrating specific and intended functioning within a cell is continuously conducted within the human genome and the DNA RNA functions that make up the human genome as we probably know the genome is the complete set of genetic material for any given living organism . The human genome is about 3 giga bases long which boils down to 750 MB this is about the same code amount that is found in total of three Mozilla browsers.

……..

The language of DNA is digital but is not binary code like a computer where binary encoding has 0s and 1s to work with, DNA has four positions T,C,G and A.

…..

These letters are used to represent the four informational nucleotide basis of a DNA strand. whereas a digital byte is almost 8 binary digits a DNA byte called a codon has 3 digits because each digit can have 4 values instead of 2 . A DNA codon has 64 possible values compare to a binary byte which has 256 .

..

When we take into account that all 20 plus million species of known life and each of their sub system and sub sub systems are all produced within this 64 valued coding language we can see the amazing efficiency level at which the genome works: of the 20000 to 30000 genes now thought to make up the human genome, most cells actually express only a very small part of the total information code which makes sense, a liver cell for example wud hv no need for the DNA code that makes up neurones.

….

But since almost all the cells carry around a full copy of the genome a system is needed to define out information that is not needed and that is just how DNA works. Just like a computer program the generic code is full of if and end if statements .

…

This is why stem cells are so hot right now . These cells hv the ability to differentiate into everything the code hasn't been defined out yet so to speak stated more precisely stem cells do not hv everything turned on over the lifetime of the stem cell during which time it may clone of fork many times . It specialises itself ; each specialisation can be regarded as choosing a branch and a tree in which it ll ultimately and finally operate and specialised.

…….

Each stem cell cn make or be induced to make decisions about its future, each decision makes it more specialised. DNA is not simply a Computer programming language but as it is already said there are some starling analogies between DNA and computer code. We can view each cell as a CPU for a central processing unit running it own kernel as we probably know in computing kernel is the main component of most computer operating systems. It's a bridge between applications and the actual data processing done at the hardware level so each cell has a copy of the entire karnal but amazingly each cell chooses to activate only the relevant parts which modules or which driver it loads so to speak if the cell needs to do something or call a function it calls up the right piece of the genome and transcribes it into RNA.

The RNA is then translated into a sequence of amino acids which together make up a protein for which the DNA coded . ……..

Now for the truly amazing part of the equation; this called up and coded protein is then tagged with a shipping address this address is a marker consisting of several several amino acids which tells the rest of the cells where this particular protein needs to be deployed.

………

Once the protein arrives at its intended location the delivery instruction is then stripped off and several post processing steps are performed activating the protein - now do its job, the protein is not activated until at arrives at it marked and intended location.

…

The amazing and complex intelligent communication functions of DNA are myriad . They are too numerous to recount and explain in short but the fact remains , purposed and directed information exchange is continuously conducted within the human genome and the DNA RNA functions that make it up purposed and directed information exchange. You decide is it random dramatically mutated nonpurposed accidental evolution?

=================================================================

Comments :

The evolutionists believe that Genetic mutation are the stuff of life thus the stuff of evolution actually genetic mutations have to be the process of life for evolutionists because without the existence of an intelligent designer there really is no other explanation for help one kind of living organism eventually over millions of years turns into another kind of living organism.

…..

The problem with the genetic mutation argument is that every true form the key words are , “ true form” of genetic mutation discovered shows that mutations result a decrease of useful information or an increase of destructive information to the DNA information science often with horrible results rather than evolutionary results.

…….

No form of true genetic mutation has ever been shown to produce anything usefully additional to a living organism . Mutations have not produced eyes, arms, legs, fins,lungs or reproductive system for example. Doctor E. Meyer professor of zoology at Harvard is famous for the following quote of scientific truth. “To believe that such a drastic mutation would `produce a viable new type, capable of occupying a new adaptive zone, `is equivalent to believing in miracles."—*E. Mayr, "Populations" in Species and Evolution (1970), p. 253.

………

There are two possible sources of the genetic variability which is required and able to drive changes within species ; genetic recombination and mutation.

…….

Mutations are random nucleotide alterations such as copying errors or changes induced by external mutagens and contrast genetic recombination is performed by the cell during the preparation of gametes like sperm, egg or pollen all of which are used for sexual reproduction.

