As many know..i fully validate evolution of species
BUT NOT EVOLUTION OF NEW GENUS..so i think this adds to my case
if not please provide science..[name one evolutionarily new genus

Extract from
http://rt.com/news/lake-vostok-bacteria-dna-745/

lets talk about evolution[lol]..of genus

quote..<<' Many had expected that if any life forms were to be found in the frozen crypt, they would be uniquely adapted to the harsh environment, and perhaps entirely different as a result of being shielded from evolution of life elsewhere on the planet for millions of years.

Rogers, who has just published his findings in PLOS One magazine, says this has not turned out to be the case.

"Many of the species we sequenced are what we would expect to find in a lake. Most of the organisms appear to be aquatic (freshwater), and many are species that usually live in ocean or lake sediments."

Rogers’ team believes the relative ordinariness of the organisms discovered may be due to the fact that they are left there as a legacy of when Antarctica had a temperate climate 35 million years ago, rather than as a result of evolution inside the lake.

OUG....Good to see you back....I missed you and have all of us. So, lets get to work.

Planet3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=XKCVUbxpHjM

For you OUG...and its why we look up to the skies....EVO

Planet3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=VpQ-uK2DqhI

Just one more members....good night and sleep well.

Planet3

yes..good day p3
three replies..from you,,

but
your other posts..seem to be music clips..not to topic sadly
but as my soundcard is dead..i cant affirm or deney,

,so have asked they be checked out..

i do hope we can talk sensibly... to topic...
as a theory isnt 'science',,and sadly evolution [of genus]..is a theory,,till you can present fact

even my hero..[charles darwin,,knew enough to write ''evolution,,OF SPECIES'',not evolution of genus..!which must occur..and is implied

yet without the definitive science proof
its a theory..yet taught to kids as fact..ie possibly a lie
one of the 3 seals..that must be broken..

revealed untrue..or proved true via fact
if you have fact.. i look forward to hearing it,

really,,i do want to know how god dun it,

but recall 'natural selection',,,plus survival..
of 'fittest',..>>is nature......or chance..not science.

Hey there, OUG,

Good to see you back.

Will have a think about your topic.

Cheers : )

Good day to you One Under God.

I read your little article, and I didn't see the same things you did I'm afraid.
The fact that the bacteria hasn't evolved is because it was so damn cold that they must have been unable to do anything at all!

No wonder nothing changed in such a freezing environment.
The main point those scientists raised however, was that they still had plenty more to see and do regarding their studies of that water.....so who knows what they might yet find?

It certainly doesn't disprove evolution...

I guess my immediate thoughts would be, oneundergod, if God put these bacteria in the Antarctic 35 million years ago, how long was this after the six days in which he built the world?

And when did he "make" mankind, on your timeline?

pericules..im not sure if its a troll..
but i know you are a man of honour..and wisdom..so

as near as science tells us,humans,'evolved' plus or minus 100,000 years ago,and i cant contradict,thus must accept that on faith.

as for this 7 day day thing

,FROM,'in the begining'..[ie nothing,,[ie the socalled big bang]
in my opinion,..,days is used relatively,to explain,steps/changes,as matter solidified into substance,

day one..all matter substance,would be like ice/stone pea soup
then light life etc,first plants bacteria etc,then in time the big freeze,that killed off dino etc..

and eventually our base energies [soul]..evolved to inhabit mammal brain nervous systewms etc[our life giving spirit sustains life to allow us to develop[evolve],our soul...god of course beibng the sum total/collective of all Energy,..ert and inert

above all..>>there is underlying cause
science reveals energy cant be created,nor destroyed
thus e=god..

and e was..before the big bang..
[just as our planet is the biggest known bioform,E,
god is the *collective of all livingpl;..us all energy..[in whatever FORM

i feel its worthy of considering..all options
triedthe science...and found the theory..[of evolution]needs work..but more needs blind faith

as tony says
if you cant explain it..dont vote for it
wait tillthe science[fact]..is self evident

good day susie and cheers to you poirot
[i so love your open mind/heart]

susie..do you recall the dead dinosaurs,
that allowed the evolution of mammles,presumably happend during 'the big freeze'..so cold or hot..in and of itself.,.is simply a contributor test to survival,..not evolution

plus science reveals
that one in one hundred cell replications is an error
as our body replaces every cell..within a 7 year cycle..[so the science reports validate..we each hold thousands of mutation's..error's

and sports as darwin said..or mutations as we now say number in the thousands..in every compound life form...

BUT thanks to a paired chromosome regulation
they largly..'self re-pair'..but deteriate with age..

as our tellemere's..[that prevent chromosonal unraveling..
fail to stop mutational errors compounding..and cells die..bodies die..,but the living energy goes on,into ever finer form..

its a process of refining the dross...
till..in time..,the next big bang

when yet again..the collective good[god]..speaks with one collective allinclusive voice,..saying let there be light..and saw it it good

Gday OUG

G*day ol'mate
trust you are well

i wont troll..the topic..off topic..
but trust kr..change hasnt upset you
in a way im dissapointed..as kevi could well have become 'the next pope'

anyhow..the heading should have read bacteria..lol
but heck ol'mate.. NONE of us is perfect..infact we each are unique
and thats what we get here at olo..differences..yet that makes the times we are inagreement [at times]..all the more special

so thanks to you all..my special species others
some sisters..others brothers..but all members..of the olo famil;y

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z34dEdojgi8&feature=player_detailpage

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=KnF3iSrrIWY
This is probably your great uncle....is there any similarities;)

OUG,good morning to you. Here,s a program for to expand your mind a little....enjoy:)

Planet3

dear p3..my vidio dont work
but thankfully there is a blurb

>>Published on 14 Jan 2013

In 2001, scientists announced an amazing discovery: the oldest skull of a human ancestor ever found. The 3½ million year old fossil was remarkably complete, and ..>>unlike any previous fossil find.

Its discovery - by a team led by Meave Leakey of the famous Leakey fossil-hunting family - has revolutionised our understanding of how humans evolved.

The great mystery of our evolution is how an ape could have evolved into the extraordinary creature that is a human being. There has never been another animal like us on the planet. And yet ten million years ago there was no sign that humans would take over the world.

Instead the Earth was dominated by the apes. More than 50 different species of ape roamed the world - ten million years ago Earth really was the planet of the apes.

Three million years later, most had vanished. In their place came something clearly related to the apes, but also completely different: human beings!""..end quote

thing is old cobber..youtube clip..are biased
so lets look at a search..revealing

you got anape ancestor..lol
not a missing link.,.to huh?man

quote..<<he oldest known fossil primate skeleton,
dating to 55 million years ago reveals that one of our earliest ancestors was a scrappy tree dweller>>.

.we didnt lol,..'evolve into man;,lol,
till 54.9 million years AFTER your 50 minute youtube clip could imp'lie

timming ol'son..is everything
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution

please note on previos wikilink,..lol..the tree of life
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Age-of-Man-wiki.jpg

long ago refuted..yet there to decieve many
it turns out taxonomic classification..decieved too many

from
http://www.anusha.com/eukarya.htm

Biologists have long aspired..to paint a genetic portrait of the ancestor by running the tree of evolution backward.. going from its leaves -- the living creatures of today -- down to the point where all its branches coalesce in a single trunk.

edited

The longstanding road map for finding the universal ancestor, however,turns out in the light of new data to have given misleading directions, and the road map's chief author, Dr. Carl Woese of the University of Illinois, is proposing...lol..a new theory about the earliest life forms.

In one such gene the human-bacterium..lol
similarity is as high..as 45 percent...lol

Hope..lol

But the emerging picture is far more complicated than had been expected, and the ancestor's features remain ill-defined though not wholly elusive.!..edited

"Now we are starting to see the true complexity of life."

Despite the quagmire in which their present efforts have landed them,..lol..biologists have not in any way despaired of confirming the conventional thesis,..that life evolved on earth from natural chemical processes...But a ferment of rethinking and regrouping is under way.

lol''or how/about
http://tolweb.org/Life_on_Earth/1
quote;;''The rooting of the Tree of Life,
and the relationships..lol..of the major lineages,..are controversial.

UOG --welcome back

FYE: http://www.bitstorm.org/gameoflife/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23MBR2pZoDQ

SPQR..your first link..has simple rules
ie quote..<'The Rules

For a space that is 'populated':
Each cell with one or no neighbors dies, as if by loneliness.>>

by this rule..limb buds on the developing phetus,would 'die'
thaliminide comes to mind..a great 'game law'..for making cancer clusters..but as for evolving..lol..new genus,sorry old sport.

but there is more rules/quote..
<<'..Each cell with four or more neighbors dies, as if by overpopulation.
Each cell with two or three neighbors survives.
For a space that is 'empty' or 'unpopulated'
Each cell with three neighbors becomes populated. "

i thinkyou got the start of a sponge...or amoeba
its possable that the youtube shows different assemblages..[but where the heart lungs nerves etc..and the 20 base eliments*ESSENTIAL,for aBIOgenesis..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

[ie life from non-life..something science simply avoids talking about..cause the 'clever apes'..arnt that clever.!

...and can only 'make life by gutting out..dna..from a LIVING cell
or speculate with theories

its all spin
but spinthat hides huge lies
huge ommisions..lol..and things..*science peers simply refuse to allow

mate..its just a game..
much like fractiles..but life is a lot more complicated

if you cant explain it
you been conned..taxonomy..ie looks like
[ie phenoype]..is the huge lie..many ways to the same features'

then there are the switch on mechanisms..' and switch off..mitochondria rne proteen hormones etc..plus so much more

DRAWINGS of shaved apes..still reveal..*apeshapes
apes that act lilke apes..even if cvlever artists make them..LOOK..like man

for the sake of reason folks..look at the pictures
see the massive leaps of faith..often based on a few lone tiny fragment of bone/turned into stone..

thus no proof of genotype,nor any sort of PR,oof..this ape..lol gave birth to your fathers father..by evolving into a homogenus

what are you talking about One under God? You talking about the Russian lake Vostock which is very very deep lake but I don't understand what you talking about though? Please explain what is it about genus? About the sea creatures that live in the lake which is potable, so it's different to the sea fishes and larger creatures like sharks and whales and other sea animals. What do you mean?

misanthrope/quote..'Please explain what is it about genus?""

in my younger years,,i bred pigeon's..goat's/dogs/fish,etc
i was particularily interested in the physiological development stages..feather pattern/colour formation etc..wingbud transphereetc

it was during my research of thefoot-notes,,of 'the pigeon,by levi..that it occured to me,,the pigion..was the closest genus..to the dodo

anyhow it was during written communication with hollander
that i upset my friend..by revealing..my reason for correspondence was the hope of re-creating 'a dodo like pigeon'..he explained it impossible..[and was right]..but youth knows all..lol

anyhow in time it occurred to me..that what hollander so firmly predicted had greater implication..ie the huge gaps..between genus
yet no surviving intermediate..

and the fact genus depended on breeding..fertility sepperation..meant the evolution of species CANNOT..ever..'evolve',lol,..into a new genus..at lest i could find none surviving..and still havnt

yet every time i mention it..i get the same ignorant karma..i showed..[to hollander]..re the dodo..yesterday i happend accross the no evolution..in a closed population/..

JUST like darwin stated
re 1000 pigeons retaining the wild-type [ancestral rockdove phenotype..in his opus 4 volume 'the evolution of SPECIES'

genus separation is supreme
never the twain shall meet..that is my present thesis

>>About the sea creatures that live in the lake..which is potable,>>
as well as salty..PLUS sealed under ice for 50 million years [ie an isolated population..ah la darwin.s 1000 pigeons..none seem to have evolved

<<so it's different to the sea fishes..and larger creatures like sharks and whales and other sea animals>>.

What do you mean?

how so,,they are wild type
returning to the mean..[average]..of its genus
just much like darwins finches beaks..

who in dry times show more short beaks..as the seed eating SPECIES..dominates over the long beak..loving the wet

yet both ate the same genus..ie long beak/short beak finches
despite some not resembling..a mean..

much like dogs are all canus genus[whose wild type will look wolf like..and all domesticated pigeons are columbia liva..

who..when bred together..proving same genus
in time return closer..to the genus wildtype rockdove mean

Thank you One Under God for telling me all about what you are talking about. I'm still not sure what you mean but you tried very hard to tell me all about it and for that, i'm quite pleased that you took the time to explain it all to me. Thank you very much One Under God.

thankyou for your kindness..in many ways
the error is with me..i strive to know things..so focussed my life on knowing..not explaining..your asking makes me think on how to do that

the bits i left out are key
its not enough for eg-sample..that the genus limitations breed offspring..BUT THAT they too*..are able to breed..fertile offspring!

[eg think of the mule..the result of horse/donkey is exta [out of] genus crossbreed]..mules cant of itself 'breed'..mules..
thus mules were given to those going west usa....who thus couldnt be independent..to 'breed'..their own.

now gmo gives infertile 3 rd gen

the same would result from say a domestic pigeon with a dove
thus proving divergent genus..thus..no'line of decent..let alone 'evolution'..is possible.

that's why 'evolutioinis taught to kids
adults would ask too many questions..but kids take it on faith,cause science god-heads like dickdorkins are the new godheads..to deceive the gullible..into blind obedience..just as god needed a priest

you may have heard that knowledge is power
and thus this pheno-typical/looks like /taxonomic deceit..