……

Genetic recombination is the primary source of the genetic distinctions between individuals in a living population and must therefore be the principal driving force behind changes within species.

……..

Although genetic recombination was discovered and scientifically proven after the formation of Darwin's theories of evolution it is still playing by evolutionists today that mutations are the sources of any in natural variations within species and evolution takes it even an incomprehensible step further by claiming that ultimately these mutations cause one kind of living organism to become another kind of completely viable and evolve living organism .

….

This is a suppose phenomenon which has never been observed in the totality of man,s existence. In comparison to recombination the changes induced by mutations are totally insignificant.

…..

Mutations are also distrupted to normal gene function and are often corrected by itself whenever detected.

….

Now let's deal with a few of the most recent evolutionary arguments that supposedly prove that evolution occurs through mutation ……

…

The more that real science investigates these claims the more pseudoscientific evolution appears. The evolutionists will ask what about the mutation of viruses for example the flu virus becoming more more resistant to vaccines?

Bacteria do not become resistant to antibiotics merely by experiencing genetic mutations in fact there are at lest two important genetic mechanisms by which resistance may be conferred.

……..

First there's the process of conjugation during which two bacterial cells join and an exchange of genetic material occurs certain enzymes exchanged in this process coincidentally assist in the breakdown of antibiotics thus making the bacteria resistant to antibiotics . Secondly bacteria can incorporate into their own genetic machinery foreign pieces of DNA by either of two types of DNA transposition.

……

In transformation DNA from the environment perhaps from the death of another bacterium is absorbed into the bacterial cell and transduction a piece of DNA is transported into the cell by virus for example ; as a result of incorporating new genetic material and organism can become resistant to antibiotics so another words bacteria and viruses adapt rather than purely mutate . This medical scientific fact is now so well known that many evolutionists have dropped this argument for their proof.

……

Another evolutionist argument is , what about the mosquitoes amazing ability to resist each new repellent used against it?

….

The source of the mosquitoes ability to resist repellent is found in adaptation ability within its genome; as it adapts it's still a mosquito and no new body parts have been found . This amazing ability is identified as natural selection or adaptation not evolution. No new species or additional body part are arising from this process and furthermore older pesticides can remain effective especially if a new generation of mosquitoes are not exposed.

…...

What about bacteria developing the ability to digest nylon ?

In the nineteenth seventies a team of Japanese scientists did come across a bacterium that was able to digest nylon yet again it's not exactly the vindication that evolution required.

The mutation that caused the bacterium to do this was not found in the chromosomes, meaning that it could never be transferred during binary fission, also important to note is that plasmids and independent circular self replicating DNA molecule often found in bacteria that carries only few genes, the plasmids in the bacterium have been noted for the ability to adapt to new diets. This would mean that the bacterium adapted it did not evolve from the mutation. Every single other examples of evolution is for genetic mutation as the stuff of life falls into the category is just mentioned.

Life cannot exist without proteins . Proteins are essential to every cells function and existence however proteins require DNA to be formed that's because proteins are chains of specifically sequenced amino acids. Amino acids must link up in the precise sequence for a protein to form the precise sequence of a amino acids which is essential to protein formation is it self-determined by precise arrangement of the basis in the DNA molecule .

.........

That means that the precise arrangement of the bases in the DNA molecule constitutes the code for the precise arrangement of amino acids in a chain and the precise amino acids arrangement in a chain is itself necessary for protein formation therefore to put it simply to have life you must-have DNA and protein cannot form without it but DNA by itself is useless , it can't do anything.

.......

DNA does not go anywhere or do anything productive without the already existing proteins that's because in order for DNA to be transcribed and utilized in the cell which is essential to protein formation and life, DNA requires already existing proteins.

...........

DNA also cannot even replicate that is making copies of itself without already existing proteins, it means that if you can get with DNA but without proteins you could never get to proteins or life because DNA needs already existing proteins to even function or form proteins and you couldn't start with protein which is devour of DNA.

.........