[i say farce goes on]..but people want to appear clever..
so just like religion before it..its now science peers.
feeding the punters

the faith in pills,..in the white labcoat
,the deception's of global warming 'science..
it all becomes clear..when you hear the FAULSE/god heads weave their spin...

and the serfs..stop thinking..
and blindly obey..revealing they are soo smart..they are clever too..just like their deceivers..in lab coats..pointing to the new sacred texts..proving..[lol to the deceived]..no god..

when its not god the problem..
but those claiming to speak lies..for him

topic seems run its course
the huge lie is that stone fossil fragments..can be most anything EX_purts say it is..especially via taxonomic phenotype...[not geneotype via dna validating a lineal decent

egsamining them reveals most are plaster casts..
plus conveniently..the original's got lost,..*somehow,years ago..[when they went into..'protective custody..when it was feared the natzie bombing of london was underway]..lost at see apparently..as reported last time.

its all all so neat,BUT,its the deliberated artistic license of the images..that peeves me most..the huge gaps..and ignorant children..who never really looked at the so called proof

but this too is the scam
biologists are all playing in their own fields experts in say one species..or one genus or one type one family etc..not the big picture so the big lie gets revealed.

what star gazers know about biology,..is near nuthing

but heck..if you got the money..tell the godheads of science to jump..they jump..medie-sin don't want a quick any cheap cure,,they want to sell drugs you must take everyday..cashflow*

extended patent...no end to it
put mad cow into the food..dumb the serfs down[google dumbing down the american education system..feed them gmo..make their kids sterile

but heck im over it
go eat ya big $mac*..go drink ya orange juice with no orange juice in it..go listen to ya news that isnt really news..oh why bother

<< (this)topic seems run its course >>

Yes, I think this thread is/was what is termed an "EVOLUTIONARY DEAD END".

yes spqr..dead end spontaneously aborted
a lethal gene..the fatal recessive

billions offruitfly matings producing ONLY fruitflies
yet still people believe we came from bacterial oooze

ok if i fail to agree ,..ponds scum we came from..pond scum we be

the peers..at a site where they at least grasp..some of the basics of biological process..wont let me talk..with peers who grasp the topic..

or delete the posts
or the whole topic

and a general site that does..
only has people here..for other reason's

science long believed the earth was flat..that the sun spins around the earth...people love gossip/polls/talking

but original thinking..bah

as long as all believe a lie
truth don't matter..

clearly blogging is a waste of time and effort

OUG,

Interesting....

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23832-lake-vostok-may-boast-a-thriving-ecosystem.html#.UdzeG2daf9F

Evolutionists cannot EXPLAIN your THEORY of ambiogenesis
nor that..lol..'first cell that 'evolved'..[via natural selection]

i contend-..that evolution is a theory..not a science..
as faulsify-ables..[that if refuted..refute the theory]..needed to claim the evolving thesis..of evolution of genus..*simply dont egsist

what dna [science]sequencing verified it happend
what was the change to what dna strand..of which species

what formed the cell membrane?
what substances formed the membrane?
can science replicate the membrane even today?

or what error/mutation..evolved genus..away from the first life
?
and where the amino acids ,hormones ,telemeres etc originate of the first evolution..what proofs?

yet you dare tell the theory to your kids as science truth
just as you were deceived by your teachers
it is a childish theory that satisfies only children

please grow up

see your faith in the theory
is the same belief [faith]
we have in god

but we try to explain ours [that is the difference]
but this isnt about belief

[explain science fact

im aware of my own ignorance

so how did this first cell..[life]..evolve into the next evolution?

what was this first cells definitive name [or what family/species]

[or whatever you think your faux science..[evolution]
says the ambiogensis definitively happened

ps i know ambiogenisis is denied..to be AN evolution BUT
how did this first cell mutate..into being the first cell?

i know there is clever people here
so please explain..*your theory

if you cant post facts
links are nice [but if you need a link to explain
think why you cant explain it without the link

paraphrase it for me
[to show you know..the facts underpinning YOUR theory..that you put above god][ok i know quite a few believers have fallen for a theory too,..but you guys[and gals] can help explain it as well

you that believe a THEORY to explain it at anytime

what you afraid of
you cant explain it now
so how you going to explain it to god..then

are not all irrationalities equal?
how can one absurdity..be more or less absurd than any other?

surely both have equal absurdity [lol]
until one proves..its theory...via science..with dea-fini-tive'$
faulsifyables

YOU claims the science method
BUT via deception..of being a COMPLETE science
that any other..in lue of fact is belief ..and all belief is just what you believe..if you cant prove it..its not science.

iam ully able to confirm
why i believe what i believe]

i studied genetics[a real science]
proved mendelic inheritors BY BREEDING and testing
but evolution ISNT a science..it is a theory

here is my point
a child asks where do i come from?

the reply is either 'god'
or in time kid you will learn
about the..THEORY [of evolution]
thats not where we came from..yet its called science
cause that stops us thinking about it

one serious response
raised the issue of amoeba
an omnipresent little beast..unchanged from the beginning

in researching your ameba i found only more about
how impossable evolution is

http://www.present-truth.org/3-Nature/Creation/creation-not-evolution-4.htm

here is a quick quote

The common amoeba is found in fresh water ponds,and ranges in size from an invisible microscopic animal to one that reaches a diameter of about half a millimeter,visible to the naked eye as a tiny white speck.

Each amoeba is a little mass of gelatinous protoplasm,containing many granules and droplets.The protoplasm is covered with a delicate cell membrane.

In many ways this strange little creature bears witness to its Creator.(1)The Amoeba is gifted with many Strange Abilities for a Microscopic Animal.

It can crawl;it can breathe(though it has no lungs or gills);
it can distinguish inert particles from the minute plants and animals on which it feeds;

it can thrust out its jelly-like body
at any point to lay hold of its food;

it can digest and absorb its food;

though it has no feet,it crawls by projecting "pseudopods."

Such a strange little creature could not"just happen."One cannot fail to see in these abilities the Hand of the Creator.(2)

The Ameba moves around by means of "Ameboid movement," projecting a "pseudopod"(false foot)from any part of its body.Because of this it changes shape when it moves or engulfs food,

hence its name — "ameba" (derived from a Greek word meaning "change").

The "legs" of an ameba are temporary,and soon flow back into its body,when it stops moving or completes the ingestion of food particles.

This is totally different from the muscular movements of higher animals.

Who designed it?
Moreover,if the amoeba is about to "swallow" an active organism,

Apparently the amoeba can "think" even though it has no brain

so logo's..logic came before the first cell?

thanks for the link poirot

your link mentioned new find..on this link
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23253-mystery-bug-found-in-antarcticas-lake-vostok.html

from that link
[quote]
<<..Bulat has now gone back to the DNA samples.. Comparing their DNA sequences to a database of known contaminants,..he identified short fragments=..lol..of DNA..pir rna..lol]..belonging to 19 different known bacterial species.

"All of them proved to be contaminants,
or bacteria from human skin,"..says Bulat.
More unusual

A twentieth species is more unusual.

The genetic samples..show less than 86 per cent similarity to the known major groups of bacteria...That could mean it belongs to an entirely new division,..says Bulat,..*although he concedes that it could just be..lol..a new species.

NO ONE can scientifically..[definitively]..describe the begining
nor has science..'evolved'..EVER..a single new genus..[via..NATURAL SELECTION..means not via science method]

[thousands of generations ..of UNNATURAL accelerated..fruitfly mutation..has ONLY produced fruit-flies][duh]

we have a theory..called a science][it IS ONLY a theory ]
the truth is the debate is still going

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00CXYc

if evolution can be proven..POOVE IT
links prove nothing
pictures ARNT SCIENCE

same with god creation..[like it or not atheists are made and sustained by a godless theory..[allowing them to blaspheme against god]

is anyone [ok any scientist]..even trying to validate the linkage's theorised..under pinning their evolutionary theory

or in full..by NAMING NAMES..
it is clear we dont have..the full facts
[thus e-volution..cant have claim to be a valid science]
and many clever people..claiming to not even know the question?

and many siunply rephrase the question..into one they can reply

thing is..i was taught evolution..as a child
as many of you were..[i was told..there is no god,..as many of you were..as well

well the thing is..science has not*any replicate-able answer

hasnt made any mutation..that evolves..any new genus
hasnt made its own cell..lol

i speculate..[thus evolution..isnt science]
it dosnt reveal faulsifiable facts..[thus isnt science]

we have art and philosophy
pretty pictures revealing the LOOKS LIKE
that on the surface..looks like evolutionary progression..[evolution]

but looks like isnt science
darwins finches were all finches

AT LEAST put..your proo.. on these pages please

as no one has tried to logistically explain the root of the evolutionary tree ,nor name one evolution scientifically initiated and recorded

no attempt to explain THE THEORY.

so saying its science..without fact,,well
its a theology#..[in the realm of philosophy[belief]
not science

if science it be
please explain it here and now

thus
for if/when you are asked one fine day..then and there to explain
you had some time to prepare your reply

look's like has deceived science many times
science told us..the sun turned around the earth
[till one nutter created the true..[verifiable true; science]
by proving it!..the other way round..=

till then EVEN science..was deceived..
[as evolutionists may be now]

till they can prove their theory fact
[ie get even just one..evolution..*using pure science

learned people can/will get deceived..as well as be deceiving
limited knowledge is a dangerous thing

the numbers reveal
finches breed finches
fruitfly breeds fruit fly
apes breed apes
humans breed humans

science method..has NEVER recorded nor evolved an evolution..of genus*

i put forward a link of 'genera'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Taxonomic_lists_(genera,_alphabetic)

there are millions..lol..
new genus must be popping up..all the time..yet...lol

yet no science..record of even one genus 'evolving'
its time to hang all taxonomists..by their special bits
till they validate..their fraud..lol faux science..*theory

OUG, if your not careful, you'll have an aneurism:)...Friend, this has all been discussed with the public vote....."let the people speak and if you listen, you will hear them"....the bible tells of this....and O yes, I've read it. Evolution like time, is a constance and since the human race has only just taken off its baby boots, don't worry about finding the answer that defines it all OUG.

My advice....get your favourite book out, sit back with a cup of tea and go and enjoy your world.

all the best.

Planet3

p3/quote..<<..careful,..you'll have an aneurism:)...>>

the spell check says..that aneurism..is spelled incorrectly
of the choices offered..i pick/and chose..*one more apt..amateurism

if-so-fact0..guilty as charged

[i dont trust paid pro's..rent'a scientist..
they are prepared to risk their mortal soul..for cash

<<Friend, this has all been discussed with the public vote....."let the people speak..and if you listen, you will hear them"....>>

yes i hear..silenmce
the sound..of one hand..slow clapping
where others only hear/here..an old dog yapping

<<the bible tells of this>>

please do tell....
chapter and verse,..>?

where does the bible say ignore..those who implore?

,<<and O yes, I've read it.>>

YES ITS A GREAT READ..oops

[but?]..<< Evolution like time, is a constance>>

mutational errors are constant..i can agree
BUT..mutation isnt evolution..

<<and since the human race..has only just taken off its baby boots, don't worry about finding the answer that defines it all>>

i agree the baby boot thing
turns out my 100,000 year old is only 50,000years

from
http://www.prb.org/Articles/2002/HowManyPeopleHaveEverLivedonEarth.aspx

<<..According to the United Nations Determinants and Consequences of Population Trends,..modern Homo sapiens may have appeared about 50,000 B.C>>

BUT its time we 7 billion now living..grew up
[as saul/paul of the new testy-meant said..
its time we stopped drinking mothers milk..and began eating meat

according to previous site..[assuming 50,000years]..that<<..This semi-scientific approach yields an estimate of about 108 billion births since the dawn of the human race.>>

that is ..to slip this bit in..<<..So,..our estimate here is..that about 6.5 percent..of all people ever born..are alive today.>>

its facts like this..that make this comment spurious..<<My advice....get your favourite book out,>>

i got just under 30,000 boooks
but the best book..is this clapped out hand-me-down..7 inch note book

and it must be allowing you to watch me via the camera..as your writing that im already doing right now..ie

<<..sit back with a cup of tea and go and enjoy>>
[your word's]..

cheers ya ol'salty

thanks for visiting..but im into swords..
[s/words=sacred words]..[ie..true words],

[ie new faulsify-able words][ie facts not frictions]
[truths not opinions]..thinking reasoning www,wurds..

in live-time
on the net/web

FUBAR!

Planet3

FRA

acronym,
"Frequently Rebutted Assertion(s)".

False dichotomy
(np) 1. The principle that since no one brought apples to the picnic, pears must have been brought instead. Actually, though, everyone brought potato salad exclusively.

An interesting example of an attempted false dichotomy usage was at the 1981 Arkansas Act 590 trial, where one of the lawyers for Arkansas, whose name was Wilson, tried to get Francisco Ayala to agree with the "two-model" argument.

Ayala replied, "My name is not not-Mr. Williams.
This courtroom is filled with people whose names are not not-Mr. Williams."

FGU
acronym, "Frequently Given-out Understanding", any of a number of illiterate writings elsewhere described as FAQs, FRAs, FABNAQs, or jargon files. [den., Ted Holden, who gives as a vocalization guide for FGU the string "fugg-U"]

FIF
acronym, "Favorite Incoming Flame". A bit of derogatory rhetoric directed at a person which, due to its source, is considered a compliment instead.

For example, Chris Nedin often includes a quote from Carl Wieland, a down-under SciCre-ist, in Nedin's signature, stating, "How can Nedin be trusted?"

Flame
(n) [FAQ] 1. An insult, put-down, or other invective aimed at another participant in a discussion.

Flame
(v) [FAQ] 1. The act of insulting, putting down, or lading with invective another party in a discussion.

Falsifiable
(adj) 1. As prescribed by Karl Popper, the property which is required for a theory(1) to be scientific. There must be some test which can be performed that will indicate that the theory is wrong.

For example, the flat-Earth theory can be falsified by circumnavigating the planet; the theory is thus scientific, although falsified. Despite recent SciCre legal and propaganda tactics, evolution is falsifiable.

Posted by Cossomby..on the bullying thread
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5902&page=0

re-quote edited...<<[name one evolutionarily new genus."

This is a misunderstanding of the difference between the nature of the categories species and genus. The species is the basic biological evolutionary group. The genus is a human construct - a category for grouping species that are similar, and so are probably closely related (ie. evolved apart fairly recently).>>>''

from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxonomic_rank

<<In biological classification, rank is the level(the relative position) in a taxonomic hierarchy...Examples of taxonomic ranks are species, genus, family, and class.

Each rank subsumes under it a number of less general categories. The rank of species, and specification of the genus to which the species belongs is basic, which means that it may not be necessary to specify ranks other than these>>

back to your quote..<<A genus is fairly arbitrary and different biologists will create different genera by grouping related species in different ways...>>

reply,..new link..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genus

quote from link..<<The composition of a genus is determined by a taxonomist...The standards for genus classification are not strictly codified,..so different authorities often produce different classifications for genera.

In the hierarchy of the binomial classification system,
genus comes above species and below family.>>..

your post..<<There are even terms for this: splitters v. lumpers.

The former separate related species into lots of different genera, the latter are more parsimonious...Neither is right or wrong, and a biologist can use either version, stating (or implying) the system being followed.>>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumpers_and_splitters

<< Lumping and splitting are opposing tendencies in any discipline which has to place individual examples into rigorously defined categories>>

or
http://www.cactus-art.biz/note-book/Dictionary/Dictionary_L/dictionary_lumpers_splitters.htm

<<...Lumping and splitting are opposing tendencies in any discipline which has to place individual examples into rigorously defined categories.
The lumper/splitter problem occurs when there is the need to create classifications and assign examples to them>>..lol

http://www.cactus-art.biz/note-book/Dictionary/Dictionary_L/dictionary_lumpers_splitters.htm

<<.. * A "lumper" is a taxonomist who group by similar traits, assuming that differences are not as important as similarities. And place organisms which share a few major characteristics in the same group.

When two named species are discovered to be of the same species, the older species name is usually retained, and the newer species name dropped, a process called synonymization or convivially, as lumping.

* A "splitter" is a taxonomist who takes precise definitions, and creates new categories to classify organism on the basis of the smallest known difference, <NOTE>>so every small difference is considered sufficient to create a new separate group.

Dividing a taxon into multiple,
often new, taxa is called splitting.>>

back to your quote..<<Over time, one version tends to get broadly accepted as the best way of categorizing related species.

examples edited.

<<The only way genera 'evolve' is in the changing categorisation by biologists as knowledge and understanding improves.>>

yes i agree genera DONT EVOLVE
except via taxonomic deceits

anyhow thanks for the extra evidence

im sorry that the previous post's got messy
pleasse note all links by me..trying to clarify
so to try to clarify further..and hopefully talk again with cossomby

Cossomby..quoted my first post..intro..
then replied..quote..<<This is a misunderstanding of the difference..between the nature of the categories species and genus. The species is the basic biological evolutionary group...>

generally speaking..please note
how in every word..evolution gets tacked on..when speaking of the topic

to requote,the bit im replying,<<..species is the basic biological evolutionary group...>>

so i check that out and its not fully accurate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

<<n biology,..a species (plural: species) is one of the basic units of biological classification and a taxonomic rank...A species is often defined as a group..[..KEY*..>>]..of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring...!

continue cossomby's post..<<The genus is a human construct>>

both are

<<a category for grouping species that are similar>>
ie that can interbreed

<<,..and so are probably closely related
(ie. evolved apart fairly recently).>>>

ie THEORIZED to..
<..evolved apart fairly recently..>

so in theory,..i agree..
but please note the key bit excluded..capability*of INTETERBREEDING

no doubt left out..by accident
BUT VITAL*

i then added the link..[removing the s..so it works..this time]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxonomic_rank

next we come to genus
from same link

<<..Species *hypothesized ..lol..to have the same ancestors
are placed in one genus, based on similarities...<KEY>..The similarity of species is judged based on comparison of physical attributes,>>

ie phenotype..ie looks like
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenotype

<<..A phenotype (from Greek phainein, 'to show' + typos, 'type')
is the composite of an organism's..(*observable characteristics or traits>>..

..<<..The genotype of an organism
is the inherited instructions it carries within its genetic code>>

<<Not all organisms with the same genotype look or act the same way because appearance and behavior are modified by environmental and developmental conditions. Likewise,<<KEY>>*..not all organisms that look alike necessarily have the same genotype.>>

then the lumping /splitting thing
this is simply taxonomists ..lumping some species 'together'

or splitting genus apart....
as the evolving THEOY*,..without..lol..faulsifyables..lol..further evolves.

its a form of hairsplitting
never the less the tree of life is fraud
never the less..no evolution of genus EVER recorded observed nor reported

one day some kid..will write the thesis refuting his peers
and become outcast..and get a fail mark..

and so
the lies go on.

<<im sorry that the previous post's got messy>> LOL

My apologies for posting in the wrong place - it was late at night! Here's my original post.

Just one comment - otherwise I'd be here all night...

A statement on the initial post: "As many know..i fully validate evolution of species BUT NOT EVOLUTION OF NEW GENUS..so i think this adds to my case if not please provide science..[name one evolutionarily new genus."

This is a misunderstanding of the difference between the nature of the categories species and genus. The species is the basic biological / evolutionary group. The genus is a human construct - a category for grouping species that are similar, and so are probably closely related (ie. evolved apart fairly recently).

A genus is fairly arbitrary and different biologists will create different genera by grouping related species in different ways. There are even terms for this: splitters v. lumpers. The former separate related species into lots of different genera, the latter are more parsimonious. Neither is right or wrong, and a biologist can use either version, stating (or implying) the system being followed. Over time, one version tends to get broadly accepted as the best way of categorising related species.

So if you look at older zoological papers, you'll find all the big kangaroos, big wallabies and some smaller wallabies were placed in the genus Macropus. Now they would be grouped into several genera: Macropus, Wallabia (or Protemnodon) and Thylogale (plus a couple of others I can't remember). In between, each of the big kangaroos, the greys, red and euro were for a time each put in a separate genera.

The only way genera 'evolve' is in the changing categorisation by biologists as knowledge and understanding improves.

I have had some difficulty following OUG's responses to my post. Juxtaposing sentences from my post with quotes from Wikipedia which say the same thing seems a bit odd.

Here is another quote from OUG:

" there are millions..lol..new genus must be popping up..all the time..yet...lol. yet no science..record of even one genus 'evolving'
its time to hang all taxonomists..by their special bits
till they validate..their fraud..lol faux science.."

I'll try again.

Genera have no biological existence at all. They do not 'pop up all the time'. They are just a human filing cabinet to help get our minds around the diversity of species. Species are the only biological entity. All the taxonomic categories - genus, families, class, are just part of a human sorting system. Therefore the question of whether genera evolve or not is a non-question. As with any human filing cabinet, if you get new documents (ie research produces new information), you might rearrange the file folders. This is not fraud.

OUG's basic misunderstanding of this influences the rest of his arguments, making it rather difficult to have any sensible discussion.

QUOTE..<<Genera have no biological existence at all.>.

of course not..

but they name/classify *living things..
according to the clasified beasts ability to RE-create..living bioform,s ..*that definitivly egsist..or egsisted

or in the case of fossils
are claimed./.to have been living bio-form,s

""They do not 'pop up all the time'.""

yes i know
but think please..there are millions of taxonomic genera
[see previous link]..isnt it strange..evolution process is claimed to have evolved so many..yet none have been witnesed by [EVER] by science]

<<they are just a human filing cabinet
to help get our minds around the diversity of species. Species are the only biological entity.>>

all very neat aint it
BUT just as genera is a classification..thus so is species/group/family etc are the same as species

classification;s..not living entity
including species

<<All the taxonomic categories - genus, families, class, are just part of a human sorting system.>>

based on species
that first BASE clever classification..,,not entity
thus your claim...<<pecies are the only biological entity.>>..isclearly errant

<<some how now Therefore the question of whether genera evolve or not is a non-question.>>

ok..i will concede..if you conceed species is a form like genus
not a .living form..it at best describes/defines..but dont live

same/same..a descriptor/classifier
but species aint living neither!

<<As with any human filing cabinet,>>
are all taxonomic classing s

<<if you get new documents (ie research produces new information), you might rearrange the file folders. This is not fraud.?}|>>

it is when you claim species *IS life
when it simply classifies living things*

but worse ignores that which 'changes' genus
of species..non-fertile young.,.

non living offspring
is where your thesis is fatally flawed..

in truth, no ancestor for man has ever been documented.

Is there really evidence that man descended from apes?

Many people honestly believe that the ancestry of mankind has been mapped faithfully and nearly completely. They have heard about “missing links,” and regard them as scientific proof for man's evolution from primates.

The “missing links” are still missing.

Here is a summary of facts relating to some of the most well known fossil discoveries.

* Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (Neandertal man) - 150 years ago Neandertal reconstructions were stooped and very much like an 'ape-man'.

It is now admitted that the supposedly stooped posture was due to disease and that Neandertal is just a variation of the human kind.

* Ramapithecus - once widely regarded as the ancestor of humans, it has now been realized that it is merely an extinct type of orangutan (an ape).

* Eoanthropus (Piltdown man) - a hoax based on a human skull cap and an orangutan's jaw. It was widely publicized as the missing link for 40 years.

* Hesperopithecus (Nebraska man) - based on a single tooth of a type of pig now only living in Paraguay.

* Pithecanthropus (Java man) - now renamed to Homo erectus. See below.

* Australopithecus africanus - this was at one time promoted as the missing link. It is no longer considered to be on the line from apes to humans. It is very ape-like.

* Sinanthropus (Peking man) was once presented as an ape-man but has now been reclassified as Homo erectus (see below).

Currently fashionable ape-men

These are the ones that adorn the evolutionary trees of today that supposedly led to Homo sapiens from a chimpanzee-like creature.

* Australopithecus - there are various species of these that have been at times proclaimed as human ancestors. One remains: Australopithecus afarensis, popularly known as the fossil 'Lucy'.

However, detailed studies of the inner ear, skulls and bones have suggested that 'Lucy' and her like are not on the way to becoming human.

For example, they may have walked more upright than most apes, but not in the human manner. Australopithecus afarensis is very similar to the pygmy chimpanzee.

* Homo habilis - there is a growing consensus amongst most paleoanthropologists that this category actually includes bits and pieces of various other types - such as Australopithecus and Homo erectus.
It is therefore an 'invalid taxon'. That is, it never existed as such.

* Homo erectus - many remains of this type have been found around the world. They are smaller than the average human today, with an appropriately smaller head (and brain size).

However, the brain size is within the range of people today and studies of the middle ear have shown that Homo erectus was just like us. Remains have been found in the same strata and in close proximity to ordinary Homo sapiens, suggesting that they lived together.

There is no fossil proof that man is the product of evolution. Could it be that the missing links are still missing because they simply do not exist.

the tiktaalak
[or whatever you guys call that'intermediate'

[that has flippers..[not limbs nor a shoulderblade
[the thing all legged animals need to'walk' and have got]

so here is my SPECIFIC point
from this link
http://www.earthhistory.org.uk/technical-issues/tiktaalik-roseae/

using this quote

<<..Actually it’s a red herring!

As discussed elsewhere on this site,the question of how one fills the gap between Panderichthys and Acanthostega is ultimately a side issue for the thesis that lobe-finned fish evolved into land-dwelling tetrapods...Apart from the problem of identifying Ichthyostega’s descendants, the crucial questions include:

How does one account for tetrapod trackways in beach sediments that predate even Tiktaalik by 10 million years?

How does one fill the gap between Tiktaalik, which was a fish with no legs, and an aïstopod such as Lethiscus, which within 20 million years had supposedly acquired legs and limb girdles and then lost them again, and changed from a fish to something more like a snake than any tetrapod?

That is the burden of proof that needs to be discharged. As Clack remarked in an academic paper earlier in the year, Lethiscus suggests that ‘a great deal happened in the course of tetrapod evolution that we know very little about’.

This is one of the trade secrets of palaeontology to which Darwinians do not like to draw public attention.