Because proteins can only be formed from the instructions and information in DNA that proves that both DNA and proteins not to mention the many other molecular machines that enable them to interact must've been present for the beginning of life one could not have evolved into the other because they require one another for sustenance and utility. They must have been formed simultaneously.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

The synthesis of RNA from DNA is called transcription (the DNA is transcribed into RNA). In this figure the RNA is being synthesized from the red strand of DNA (which serves as template), this strand of DNA starts with the base T. The RNA strand starts with the only base that can form a base pair with this T, the A. This continues until the complete sequence of RNA is synthesized. Because the red strand serves as template, the sequence of RNA will be identical to the blue strand of DNA, only with the base U instead of the base T.

So now we have an RNA strand. From this strand the protein will be synthesized, this is called translation (RNA is translated into protein). A protein is made from amino acids, these form a strand.

……………

2nd

Cambrian explosion that debunks Darwinian gradual slow evolution.

Darwin is saying every living creatures had evaluated from a common ancestor.

Darwin predicted evolution ll be developed through gradual mutation from their immediate past.

Now let's we see the life of the earth since the life was appeared. ( I am repeating the Eras in order to clarify easily )

The Cenozoic Era is the current and most recent of the three Phanerozoic geological eras, following the Mesozoic Era and covering the period from 66 million years ago to present day.

1.Phanerozoic geological eras: 541 million to 252 million years ago. 2. Mesozoic Era: 252 million to 66 million years ago. 3. Cenozoic Era: 66 Millions ago to the present.

The Cambrian explosion was the first geological period of the Paleozoic Era, The Cambrian lasted more or less 55.6 million years .

In terms of geological period 55. 6 million is very little period of time when different , totally different kind of species are found. The question is how totally different types of species from pre Cambrian period came into being within this short period of time.

Where did the information come from to Cambrain fish? From sponge?

In between many different kinds of animals noting is found. From five cell types it jumped into 60 cells types of species.

It's totally not Darwin,s gradual evolution but sudden spark.

Bigbang

Where did the informations come from at cambrian stage?

Evidence shows sudden spark of arthropods. In between nothing.

In between Phyium Ctenophora to Phylum Chordata. Nothing in between so far. It is definitely not Darwin evolution. Then wot?

http://creation.com/origin-of-life-critique

"Joyce sums up the difficulties of conjuring up a hypothetical RNA world in these words.

“The most reasonable interpretation is that life did not start with RNA … The transition to an RNA world, like the origins of life in general, is fraught with uncertainty and is plagued by a lack of relevant experimental data. Researchers into the origins of life have grown accustomed to the level of frustration in these problems …

It is time to go beyond talking about an RNA world and begin to put the evolution of RNA in the context of the chemistry that came before it and the biology that followed.”

These sentiments are shared by Orgel, a long-time, well-known prebiotic chemist. In 1994 he wrote: “The precise events giving rise to the RNA world remain unclear. As we have seen, investigators have proposed many hypotheses, but evidence in favour of each of them is fragmentary at best. The full details of how the RNA world, and life, emerged may not be revealed in the near future.”44 As we have seen, the intuition that an RNA world preceded DNA and protein is based on some features found in modern cells. But it appears to be contradicted by the available experimental evidence. In fact, the extra hydroxyl of ribose renders it more reactive than deoxyribose and, in principle, makes the more stable DNA a more likely progenitor."

..

Till now I didn't get any explanation of Cambrian explosion with evidences.

“Earth although the atmosphere was still poor in oxygen, water was abundant, the continents were barren but there was thriving life in the seas. This life left little trace in fossils because it was all soft-bodied, with no hard parts like teeth or bone or shell had evolved.

But at the beginning of the Cambrian period about 570 million years ago this changed abruptly. The first shells were tiny and composed largely from phosphate, however they quickly became larger as the major component changed to calcium, suddenly most major groups of animals had them. The reason is not known, perhaps a set of "super predators" evolved against whom protection was needed. (*sharks evolved approx 455 mill yrs ago) alternatively, perhaps the composition of the sea water changed, so there were greater supplies of calcium available fir the first time in sufficient quantities. .

. whatever the reason, the effect was profound. For animals, a skeleton means being able to become more complex and provides not only protection, but also surfaces for attaching muscles making locomotion more efficient. Following this was a great burst of evolution in which familiar forms like bivalves (clams and mussels) and the marine ancestors of spiders and scorpions (arthropods) appeared.”

**************************

The story that standard evolution theory tells is simple: new variation arises through random genetic mutation; inheritance occurs through DNA; and natural selection is the sole cause of adaptation, the process by which organisms become well-suited to their environments. In this view, the complexity of biological development — the changes that occur as an organism grows and ages — are of secondary, even minor, importance.

……

There is no unknown reason for any scientific hypothesis. That is why the questions are still unanswered.

What triggered the Cambrian Explosion? And why did so much change occur at this time?

………..

Evidences are still against Darwinian tree:

Christie Syftestad of Roseville writes that "Stephen Jay Gould himself admitted that fossil evidence completely contradicts natural selection" (letter to the editor, Sacramento Bee, Dec. 19, 2005

……..

Poor oxygen theory is invalid:

Erik Sperling, a palaeontologist at Stanford University in California, compiled a database of 4,700 iron measurements taken from rocks around the world, spanning the Ediacaran and Cambrian periods. He and his colleagues did not find a statistically significant increase in the proportion of oxic to anoxic water at the boundary between the Ediacaran and the Cambrian.

…..

The emerging evidence about oxygen thresholds and ecology could also shed light on another major evolutionary question: when did animals originate? The first undisputed fossils of animals appear only 580 million years ago, but genetic evidence indicates that basic animal groups originated as far back as 700 million to 800 million years ago. If basic animal groups originated some 800 million years ago then why evolution were halted for more than 150 million years ? And how it dramatically changed after a big halt? Still there is no evidential prove.

Ok now let me zip the controversy.

1. The earliest living organisms were microscopic bacteria, which show up in the fossil record as early as 3.4 billion years ago.

……..

2.The first multicelled animals appeared in the fossil record almost 600 million years ago. Known as the Ediacarans

…….

3.It's thought the final stages of Precambrian time were marked by a prolonged global ice age. This may have led to widespread extinctions, mirroring the bleak endings to the geologic periods that followed. Over 650 million years ago, our entire planet existed in a frozen state.

…….

4. Planet of Fire: 250 million years ago Earth's a massive extinction wiped out life on earth. Now scientists believe they have uncovered the event responsible for the largest extinction in history.

…..

5.Asteroid Strike: Dinosaurs arose as rulers of the Earth 250 million years ago, but their reign soon ended in catastrophe.

……..

6. Cambrain period: Though there is some scientific debate about what fossil strata should mark the beginning of the period, the International Geological Congress places the lower boundary of the period at 543 million years ago with the first appearance in the fossil record of worms that made horizontal burrows. The end of the Cambrian Period is marked by evidence in the fossil record of a mass extinction event about 490 million years ago. The Cambrian Period was followed by the Ordovician Period.

…….

7. Cambrain period lasted about 53 million years .

……..

8. Cambrain explosion: Cambrain explosion is said because within this 53 million years time frame different types of species are explored. In term of geology this is not a big time frame.

…….

9. 3.4 billion years ago earliest living organisms were microscopic bacteria is found. And first multicelled animals appeared in the fossil record almost 600 million years ago It means. 2800 millions of years were taken to appear first multicelled animal to appear. Evidence shows 2800 millions of years were standstill for evolution.

……..

10. Over 650 million years ago, our entire planet existed in a frozen state. Very good . If it is true what was happening during those 2800 millions years?

……….

11. Sudden spark of notable spices were found during the Cambrain period that lasted about the period of 543 million years ago.

……….

12. It is claimed that nothing was possible to evolve prior to the first stage of cambrain period was due to frozen state 650 million years ago.

…….

13. If we consider the frozen state was the cause of mass distinction of species then there r questions below needed to be answered:

During Cambrian period : The planet on fire 250 million years ago , it is said massive extinction wiped out life on earth along with another Asteroid Strike. But it reality these two catastrophes did not effect like the hypothetical frozen state catastrophe so question arises. If frozen state can halt gradual evolution then why not these two catastrophes failed to halt different types of living creatures. Instead in reality within 53 million years ago revolution of life took place despite the two major catastrophes , is enough to disapprove Darwinian gradual evolution.