Until the problem is solved, however, it seems reasonable to conclude that we know very little about tetrapod evolution at all and to regard Tiktaalik in much the same light as one now regards the lung-fishes, which, for all their superficial appeal as intermediates, are no longer seen as ancestral to tetrapods.>>

so much for FACTS[you give links ,thus i rebut one point that invalidates the whole link[one flaw the whole science is flawed;its not science faulsifiable]

i know you got no specific proofs

all could easilly be rebutted
if you didnt YEARN for proof of what you BELIEVE, childish fables

i research things, dare to ask questions
[and am not afraid of what the real truth reveals

why dont you guys question EVE,volution

[anything?]

I think I will leave you to talk nonsense to yourself.

TYPICAL*..quote<<..you*..get new document's>>..

NOW..too many?
thanks anyhow*..cheers

you may think,..evolution won..its courtcase
till you realize,..it wasnt judging..'evolution/creation'
but..*whether..bible*..could be taught..in a science_class..!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District_trial_documents
from
http://www.aclu.org/evolution/legal/complaint.pdf

QUOTE>>..defendant:..The[EVOLUTION]Theory..is not a fact...
Gaps in the Theory exist..for which there is no evidence...>>

[there are many GAPS,..as honest appraisal would confirm

The complaint

[quote>>.'(defendants’“intelligent design policy”)..will compel..public school science_teachers*..to present to their students in biology class..Information..that is inherently*religious,,,not scientific,!,in nature.]

The resolution thus..is in clear..and direct violation of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause,ll..*which prohibits the teaching or presentation of religious ideas..in public school science classes>>>

so..it wasnt ABOUT evolution]
but about''teaching..or presentation of religious ideas!

it wasnt about PROVING..or DIS-proving..*'CREATION'..
[it was ONLY about allowing..*the full facts_to be questioned*..ON THE GROUNDS of..*teaching religious_ideas..*..in public_schools'']

missing link ?..lol..[now deleted]
http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Intermediate_Forms#The_theory_of_evolution_predicts_intermediate_forms

SAID..quote>>..where are all the intermediate forms?..
they are still with us;..*ring species]..LOL..

[PROOF?..ha]
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/irwin.html

[QUOTE}>>..Salamander;the Ensatina ring species,..
Richard Highton..*argued..Ensatina is a case of multiple species !
and not a continuum..of one species(..meaning, by traditional definitions..*it is not a ring species.

Greenish warbler[ring-species]
An article..that discusses greenish warblers..

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/03/26/MN172778.DTL

....>>in all cases..*we are talking about breeds of salimander/breeds of a warbler species{..LOL][THAT FAILS.the wiki description]..mt,DNA alone should not be used..to infer species boundaries

[QUOTe>>..Definition;..If an organism'B'..is intermediate in form between organisms..'A'and'C,..then it is said..to be an intermediate form between..A.and.C.

>>Intermediate forms..are one of the key predictions..of the theory of evolution,..which'stipulates'..that species evolved through a gradual process of natural selection..acting on small variations.

>>It follows that<<if>>..a kind of animal..'C'..is evolved from a different kind of animal..'A,..there will have been intermediate forms B1,B2,B3,etc..between..'A.and.C.>>

>>see that a salamander is..[B1,B2 b3,etc]..LOL
*..within the species salamander].

LOL..*SPECIES SALAMANDER?

refuted
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salamandridae

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html#tran

[quote]>>>>General lineage":..This is a sequence of similar genera or families,..linking an older group..to a very different?younger group...

A lineage like this//shows obvious morphological..intermediates for every major structural change,>>..lol

GENOTYPE*,no..[pattern]..lol

THEN..<<...there are still gaps..between each of the groups..lol
*few or none..*of the speciation..events are preserved>>...lol..

NO..*DNA proof*..EITHER

.<<.Why don't paleontologists..bother
to popularize..the detailed lineages..and species-to-species transition's?..

lol..*Because..it is thought to be unnecessary detail....LOL..
why waste valuable textbook/space..on such tedious detail?...>>>

why?..because that's..what it would take..to validate belief..INTO*..TRUE science[LOL]

im sorry your leaving..Cossomby
it seems everytime..i raise the issue..it seems i upset someone

another time it was ludwig..[who actually teaches botany..subtopic..specialty : eucalyptus..very learned etc..much im presuming like your good self]

regardless..you cant have missed
the subtle put downs i have received..
im called ignorant or a creationist..or told to goto this site or read that link..

so i do..and find the same non-science faith..that a theory* is 'science' fact.

im told learn more so i do
im told read this or that so i do

im told im stupid..illiterate dont know species = a livingthing

all this peer pressure is for what?..that i call THEORY science?..that i call dead naming words .living djectives?..thati call clear fixation or faith fact?

i know a science NEEDS falsifiability
that if refuted..refute the errant fact..and that peer review..keeps the ;science'..pure..[when religion has the same peer control system..

nd 'believers'..in both
can have blind faith that what they believe is true..because the high priest in a lab coat says so?

i seen what blind faith does
it allows lazy blind faith..well faith is fine..
but to say any faith..is more science than any other,is insane

nothing im saying is to upset anyone..i love truth..i love falsifiable fact..but most having faith..in their peers theory
presume falsifiable means made up..

and never even heard of phenotype genotype
let alone genus nor taxonomy etc..THEY TAKE THAT ON blind FAITH..

they got faith..not science..
and thats fine..till they call me ignorant just for questioning

then along comes a ludwig or a Cossomby..and i say to myself finally someone whop grasps what im so poorly trying to say..[so as to let those with faith believe as they will

but we are limited to 8 posts a day
so i uneed to get as much out there..while i got a possable science mind present..

i hoped could debate the issues
instead i get peer pressure to change
yet even facts cant change..*their faith..thanks be to peer's

an example..i just looked up speciation
spell-check gives me 4 other options..none of which spell it properly

never the less..google found it

i chose this link

this quote..<<...Suppose now that for some reason or other..there is a complete geographic separation between parts of the species range. Gene flow from the other parts of the range stops, and the separated populations evolve to suit their new, restricted environment...This encourages the genetic divergence of the separated populations, and might* become so great..that if the two populations were rejoined they would no longer be successful at interbreeding."">>

indicating to me..a new genus is indicated/created..if you will
but read..as science peers..ignore any mention of genus..defined as nonbreeding capability..[no fertile young]

QUOTE,,<<[Even if limited interbreeding were still possible, the local adaptations might have become so advantageous that there would be strong selection for individuals to discriminate in order to mate preferentially with members of their local population, rather than with immigrant individuals.]..

*..The two sets of organisms have become new species.!*&?..

..This concept, in which physical and genetic separation of populations leads to speciation, describes allopatric speciation."">>

my next search term thus would..<<..allopatric speciation>>..

but what happen to genus?

species=breeding ability/surviving offspring
genus=not capable..but likely related..but by what means..taxon phenotype..[appearance]..or falsifiable genotype fact..

its for me..
its EITHER falsifiable fact [sciewnc]
or....its faith or political or deceit..!

[note taxon..im told by spell check..is spelled wrong
those taking it all..on faith..wouldnt even notice..
and expert's.. like ludwig or your good-self..

well*....[sigh*]

sorry i left of the link
http://mygeologypage.ucdavis.edu/cowen/HistoryofLife/speciationmode.html

but this line so peeves me still

,<<..The two sets of organisms
have become new species>>

rubbish..at best one may have
but if capable of mating fertile young

no evolution of say bacteria into say insect?..or a cat into a dog..as evolution NEEDS,,to claim lineal evolution [ as postulated,by decietes..like the tree of life]..

of virus 'evolving into man
that takes heaps of faulsifyable steps..
.that simply cant be proven* to egsist

what are evolutions faulsifyables?
not natural selection,..thats chance..
effected 'naturally',..by nature[not by science method/repeatability]

nor survival of fittest..again,,..*not 'science'
its sad but im getting over it,..it seems..peer pressure works

i dont like being the most despised..ridiculed
i dont get off on insults..[either way]..

i just want proof of concept..[*faulsifiables]

Hi OUG, your absence has left you with an avalanche of issues resulting in you dominating your own thread.

Can’t remember much about biology but I do think you are guilty of misdirection.

Firstly, bacteria and genus offer no direct equivalency. Bacteria do have DNA but it is not encapsulated in chromosomes. Bacteria cannot evolve but they can mutate. They only mutate in reaction to a host.

Animals and plants can evolve because of chromosomes, bacteria cannot. Naughty, naughty OUG. (God I’m going to regret this).

Try this; three businessmen go to a restaurant for the $10 special lunch. They did not enjoy the lunch and when the bill for $30 arrived they complained to the waiter. The waiter passed on their complaint to the manager who agreed to discount their lunch and gave the waiter $5 by way of refund. The waiter couldn’t divide $5 into three customers so he gave them each $1 refund and put $2 in his own pocket. The math says each businessman paid $10 but got a $1 refund, $9 lunch. 3 X $9 is $27, plus the $2 in the waiters pocket = $29. Where did the missing dollar go?

That is what you just did.

Anyway, welcome back.

UOG: im sorry your leaving..Cossomby. it seems everytime..i raise the issue..it seems i upset someone. another time it was ludwig..[who actually teaches botany..subtopic..specialty : eucalyptus..very learned etc..much im presuming like your good self]

Like Ludwig, I have a background in biology. I am not upset, just frustrated, because it is impossible to have a discussion with someone who is straight-out wrong about some things, won't listen, but just repeats and repeats the same thing, errors and all. Personally, I like learning new things, especially when they take me beyond what I thought I knew. I love the feeling 'wow, I thought I understood that, how exciting to find it's really something way different'. The eureka moment. Probably why I became a scientist.

UOG also wrote: regardless..you cant have missed
the subtle put downs i have received..
im called ignorant or a creationist..or told to goto this site or read that link..

You do much the same. For example, some of your posts call taxonomists/biologists frauds. That's me you are accusing. But I don't take it personally because I realise it is based on your misunderstanding.

This is a pity because the bacteria at Lake Vostock are fascinating and well worth a serious debate

UOG wrote: i hoped could debate the issues. instead i get peer pressure to change. yet even facts cant change.

Me: But, people can get facts wrong. In this case, I am stating as a professional in this field of study, that you have the 'fact', of what a genus is, wrong.

For example, you quoted " suppose ... geographic separation between parts of the species range. Gene flow from the other parts of the range stops, and the separated populations evolve to suit their new, restricted environment...This encourages the genetic divergence of the separated populations, and might become so great..that if the two populations were rejoined they would no longer be successful at interbreeding." Then said: "indicating to me..a new genus is indicated/created".

Me: This is describing a mechanism for species formation. Genus was not mentioned nor is relevant.

As I've said previously, the filing box category 'genus' has no biological status. I have been quite puzzled by why you are so hung up on this view that 'genus' is 'real' biologically and that for some reason biologists are being deceitful.

And I've just had a Eureka moment! Maybe you think this because of the similarity of the words 'gene' and 'genus'? This is an accident: the meanings are not related. Gene come from the Greek meaning generate; genus comes from the Latin, meaning group, stock. It had a broader meaning in logic as a class or group of things (ie a category term), before it was used as a category term (ie a filing box) in biology. (Facts from the OED).

So maybe I am pressuring you to change, or at least learn a correction. And why not? If, as I biologist, I pointed out that the mushroom you believed was edible, was in fact extremely poisonous, would you say 'stop trying to change me' and eat it? You might accept that since I was a biologist I might just be right.

I hope you have a nice Eureka moment about the meaning of genus, and them maybe we could discuss the bacteria on Lake Vostock

yes spindoc..i did add..5$..of new info..to the kitty
because the bill was only 27 dollars...[not 30]

anyhow..you said..<<..Firstly,..bacteria an/genus..offer no direct equivalency.>>

i agree..[for the same reason..i resist..;species equating a living organism..when its a classifier..of life*into a taxa-framework..

you added..info..[new to me]..<<Bacteria do have DNA/but it is not encapsulated in chromosomes.>>

im presuming we are heading towards...linkage to antibiotic resistance...but,encapsulation ..would protect dna..and its my feeling*..that bacterial dna..*in bacteria..being relitivly exposed..have a higher transcription/error_rate

its more likely..to have resistance because..the dna errors allow more diverse options..the dna still needs transcription/into rna to make hormones/proteins etc..plus the mechanism's mitochondria etc

this surprises me..<<Bacteria cannot evolve..but they can mutate.>>..but it sounds..a fact..but at a level..that depends on precise definition..of what mutation is..versus..what*..evoloution is

[hair-splitting,..in some way..?
i thought life began with virus..into bacteria...etc..up to man..but i would need to read..the info..MORE NARROWLY TO COMMENT.

<<They only mutate..in reaction to a host.>.,
somehow that sounds..only part of the story..

eg..i would say
'reaction to the hosts..various systems'..
that activate..on/off..a reaction..in the dna:transcribed''

to turn maybe..newly mutated genes on..or off
..but again..im only thinking..by visualization
and rationalization..to this..new info..

this one..somehow..i resist..<<Animals and plants..can evolve because of chromosomes,bacteria cannot.>>..because chromosonal mutations..can be domminant..but mostly are resessives..

thus dont show up in the F1 population..till they re-pair..in a future mating..often via geographic isolation..or F1 matings/via mendelic mechanism/s

Cossomby,..its only taxonomy..not taxonomists/biologists

in particular..Linnaeus in 1753,..who devised*the system still in use..for the naming of species..cannabis..*all to be sativa..

his lie..saw me jailed..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis

i proved it..in 2002..when i took seed
to a canberra police station

this from above link..

<<..In September 2005 New Scientist reported that researchers at the Canberra Institute of Technology..had identified a new type of Cannabis>>..

was from those seed..[from the namoi river nsw]..7 branched hemp
like exodus/burning bush..i based aborigonal money..on the seed[wikiseed wikigeld]

in act..50dollar fine
qld the same act..got me..3 mths jail

all via a police/taxonomy expert
who learned her lies..on a weekend course..[you didnt train her?

Well, if that experience didn't get through to you that you were making incorrect assumptions, then nothing I can say will make any difference.

You clearly blame other people (police expert lies) for you own failings.

And, you have do to be a biologist (zoologist, botanist, microbiologist) first before you can do taxonomy.

Maybe you should stay off the pot? (and yes, I have partaken,in my youth).

Good luck!

I am reminded of meeting some-one who was unable to admit he was wrong.

Many years ago I was camped out on the Darling River; our group was joined for a few days by some visitors. We heard a bird calling 'mopoke' and one of the new arrivals announced definitively that that was the tawny frogmouth. Now birds are not my area of expertise, so normally I would have said nothing, uncertain if my knowledge or memory was correct. But the night before we'd gone to a talk on birds in the nearby national park, and the ranger (who was a zoologist and a birdo) had pointed out that many people thought, erroneously, that the frogmouth call is 'mopoke' when in fact it is the boobook owl. I quoted the ranger to the visitor, and he was adamant: the ranger was wrong! So I got out the Birds of Australia handbook, and read out "many people think erroneously, that the frogmouth call is 'mopoke' when in fact it is the boobook owl."

So what did our visitor say, even more adamantly: "the book is wrong!" And he persisted for the rest of his visit continually bringing this up (when we all bored to tears) and repeating: the ranger is wrong, the book is wrong.

He protested too much. So do you.

My final comment...

lol..final/comment..ok..typical

THIS POLICE EXPERT..did a weekend*course..ie..[expert/..under the act]
with*..taxonomist..she wasnt..'a'taxonomist..nor biologist!

the 2$..is irrelevant
bill=30..refund =3..=..27$ due..the 2 dollars=irrelevant

anyhow..wolves canis/lupus..[ie wild wolf]..into dogs[canis/lupus/familiaris)]

in genetics..called ancestral wildtype
that returns..when backcrossed

[the pigeons i studied has the blue bar rock dove [genus columbia..species/liva]..as its [+]wildtype[ancestor]yet all pigeons are[+]rock doves columbia/liva..

[and all dogs are[+]..wolves]canine/canis/lupus

its ALL..*in the canine..or columbia...*genus,

Evolution postulates wolves..[canis/lupus EVOLVED *from something canine..[something not wolf..From the miacids evolved the cat-like (Feloidea) and dog-like (Canoidea) carnivores

miacads evolved into canis..is what..evolution postulates
what are the proofs for Canis priscolatrans evolving into Canis etruscus,..then Canis mosbachensis,and in turn C. mosbachensis into Canis lupus,the Gray Wolf—immediate precursor to the domestic dog
[*IF canis EVOLVED..lol..from something ELSE,..:}

Miacids[42 million years ago]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miacids

traditionally, the Viverravidae (viverravids) ..ad been thought to be the earliest carnivorans,..with fossil records first appearing in the Paleocene of North America about 60 million years ago,

*but recent cranial morphology evidence
now places them outside the order Carnivora
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miacids#cite_note-Polly-1

this something else...can't be of the canis genus,
..evolutionary talking..as per..*tree of life..line of *decent

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viverravidae

<<The viverravids were thought to be..lol..the earliest carnivorans:
Recent cranial morphology evidence now places them outside the order Carnivora>>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viverravidae#cite_note-Polly-2

<<...Viverravid genera include Bryanictis, Didymictis, Ictidopappus, Mustelodon, Pristinictis, Protictis, Raphictis, Simpsonictis and Viverravus.>>..

..of the last 4..only raphictus has a page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raphictis

page dont say a lot more than
<<Raphictis is an extinct genus of Didymictidae.>>
and didymictidea dont got no page

but the taxon looks clever..
http://taxonomicon.taxonomy.nl/TaxonTree.aspx?id=657032
..till we reach the root
..the first ancestoral life

<<.. Natura - nature
Mundus Plinius - physical world
Naturalia - natural bodies
Biota
Domain Eukaryota Chatton, 1925 - eukaryotes
Unikonta
Opisthokonta Cavalier-Smith, 1987
Holozoa
Kingdom Animalia C. Linnaeus, 1758 - animals
http://taxonomicon.taxonomy.nl/TaxonTree.aspx?id=657032

so back to..*viverravids

..In viverravids, the number of molars
is reduced to two and the skull is elongated.

..Viverravidae is a monophyletic family, a plesion-group.
lol..They are not thought to be..related to any extant carnivorans>>

,mutations found WITHIN canis/lupus..[the genus>species
[C=c1,c2,c3 ARE all..within the'C'genus..of canis]

not'b'..evolving into..'c'..or c..into..D

just because micro-evolution,..within species=no proof of macro-mutation..*into new genus*..

[best egsampled,..by imagining a warm blood-mammal..
semi-evolved from cold blood..fish....lolo..*until you can reveal..this half'cold../..half'warmblood..*intermediate..

the absurdity boggles the mind..into nonthinking..
just as was planned..[baffle em with bull*

it seems..this is what lineal evolution..is deceiving us..or just muddying the primal oooze

why so many page changes
just to find out doggie ancestors?

yes there is variation..WITHIN a species,
but evolution postulates canis..CAME FROM NON canis
or say canine..From the miacids evolved the cat-like (Feloidea) and dog-like (Canoidea) carnivores

[that hasnt been proved..[and cant be proved]
without falsifiable 'science'*!

[what would be new..is saying WHICH..non wolf
evolved the FIRST wolf,..[sadly..no proofs..]its only a opinion/spin

what NON canis..micro'EVOLVED'..canis..[wolf]?

or what evolution from canus/lupus/fasmiliarus..[dog]..ISNT canis/lupus[wolf]

that..*NOT canis..link is what is needed..
to prove genus level evolution!..[VIA the NATURAL selection]

DARWIN said reversion..into wild type..[a fact]
take out HUMAN selection,..THEN natural selection..
return the breed*s of dog..BACK into one of its 4 wolf ancestor's[canis][+}..[not catus

not a non canis]..as witnessed wild cats
returning to their..natural selection>[+]wild ancestral type[genus]by being bigger than domesticated..[man selected] cats..[genus felinus? or whatever]

BUT if evolution,..what cat[+F}became canis[+c]
or what boney fish..became homo/sap-ian

[fish breed fish..[dogs breed dogs]
its a logical..natural LAW

WHAT NOT canis;..non*wolf
was UN-naturally selected..[by humans?chance..into canis dog,

MAN did not create a canis genus,..
theory says..natural selection of canis created the dog..
[theory says..NOT science:..ie there is no falsifiability!..]

[what did the wolf canis ancestor descend..[evolve]from?
[what non canis..is its non mutant paternal's?

[that is what evolution is saying
[despite only proof..that *like breeds like,..dogs breed dogs..[cats dont]

understand the big picture of common ancestral decent
postulated as an evolutionary falsifiable..points only to the natural selector..[god [not dog]

if the latin..phenotypical taxa..naming
was only kept within evolution
it wouldnt worry me..

what care i..if a docter describes the dis-ease
in latin..yes you have a chest=cold..[sounds better in latin
so we will give you..the flue..lol so you dont..get the flue..

google adverse/reaction
to perscribed drugs..killing millions

you will see these clever experts..are doing more damage,often in ignorance..or to earn the bonus pen/pad..from lawful international drug lords..selling prescribed drugs..in the prescribed manner

and god only cares..that we are happy/

allowing us..to believe..as we chose
but taxonomic deceits/lies ..jail/criminalize million.. via huge lies

in 1999..just in qld for example..35,000 'druggies'..got criminal records..lol.. for a plant..DEEMED to be a drug...by these real criminals..

and govt/revenue..*raised from the drug-fines
for all that pain/misery.. was 65 million[..1999..]

cannabliss..has never caused a death
except by clever spin

dont have withdrawal..symptoms..as its fat soluble
and was only criminalized..to takeover the hemp oil/fiber/rope industry..

cause they..could do it with petro_chemical

despite genesis 1;29 <<.,.King James Bible(Cambridge Ed.)

And God said,..Behold,
I have given you..every herb bearing seed,
which is upon the face..of all the earth,

and every tree,..in the which is
the fruit of a tree yielding seed;..to you it shall be for meat.""

but these labcoated deceivers
MAKE us blaspheme god..in many ways

first criminalize us for simply seeking pain relief
next force us to sign..promise..not to even talk with fellow users

force us to ignore james../jesus brother
to swear lies true..20 out of 21 plead guilty

James 5:12(New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)

12 Above all, my brothers,
do not swear—not by heaven or by earth or by anything else.

Let your "Yes" be yes,
and your "No," no, or you will be condemned.

Matthew 5:37 (New International Version)

37..Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,'
and your 'No,' 'No';

anything beyond this comes from the evil one.

and as we know evil does its vile..in dark places][court rooms
govt legislature..in the dark hours..and importantly

runs away..when confronted

google mercury mutation,..many fact's
have been altered..as we trust science..too_far.

http://altmedangel.com/vaccine.htm
>>healthy mercury?

When it comes to..other sources of mercury,they are extremely vigilant..mercury is particularly harmful to nerve cells,government health authorities have stressed..*that infants and small children shouldn't be fed these foods,and pregnant and nursing mothers should avoid eating tuna also...

..the EPA Environmental-Protection-Agency)has determined that the maximum allowable daily exposure to mercury is 0.1 microgram per kilogram of body weight,

>>the new flu vaccine for babies,called Fluzone,contains 25 micrograms of mercuryper-0.5ml dose.

Practically all vaccines contain mercury and aluminum.And vaccines are not"safer"sources of these toxic minerals.It doesn't matter if the mercury comes from fish or from a vaccine.The potential for neurological damage remains the same.

But for some reason,even though we're warned about fish consumption, vaccines and flu shots..are strongly encouraged and,in many instances,even required by law.

more babies seem to be developing autism problems,and the risk of developing Alzheimer's disease is steadily increasing.[lol]

Alzheimer's
linked to flu shots

In the year 2000,there were approximately 5million people in the U.S. with Alzheimer's,and it has become the fourth_leading cause of death in individuals over the age of 75.

By the year 2010,it is estimated that over 7 million individuals will have the disease,and by 2025,22 million will develop Alzheimer's.As the general population continues to consume more contaminated food,water,and medicines,

One expert stated that anyone who had five consecutive flu-'vaccine' shots increased their risk of developing Alzheimer's disease..*by a factor of 10..over someone who received only two or fewer shots<<

but science is deceiving us on
so many more levels[it is easy to go along with the crowd[just because creationism is hard to conceive dosnt mean evolution is PROVEN]

[if SCIENCE prove IT
dont create distractions based on weight of numbers who believe[but have never tested the science][science hasnt replicated that god alone can do..[yet the decieved accept it as fact]

both are theory

[chosing one..over the other..dont prove YOUR right
its just revealing..which you put faith in

LEST WE FORGET the burden..of science
claims fact,..FALSIFIABLE,..replicate-able fact

first make one just like it
then prove it's you..doing it..not god

if you got science..faulsifyable *PROOF present it HERE NOW
as it hasnt been..attempted..to even correct..
let alone presented..*therefor..dont egsist..but by visions/or put down

[reveal your proof[not your re-proof]
that aint proof
its opinion//NOT SCIENCE fact
if you going to take the high ground..at least reveal..the 'firm ground' falsifiable FACTS

[sans FACTS..your standing on aint a sinking shipof faith

google up 'AIDS from monkey serum'

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&rls=MEDA%2CMEDA%3A2008-36%2CMEDA%3Aen-GB&q=aids+from+monkeys+serum&btnG=Search&meta=

or'frauds in science'
771,000 for science fraud...in..2005
over 5 million..today

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=frauds+in+sciernce&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

http://www.google.com.au/url?q=http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Modern_frauds_in_science&sa=U&ei=LyniUdKUKcSRiQfm-4GYAg&ved=0CCAQFjAB&sig2=BP7huGotEuOKMnQ6n_RFeA&usg=AFQjCNETLqT4_neeX8Dt08TDiTB9ApKZfA

the role of journals in fraud science
http://www.google.com.au/url?q=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct&sa=U&ei=LyniUdKUKcSRiQfm-4GYAg&ved=0CB0QFjAA&sig2=iXxhAXqmdYAMHFoKTc9C5A&usg=AFQjCNGQowe-LOtphwVT-_57TF0_XU53rg

Scientific fraud and the power structure of science,
by Brian Martin published in Prometheus,1992.
http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/92prom.html

Global Trend:..More Science,..More Fraud
New York Times..20 Dec 2005 ... A global explosion in research is outstripping the mechanisms meant to guard against error and fraud.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/20/science/20rese.html

More science fraud..More science fraud.//By Jonathan M. Gitlin | Published: January 19, 2006..Scientific fraud is a topic that no-one in the profession likes to ...
http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2006/1/19/2578

Amazon.com: Voodoo Science:
The Road from Foolishness to Fraud Robert L. Park:
http://www.amazon.com/Voodoo-Science-Road-Foolishness-Fraud/dp/0195147103

Fraud in Science(Aaron Swartz:..The Weblog)14 Mar 2005 ... That’s what most scientists will tell you about fraud in science.Science is magically self-correcting, fraudsters are isolated incidents, ...
http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/001616

Ruthless Science Fraud at the University of TorontoIn 1981 I began Ph.D. research at the University of Toronto..I walked into a trap: after five years, I was removed from the laboratory and the credit for my ...
http://ca.geocities.com/uoftfraud/ruthless.htm

SCIENCE FRAUD;NPRA leading scientific journal..is taking an unusual step today ..it is retracting three papers it published in recent years. Science magazine is taking the ...
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1050374

Chowk: Science: Fraud and Forgery
in Science Fraud and forgery..is rare in the science world..BUT..it’s there.
www.chowk.com/articles/9466

Science Fraud Shakes Stem Cell Field,
LiveScience24 Dec 2005...

Scientists fretted Friday that a spectacular cloning fraud that hid in plain sight has set back legitimate stem cell work around the world.
http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/ap_051224_stem_cells.html

the not so nobel?..prize is perfect
in being'..sciences..lol..'highest..*honour?

OR..a bunch of fraudsters..and scamers?
that cant even provide falsification..that thus leads us to blatant lies...even if only by omission

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=frauds+in+sciernce&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

continued from
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15257&page=0

extracted from

http://www.mathematicsofevolution.com/Evolution_Of_Evolution.pdf

<<..Prior to the discovery of DNA,..scientists looked at the physical features of animals..(or fossils) and claimed that similarities between their physical features..indicated a proof of evolution...by claiming these animals were "related" to each other on the "phylogenetic tree" or "evolutionary tree.">>

<<The "phylogenetic tree" is the tree that shows how different species are related to each other by evolution.>>>..VIA TAXONOMIC looks like

<<..Let me emphasize that,..by definition, each plant or
animal on the phylogenetic tree..is a unique "species.">>

<<..On a pedigree chart..every person is the same species(i.e. a human being).

<<On a phylogenetic tree,however,..each entity on the tree is a different species!>>

<<..Morphology" is the science..of studying the visible structures of different species,..to determine the evolutionary relationship between the species...Morphology became obsolete,..as an argument for evolution,..after the discovery of DNA.>>

<<..Prior to the discovery of DNA..it was easy to support the theory of evolution...All you needed was someone..to take a few species which had similar*..features and..you needed someone...to draw a phylogenetic tree.

Because of the vast number of animals..which do live,and have lived, on this planet,...almost all*..animals can be placed on a phylogenetic tree and be*..made to appear closely related..to other species of animals.

Also, due to the vast number of animals which have lived on this earth,..and do live on this earth,.."transitional" species can usually be found.

These are species..which fill the gap..(on the evolutionary tree) between two known species (which THUS..*appear to be related}>>

but via dna..have been revealed to be based more by faith..than true science falsifiable proofs..based on looks like [phenotype..rather than genotype...thus the taxomomic fraud is exposed

EG,..<<with the right mix..of a few key fossils;
it can be claimed that there is evidence that land animals ..e.g. hippopotamus) "evolved" into whales,..as one of many examples..of the actual claims of evolution.

But even with all of this..*visual "evidence"..for the theory of evolution,..all was not well for the evolutionists ..ven before the discovery of DNA.

For example,..there are many species..of animals which do not appear to have.."parent species"..(the "parent species" is the species which had their DNA mutate into a "child species"..on the phylogenetic tree)..*because of their unique and highly complex physical capabilities.

For example/the neck,heart,etc...of the giraffe a
nd the unique,..*complex mechanisms which allow it to "stoop down" and drink..without choking to death..and having their brain blood vessels burst..*do not have any parallels with other animals or fossils.

In other words,..giraffes have no obvious.."parent species."

As a different type of example..of a lack of parent species;
..let us consider..*the Cambrian Explosion...Many of the creatures found in the Canada Rockies have no known parent species.

The Cambrian Explosion..brings up another issue.
Darwin predicted that the number of new species..found in the fossil record would gradually increase over time..(i.e. "gradualism"),*..but the Cambrian Explosion discoveries do not fit that prediction.

Many species,*..without any known "parent species,"
suddenly appeared in the fossil record.

One explanation.l.for this lack of "parent species,"..in the fossil record,..is that they..simply haven't been found yet..or that time has destroyed these transitional fossils.

Nevertheless,..the problems for the theory of evolution
are so well known that the scientific establishment coined the term "punctuated equilibrium"..to take the place of "gradualism" because that is what they observed;..based on many of the fossils they have found.

We immediately see a problem

Evolutionists..embraced a term..(i.e. punctuated_equilibrium)..which means exactly the opposite*..of what Darwin predicted..(i.e.
gradualism)!*!

Instead of dropping Darwin's theories,..they coined a new term..and continued to endorse..the theory of evolution..using what visual "evidence"..they had!

But*even..by using clever terminology,..such as "punctuated equilibrium,..was not saving the theory of evolution..because people remembered Darwin's claims

and..*it was obvious..that the data from paleontologists..*was never going to support..some of..the key predictions of Darwin.

The fossil record..was so flawed..in several different ways that according to one author..the theory of evolution was dying a slow death.

With the discovery of DNA..in 1953 the theory of evolution should have died on the spot. ..*scientists now had to explain..*how a series of accidents could have..*created the highly complex DNA molecules of millions of different species.

As scientists started to unravel the complexity,sophistication and functions of DNA,..the theory of evolution was looking worse..

*because the more complex..and sophisticated DNA was found to be,..the harder it was to explain that the DNA of each species was created by a long series of accidents.

Note:.."Pure accidentalism,"..both before..and after the discovery of
DNA,..is the technical way to describe.,.the core beliefs of the theory of evolution.

The opposite of "pure accidentalism"..is "design and creation."
For example,an explosion in a junkyard..making/EVOLVING into a jet.

In addition,it was learned that all plants and animals,..and even single-celled/organisms,..have their own unique DNA/RNA...Thus,there were literally millions of unique sequences*..of DNA for living species..and for some relatively/recent extinct species.(e.g. Neanderthal man,..who may*..or may not have been a different species than humans

there is evidence both for and against this theory).
Suddenly,..with the discovery of DNA,..the significance of the phylogenetic tree totally changed.

Scientists now had to explain..where these complex molecules,
called DNA,..came from for every living...and extinct species of plant,animal,etc.

The key question..became:.."how was the DNA
of a 'parent species'..accidentally mutated..a new species,..

the 'child species,'..was created,..with a new and improved*.."child
species"..was..*always considered to be..a superior species compared to the.."parent species."

importantly,..there were no errors in doing this,
*..meaning there are not..*millions of giant/graveyards..of failed attempts..to morph one..*highly sophisticated/DNA strand..into another highly/sophisticated DNA strand..

The truth is that the statistical problems..of the theory of evolution have gotten worse..as the understanding of the capabilities of DNA,..and how sensitive it is to FATAL/mutations..(i.e. errors), have become better understood.

never forget the massive number
..*of failures evolution..CHANCE*..would create
when a randomly mutated DNA strand..*failed to create a viable new species.
http://www.mathematicsofevolution.com/Evolution_Of_Evolution.pdf
Where are these failures..in the fossil record?

But scientist peer's quickly figured out..to use their power
to control over information...and have very carefully buried their embarrassments from public view[and from their students]by using deceptive definitions!

They "blacklisted".."ignored".."buried"..ridiculed/missdirected.."don't talk about"..the problems with their cherished..*theory/evolution(at the DNA level)..and continue to talk/ubiquitous phylogenetic trees, natural selection,survival of the fittest

edited

If you ever debate an evolutionist,..ask them to show proof that any scientist has ever observed macroevolution...Until they can do that, there is nothing to debate.

truth is irrelevant ..nd their statistical problems buried!

After burying their problems,..pretend there are no statistical problems and that the critics of evolution..were "not true scientists"..and are not playing fair.

To this day,..the main "evidence" for the theory of evolution is still based on pre-1953 technology, meaning phylogenetic trees, natural selection, examples of microevolution..(i.e. deceptive terminology),etc.

In fact, many "fossil digs" going
on today..are designed to find "missing links"..lol..on the phylogenetic tree!..*REDFUITED long-ago!

Scientists still refuse to honestly confront..the issues of DNA and macroevolution,which are post-1953 issues, ..hough they have now come up with some very clever statistical tricks..to talk about DNA and evolution.

But these new tactics..RUN_AWAY..don't look at permutations of nucleotides,nor do they demonstrate..how evolution could have overcome its statistical problems...or claim science..sans faulsifyables&

If you read any pro-evolution book,you will see numerous references to natural selection,survival of the fittest,morphology, phylogenetic trees and/or using the word "evolution").

Rarely is the word.."microevolution"..[within species;ie dog/cat/pigeon/finch..etc :ie *breeds]
or "macroevolution" [the creating a VIABLE..*new genus as postulated by 'theory'...of evolution]..actually used.

theissue often arises in..'discussions'..
that of where the extra chromosomes comes from..for evolution into new genus..*would need

http://eweb.furman.edu/~wworthen/bio111/mutation1.htm

<<..For the most part, mutations occur randomly.

And as you would suspect, making random changes to a complex, functional system like a living cell are probably going to have a negative effect.

This is particularly true for large changes, like the gain or loss of individual chromosomes or chromosome sets. In humans and other animals with complex development and tissue specialization, most of the large-scale changes cause such profound problems with development that the embryo does not develop correctly and is spontaneously aborted.

*Over 90% of all spontaneous abortuses (that are tested) have chromosomal anomalies.*

By analogy, think about the complex system of an automobile. If you make a large, random change to a functioning car - like taking out the engine, or putting one big wheel on the front right axle - it is unlikely that you will improve the functioning of the system.

Small changes are probably going to have a negative effect, also, but it is more likely that a small change has a beneficial effect than a large change.

For example, you might randomly change the angle of the rear-view mirror every time you get in the car.

Well, sometimes you will throw it off
so you can't see, but sometimes, just by chance...>>

later it explains why just by chance...in the main self abort..[or die early or are infertile]
<<.. some embryos with these conditions can complete development to birth, and some individuals can survive for decades. When non-disjunction occurs in the #21 chromosome, TRISOMY 21 occurs.

This is also known as Down's Syndrome. Other autosomal trisomies can survive to birth, but that is rare and the effects are much more severe.>>..

its fine for you to chose to remain ignorant
i seek to know*..cause im the ignoreant one

but heck you knew this..

more stuff that needs occur in a cell
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK21052/

that reveals chance
for the ..lol..first cell living is insane

just from ..a small bit of the page

<<<..default pathway

Constitutive secretory pathway that automatically delivers material from the Golgi apparatus to the plasma membrane if no other sorting signals are present.

degenerate

an adjective that describes multiple states\different triplet combinations of nucleotide bases (codons) that code for the same amino acid,

deletion

Type of mutation..in which a single nucleotide..or sequence of nucleotides has been removed from the DNA.

denaturation

Dramatic change in conformation//of a protein or nucleic acid usually resulting in the loss of biological function.

dendrite

Extension of a nerve cell, typically branched and relatively short, that receives stimuli..from other nerve cells.

dendritic cell

Cell derived from bone marrow and present in lymphoid and other tissues that is specialized for the uptake of particulate material by phagocytosis ..in immune responses.

desensitization

see adaptation

desmosome

Type of anchoring cell–cell junction,..formed between two epithelial cells,..characterized by dense plaques of protein into which intermediate filaments..n the two adjoining cells insert.

detergent

Type of small amphipathic molecule.l.that tends to coalesce in water,ith its hydrophobic tails buried..and its hydrophilic heads exposed.//It is widely used to solubilize membrane proteins.

determined

determination reflects a change..in the internal character of the cell,.nd it precedes..the much more readily detected process of cell differentiation.

development

Succession of changes that take place in an organism..as a fertilized egg gives rise to an adult plant or animal.

diacylglycerol

Lipid produced by the cleavage of inositol phospholipids..in response to extracellular signals...Composed of two fatty acid chains linked to glycerol,it serves as a signaling molecule..to help activate protein kinase C.

differentiation

Process by which a cell..undergoes a change to an overtly specialized cell type.

diffraction pattern

Pattern set up by wave interference//between radiation transmitted or scattered by different parts of an object.

diffusion

Net drift of molecules..in the direction of lower concentration due to random thermal movement.

diplotene

Fourth stage of division I of meiosis,in which chiasmata are first seen.

dissociation constant
Measure of the tendency of a complex..to dissociate>>

<<..Mr. Johnson's quote because by now the reader
should understand it better:

"Science [i.e. the scientific establishment] is committed to philosophical
naturalism [i.e. atheism in this context] and therefore science must
assume that no Creator, and no purposeful intelligence, is behind our
existence ...

All that science can address is the question of:
we are here as a result of purposeless material mechanisms, what's the
most plausible purposeless material mechanism that we can imagine?'"
Phillip E. Johnson, professor, author, attorney; quoted on UCTV>>..

They chose the theory of evolution as the "most plausible purposeless material
mechanism" because they were atheists.

However, because the theory of
evolution has failed to "prove" evolution, they have had to invent many types of
deceptions.

The most common types of deception they have used are the use of
tricky definitions and to assume the theory of evolution is true.

Truth was never their goal and will never be their goal because the foundation of
their "research" is based on philosophical naturalism (i.e. atheism). Anything that does not support philosophical naturalism is buried.

They will never consider anything to be "scientific" if it challenges their commitment to atheism.

evolutionists protecting their core belief of atheism.

How many cells are there in the human body?
No one knows, and over time..there have been many different estimates. No doubt the estimates will continue
to change.

But for now we will use the following numbers
(you will see that fine-tuning these
numbers will not change the outcome of these two chapters):

There are about 100 trillion cells in the adult human body.
There are about 100 billion neurons (i.e. brain cells in this context) in the brain.

There are about 1 trillion neurons (i.e. brain and nerve cells in this context) in the
entire body. The nerve cells are of course scattered throughout the body in a
complex network of nerves.

There are about 5 trillion glial cells in the body
(they largely do housecleaning..tasks such as cleaning out debris to protect the neurons..

<<..About 16 trillion cell divisions will be needed to create the baby and 100
trillion cell divisions will be needed to create the adult.

Asymmetric Cell Division
As the cells are dividing, how does a brain cell become a brain cell? How does an skin cell become a skin cell? How does a liver cell become a liver cell? And so on?

All of these cells came from the same fertilized egg.
The difference between a brain cell and a bone cell, as two examples, is in which "genes" on the DNA are "activated."

When a "gene" is activated it can create
proteins. When a "gene" is deactivated," or had not yet been activated, it cannot create proteins.

It is the proteins inside the cell which are activated that determine what kind of cell it is. The proteins (which are created by the patterns of nucleotides of the gene on the DNA) provide the size, shape and function of the cell.

And the bproteins exist because the correct genes were activated.

The proteins have function inside the cell and actually extend to outside the cell and are used to attach to contiguous cells.

My point is that every cell has exactly the same DNA and every cell has exactly the same genes. What gives a cell its function and shape is in what genes are activated.

This is the key variation in the different types of cells.
So what determines which genes are activated, in a specific cell, as it is created during the morphing of the embryo algorithm?

No one really knows.
We just now it happens.and in time..we will know
but still..*not know how the first life was begot..?

*your guess is as good as mine..[sciences *best guess is meteorites..[lol]..sreriously..[so scien-terrific]

so how was it..*first developed ..pre being in meteorite debris
no doubt ..lol..yet other meteorites?..right?

anything but god.

ok im..over it
teach your demon children..what you will
trust self-serving elitist deceiving man..or trust a living loving good god.

just dont feign to know!
no-one does..so why teach evolution..*as fact?

ITS A THEORY*..till real falsify-ables ...are presented

when a cell..divides,
the one old cell..becomes two new cells..*and the old cell ceases to
exist.

Frequently during cell division the two new cells may not have the same
genes activated as the old cell that divided.!

This is called "asymmetric cell division" because the two new cells may not be..the same as the "old cell" *,or the same as each other!

For example, let us consider three cells:
M) The mother cell,
1) The new cell #1,
2) The new cell #2.

These three cells,
the mother cell, the new cell #1 and the new cell #2 (created
by cell division) may have three different sets of genes activated!

Asymmetric cell divisions only happen when the person/fetus is growing...A "mother cell" divides into two "new" cells,..which then become "mother cells" themselves..when they divide.

When the cells quit dividing asymmetrically..an old cell is simply replaced by an identical new cell...The new cell and the old cell have the same genes activated.

But asymmetric cell division is needed
to create a human baby,..with many different types of cells when the baby is born.

To summarize, when "asymmetric cell division" happens,
the two "new" cells may*..have different genes activated than the "mother cell,"*..but after cell division the "mother cell" is gone.

Thus, the one cell..divides into two cells (because the
"mother cell" no longer exists after the cell division)..and each of the two new cells..*may have different genes activated than what the "mother cell" had activated and the two new cells may have different genes activated than each other.

The reason is that the first "bone cell"..(i.e. the first cell to have the "bone cell" genes activated),..during the morphing of the embryo,..*did not exist in the first,second or third levels of cell divisions.

*In fact,..no one knows when the first true.."bone cell" is created in this process...Thus, at some point,..a cell which was NOT a bone cell,..*must have divided to..*create two new cells, one or two of which became bone cells.

In fact,..this had to happen many,..many times
during the morphing of the embryo.because the
bones are scattered..all-over the entire body.

The "path" issue can teach us many things..about the morphing of the embryo.
Let us name the cell (after the 10th cell division) that will become Bob: Bobby.

So Bobby existed after the 10th cell division but Bobby was still in the"asymmetric cell division" of the morphing baby and is not yet Bob (i.e.Bob will descend from Bobby,..and will NOT descend from any other cell which existed..*after the 10th cell division).

Was Bobby a pure neuron cell at this point?
Absolutely not. Bobby would..probably become multiple neuron cells, multiple glial cells, possibly multiple blood cell..wall cells and perhaps even some skull cells, etc.

Bob is just one of many..different types of cells that will descend from Bobby...So which genes are activated in Bobby?

Obviously,..no one has a clue.

Bobby will..eventually become many brain cells,
many glial cells,..many blood cell..wall cells, possibly skull cells, etc.

So let me ask again:..which genes are activated..in Bobby?
No one has any clue.

Where on Bobby's DNA..(after the 10th cell division)
is the information about..which genes..*will be activated when Bob is created by an asymmetric cell division in the 44th cell division?

No one has a clue.

The genes activated..on Bobby will..*definitely not be the same activated genes..as a neuron because Bobby..*will become several different kinds of cells.

We also don't know..in which cell division Bobby's descendant cells will first..*become pure neuron cells..with only the neuron genes activated.

We could ask this same question..about the 9 cells that preceded the creation of Bobby in the 10th layer of cell divisions...Which genes did they have activated?

For example, ..fter 5 layers of cell divisions
there are 32 cells in the fetus...One of these 32 cells will become Bobby and eventually Bob.

Let us call this cell..in the 5th cell division layer: Jim.

Jim would become..not only Bobby,
but likely skin cells..and hair cells.

Literally 1/32nd of all cells..in the body will descend from Jim, including Bobby and Bob...yet all*..will have died long ago

So which genes..were activated in Jim?
DONT Ask an evolutionist...ask god.

How can a single fertilized egg..have information..about which genes..to activate for 16 trillion cells ..for a baby..and 100 trillion cells for the adult?

ie all of the information...the fertilized egg needed.

The fertilized egg..had to have the "path" information..for creating all of the cells..and it had to know which genes needed to be activated..on the developmental-path..[plus when]..during the creation.;.of all of these consecutive cells.

This includes..the information..about which genes..would be activated for Jim/Bobby/Bob..and many trillions of other cells.

How many cells..*existed..during
the morphing..of the embryo..and in the newborn baby?

In other words,.,.,if we include EVERY CELL,..even the temporary,
intermediate cells..how many cells need information..about which genes to activate?

The answer is..*35 trillion cells,
and that..is only the number of cells..up to the newborn baby.

While almost half of these cells,,have very specific genes activated (such as Bob,which is a finished cell),many of these cells(such as Jim and Bobby,..which are hybrid cells)..would lead to the creation of multiple types of cells.

Which genes do these roughly..*19 trillion hybrid cells have activated?

The DNA of the fertilized egg..*must have the information about which genes were activated..in these strange, hybrid cells!

Are you beginning to comprehend
the total absurdity of the theory of evolution?

There is no way that a single fertilized egg
can contain the information/timing/form..of what is
going on inside of 35 trillion cells just to create a newborn baby!

The theory of evolution has no answer to these issues.

There is simply not enough information..on a DNA strand to contain a list..of all of the genes that will be activated or deactivated, at just the right time,..in just the right path,..during the morphing of 16 trillion or 100 trillion cells!

One explanation of evolutionists..is that a cell expresses genes based on the genes..which are expressed in surrounding cells.

This is as naive as saying that..a jet airplane
can fly because the plane itself observes that nearby planes can fly.

Gene expression..happens inside the cell.
Cells don't have eyes..and cells don't have radar.

They only have..that life spirit/god gave them..
what is inside of them...building their..next astral..soul-form.

Google the videos:.."Inner Life of a Cell" and
"Powering the Cell: Mitochondria."..Both videos were designed at Harvard University and made by BioVisions.

These two videos are a very, very small
peak inside the complexity of a living cell.

Note also that there are thousands of
mitochondria inside of every cell.

Also inside of cells..are very complex molecules.
For example, ribosomes are..very, very complex molecules which are involved in the conversion..from nucleotides to amino acids.

How were ribosomes created..by evolution for the..first living cell?

How could something as complex as a cell,..with highly complex RNA or DNA,form from the dust of the earth from nothing except sand, lightening andchemicals randomly mixed together!

Where did the first DNA or RNA come from?
Where did the first cell membrane..come from?
How was it enclosed so it didn't leak?..How were its ports made?

Where did the first mitochondria.. which would have provided the ATP molecules..inside the cells,..come from?

Even devout evolutionists admit that the cells of today..*could not have come to exist..from a pile of dirt and chemicals and a lot of fortuitous accidents.

To avoid such an inane claim,..evolutionists claim that the "first living cell" was a..lol..a "simple cell."..This "simple cell" would have had..lol..simple metabolism and simple DNA..(or RNA).

*The problem is..that there are no "simple cells"..*on this planet!

Yet, "life"..n this earth
*had to start..with a single cell..*if evolution is true!*!

Thus, evolutionists..
*must claim that the "simple cells" are all extinct.

*!*..How convenient,..all of their evidence is dead and missing!

But*..you cannot jump directly from..a "simple cell" (
the term "simple cell" is an oxymoron)..to any of the types of cells on the earth today.

*Thus,..if the theory ofevolution were true,..there would have had to have been an "evolution" or "progression"..*of many different types of simple cells ..each slightly more complex than the former)..just to get from the phantasm/first simple cell..to a complex cell of today.

But all of these intermediate semi-simple cells..are also extinct, leaving only..lol..complex cells on this planet.

lol..How convenient.
the silence..is noted :[

scientists ignore the absurdities of evolution..and continue to push
forward with their "theories,"..deceptions and creative thinking.

But here is the question
the reader needs to ask themselves:

"If evolutionists..cannot create life..from non-life
using carefully designed experiments,..[nor have ever recorded/reported/witnessed or observed..any new*..evolution into new genus*..

why do they claim..they have 'proven'..that evolution...and..the 'first living cell,'is true..and is science.*when their own science refutes it...and no falsifiable's..are presented..

its BY FAITH ALONE*

Evolutionists have never proven that randomness can create intelligence or even
a "simple" living cell.

This is the very origin of life..on this earth and the very
foundation of the theory of evolution.

They have no viable answers as to how random, natural events could have created the first life on this earth. They cannot prove any single aspect of the.."first living cell,"

so why do they continue to tout..that they have "proven" that
evolution is true and that creation scientists..are gullible..

As mentioned earlier, "natural selection" and "survival of the fittest," are valid
scientific principles which apply to microevolution.

*These are not the problem.
Scientists must use deception because there is no evidence for macroevolution.

What about the issue of "time." Evolutionists claim that it took evolution many
millions of years to create human DNA.

Evolution took lots and lots of time.
Does that help the theory of evolution?
Does it change the results of statistics?

What if you slowly constructed a new physics book using very slow computers
over a time period of millions and millions of years? Would creating the book
slowly make the book any better than by doing it quickly?

Obviously not.

These are yet more effects of randomness which evolutionists conveniently
ignore.

You don't increase intelligence when you randomize something, even if
you randomize it slowly.

Atheism, the official religion of evolution, prohibits any "intelligence" from
"designing" the DNA of the "child species" from the "parent species," because
that would imply the existence of God.

Creating a new species from an old species would require many changes to the
DNA of the "parent species." These changes are called "mutations." All
mutations must be totally random, by the definition of evolution, because they
reject the intelligence of God.
The three key mutation issues in deleting, modifying and adding nucleotides to
DNA are as follows:
The "location of the mutation" issue (i.e. where on the DNA is the mutation),
The "type of mutation" issue, and
The "which nucleotide ends up at that location (if any)" issue.
First, is the "location of the mutation" issue, meaning: exactly "where" on the
DNA of the "parent species" are the nucleotides that will be changed, added or
deleted by evolution (to create the new species)?
For example, if a DNA strand has 2 billion nucleotides, and we numbered these
nucleotides from #1 to #2,000,000,000, and if we made a random mutation, then
at which of the 2 billion nucleotide locations would there be a change, addition or
deletion? This is the "location of the mutation" issue.
Evolution has no intelligence, thus whenever evolution picks a location for a
mutation, the location is totally random, meaning it can be anywhere on the DNA.

Randomness (i.e. mutations) does a very, very poor job in choosing the correct
location for a mutation because evolution has no clue where the mutation should
happen, nor does evolution care because it has no direction and no intelligence!

For example, suppose the new species needed a nucleotide changed in location
#1,543,233,212, but suppose the mutation occurred in location #982,908,143.
That mistake does not "fix" the incorrect nucleotide, plus it damages a good
nucleotide that we didn't want to change!

As we try to change a nucleotide in the chosen location, a vast, vast number of
errors will occur before we accidentally change the correct nucleotide.

The location issue turns out to be the most important issue in this discussion, as
will be seen below.

Second,..for each mutation in a location,..what is the "type of mutation" that will occur...These are the three "types of mutations":

Type 1)...A mutation can change an existing nucleotide..(e.g. an 'A' can be,..changed into a 'G');
Type 2)..A mutation can add a nucleotide..(e.g. a 'T' can be added between two..existing nucleotides);
Type 3)..A mutation can delete*..an existing nucleotide ..e.g. a 'C' can be deleted).

Third,..for type 1 and type 2 mutations,
what nucleotide will result at that location..from the mutation, an A, C, G or T?

This is the.."which nucleotide ends up at that..location" issue...Of course,..if there is a deletion,there will be no nucleotide at that location and we are concerned about which type of nucleotide was deleted.

We can summarize some of this with examples:

1)..Will a mutation..(at a random location).change an existing nucleotide,

and if so,.what will the new nucleotide be..(on the DNA),
1/a..will it advance or retard..evolution

2)..Will a mutation..(at a random location)..insert a new nucleotide into the DNA..and what will the new nucleotide be,

or
3)..Will a mutation,,(at a random location)
delete an existing nucleotide on the..DNA
and which type of nucleotide..*was deleted.

As a more complete example,..the new species may need a nucleotide changed..from an 'A' into a 'T'..in location #1,543,233,212...But the mutation may delete a,,'G'..in location in #982,908,143!

Not only has this not fixed the nucleotide in location #1,543,233,212, but a
perfectly good nucleotide at location #982,908,143 was deleted,..thus possibly damaging the functionality of the DNA!

This is not a good thing to happen to the new species because the deletion has.*likely damaged the functionality of the DNA and has certainly not fixed it.

Every time evolution creates..a new species,..several new highly sophisticated genes..*must be created..(note that the nucleotides in a gene..are clustered together,..*but statistically,..randomness does not cluster mutations).

Furthermore,..he old "morphing of the embryo"algorithms..(which are part of the DNA sequence)..*would..need to have incredibly precise changes made to them,..as we saw above.

Changing the old "morphing of the embryo"..algorithm is like changing the compiled code of an incredibly complex computer program,..but with the changes..being made.,.,*totally randomly.

Randomness" and "precision"...(which requires intelligence)..do not yield the same results!

Let us dig deeper..into these concepts

The "Prime Directive" of the Post-DNA Debate
The "Prime Directive" of Evolution:..If evolution were true, scientists should be able to look at two animals..(which have a parent-child relationship on the..*phylogenetic tree)

and easily demonstrate..how the DNA of the parent species
could randomly mutate into the DNA of the child species.

That is so important I am going to repeat it
because it is central to the post-DNA evolution debate:

The "Prime Directive" of Evolution:..*If evolution were true, scientists..*should be able to look at two animals (which have a parent-child relationship on the phylogenetic tree)..*and easily demonstrate..*how the DNA of the parent species could randomly mutate into the DNA of the child species.

The reason it has to be "easy" is because evolution claims it has happened many
millions of times, with few or no failures, and something highly improbable is
not likely to happen a single time in a few million years timeframe.

Thus,
evolution..*must be shown to be "easy."

As mentioned, there must be very, very few errors in this process or there would
be billions of "dead" animals which were born as mutated forms of valid
animals but had flawed mutations to their DNA such that they could not mate
with any other animal.

This is the "prime directive" of the post-DNA evolution debate. Scientists must
demonstrate how easy it is to take existing DNA, randomly mutate it and then
end up with new and improved intelligence on the new DNA!

This is the heart and sole of macro-evolution after the discovery of DNA.
The mutations to create a new species have to occur in pinpoint locations on the
DNA, the correct type of mutations must occur and the correct nucleotides have
to end up (or be deleted) in the correct locations on the DNA.

The key word is "randomly"!

How do you "randomly" make incredibly
precise changes to existing DNA in order to create new and improved
DNA?

This is the oxymoron..

It is equal to the phrase: "randomly precise."

..The word "randomly" means exactly the opposite of "precise," yet with evolution.."random" mutations must be incredibly "precise."

The concept of "randomly
precise" (or "random precision") is the quintessential oxymoron.

In short, evolutionists..*must demonstrate and prove how an animal with perfectly good DNA (the "parent" species) can have its DNA randomly mutated and end
up with a new and improved species (the "child" species).

The "child species" are always considered to have superior DNA to the DNA of
the "parent species," meaning the DNA of the child species is always an
improvement.(not just a change) over the DNA of the parent species.

This
makes the claims of evolution more absurd.
Applying the Three Key Mutation Issues

Now let us apply the three key issues related to mutations to the issue of
improving the DNA of a parent species to test the feasibility of the "prime
directive" of evolution.

According to evolution, every location on the 2 billion nucleotide DNA (assuming
the parent species has 2 billion nucleotides) must have the same probability of
being chosen as the location of the mutations because the new child DNA will
likely have many changes scattered throughout the parent DNA

and evolution
doesn't have a clue where to make the changes, what kind of changes to make
or what nucleotides need to end up in each location.

For example, let us say that we want to change a specific nucleotide. We must
first pick a "random location" on the DNA (e.g. nucleotide #45,119,004), then the
mutation..*must change that nucleotide to a new nucleotide (the new nucleotide..*must randomly end up being an A, C, G, or T).

Because every nucleotide has the same chance of being changed, and we know
which nucleotide needs to be changed (i.e. #45,119,004), note that there is a..*one in 2 billion chance that the correct nucleotide will be "changed" because
every nucleotide has the same probability of being changed and there is only one
nucleotide

(*(out of 2 billion nucleotides) we want to change and we know where it
is..(but evolution..*doesn't know!..where it is!*!

As another example of mutations, a random mutation, such as a deleted
nucleotide, must first pick a random location on the DNA (e.g. nucleotide
#1,633,099,415), then the mutation must delete that nucleotide (the nucleotide
that was deleted might have been an A, C, G, or T).

Note that there is a one in 2 billion chance that the correct nucleotide will be
deleted because every nucleotide has the same probability of being chosen for
deletion!

This is an example of the "location" issue combined with deleting a
nucleotide.
It turns out that the "location" issue is far more important than the reader might
think.

Examples below will demonstrate the importance of the "location" issue.
Remember, the three key variables in a mutation are "location of the mutation,"
"type of mutation," and "resulting nucleotide," meaning which nucleotide will end
up at that location (i.e. or lack thereof in the case of a deletion).

Every random mutation..has a one in 2 billion chance of choosing the correct
location (1 in 2 billion) for the mutation, a one in three chance of picking the
correct type of mutation (1 in 3) and a one in four chance in ending up with the
correct nucleotide (1 in 4).

2 billion times 3 times 4 equals 24,000,000,000.
That means every mutation has a probability of one in 24,000,000,000 of
being what evolution wanted (i.e. one in: 2 billion times 3 times 4), if the parent
species had DNA of 2 billion nucleotides!

And if you make 1,000 mutations, every one of these mutations has a one in
24,000,000,000 chance of being the correct mutation (i.e. in the correct location,
the correct type of mutation and the correct nucleotide ending up in that location,
if any)!

These three variables totally annihilate the theory of evolution from a statistical
standpoint!

No statistician on earth would support the theory of evolution if they
understood the issues and kept an open mind. Unfortunately, there are very few,
and probably zero, open minds in the field of evolutionary biology.

Before going on,..let us again state the "Prime Directive" of the theory of evolution..because it is so very important:

If evolution were true,
scientists should be able to look at two animals
(which have a parent-child relationship..on the phylogenetic tree)

(*and..easily demonstrate how the DNA of the parent species could
randomly mutate..into the DNA of the child species.

We must never lose track of this key directive of evolution!

And we must never
lose track.,.of the claim that all child species are improvements over the parent
species.

Evolutionists must prove this is possible by: first, randomly picking the "location"
of each mutation, second, randomly picking the "type" of mutation (i.e. addition,
change or deletion) at that location and third, randomly picking the "new"
nucleotide (if any) at that location.

It is time for some training tests.
Break out a pen and some paper and let's see
how you do.

Gulp, now that we know the basics, let the mathematics begin!

Note: the reader might be thinking that "evolution has no direction."
This, and other issues, will be discussed in a future chapter.

Your First Test Question
Suppose a "parent species" has DNA with 2 billion nucleotides (we only count
the nucleotides on one side of the DNA strand).

Suppose the "child species" will
also have 2 billion nucleotides,..but 10,000 of the nucleotides will be different than
on the "parent species" or "old species."

In other words, we will take..an existing DNA strand (of the "parent species")..and
randomly change 10,000 of the nucleotides..to create a new species (the "child
species").lol

To keep things simple, we will assume..
no nucleotides will be added and none will
be deleted.

We will only deal with changed nucleotides in this example.
Note: Technically this will not create a new species because, by my
own definition, a new species must have at least one "new" gene.

But
hang in there, this is a training exercise.
Later we will deal with the
"new" gene issue.

We will assume we know**..lol
..*which 10,000 nucleotides need to be changed..lol
..unlike how science claims..lol..by chance*

assume
..lol..[cause thats THE THEORY*..the best science can offer]

assume*..we know which 10,000 nucleotides...*need to be changed and we
will call them the "target nucleotides" because these are the only nucleotides we NEED*.. to change!

We will also call them the.."bad nucleotides" because we want
to change them..to create a new species.

We could list the nucleotide # of each
of the 10,000 nucleotides we want to change, but we won't.

In other words, on the "parent species" these 10,000 specific nucleotides are
"good nucleotides" because they are the correct nucleotides for the "parent
species."

But on the "child species" these same 10,000 nucleotides need to be changed so
we will call them "bad nucleotides" or "target nucleotides."

They are at very
precise locations on the DNA and we know where these locations are!

However, evolution is..;..blind dumb and evolution does not know where these locations are or what is supposed to be there or not be there!

Remember*..every nucleotide on the child DNA (which is a copy of the parent DNA and will then be mutated) is either a "target nucleotide"..that evolved a NEW/IMPROVED..(i.e. a "bad nucleotide" that we want to change) or a "good nucleotide" (that we don't want to
change), relative to the new "child species."

On the DNA of the "child species," there are 10,000 "target nucleotides" or "bad
nucleotides" and there are 1,999,990,000 "good nucleotides" that we don't want
to change.

In an attempt to create this new "child species," suppose there are 200,000
random mutations (all of them are "changes" of a nucleotide) at random locations
on the DNA strand of the "child species."

When making these 200,000 random mutations, remember that the "location" of
each mutation on the DNA strand..[crossover strand]..must be totally random and the new nucleotide
at that location must also be totally random.

RECALL THIS IS THE BEST THEORY SCIENCE HAS

,..if we numbered..the nucleotides..on the on the DNA
from..#1/#2/#3/#4etc..to the end of the DNA at #2,000,000,000,..

*the "location" issue means...evolution..*doesn't know which nucleotides..should be changed because evolution..by its own laws..is clueless and stupid because, by definition,..mutations are totally by fluke/chance..ie random,..both in terms of location,.,.type of mutation and resulting nucleotide.,.(if any).

If "evolution" knew..which nucleotides needed to be change
then we would be dealing with intelligence, meaning "God," which is a forbidden word for evolutionists to utter or think about.

For example,..when by chance..picking a location..for a mutation, we essentially pick a random number from #1 to #2,000,000,000.

An example would be: nucleotide
#1,397,943,567.

The nucleotide at this location..*might be a "bad nucleotide" or a "good nucleotide,.. randomness or evolution doesn't have a clue and doesn't care.!

Every nucleotide..has an equal chance
of being chosen every time there is a mutation.

In fact,..a single nucleotide..*could be changed two or three times, but we will ignore this..very real possibility.

...And the new nucleotide..put ONLY..at each of those locations (considering only "changes")..is also totally randomly chosen.

That is the only way..that evolution
can be...said tp work,..otherwise we are dealing with intelligence.!

With this background,..let us talk about the 200,000 random mutations which will attempt to convert..this "parent species" into a..NEW*.."child species."

As mentioned,..to make things simple
we will not consider..deleting or adding any
nucleotides..*to the DNA of the new species.

First Test Question:

Statistically speaking,..if we randomly choose 200,000 nucleotides
from the DNA,..at random locations,..*and then mutated each nucleotide
into a randomly chosen nucleotide;..*how many of these 200,000
mutations w..ll affect one of the 10,000 "target nucleotides" or "bad
nucleotides"{that we want..NEED* to change]..and how many will affect "good nucleotides"..*that we don't want to change?

Try to calculate the number,
or take a wild guess,..before reading any further.

Write down your answer
on a piece of paper before reading on.

First Answer:
The number of "target nucleotides"..that will be affected..is one.

That's right: 1 out..of the 200,000 mutations*will affect a "target nucleotide"!

the other 199,999/mutations ..ill affect "good nucleotides" that we do not want to change!

The other 199,999...bad nucleotides....*Will affect..the "good nucleotides"..that we do not want to change!

that thus..usually end up..*aborted..
or die..or are sickly

anyhow

Here's..how to calculate
the 1.."target nucleotide"..that is changed:..gradually..lol

Step 1:..Take 200,000 mutations
and divide it by 2,000,000,000..total nucleotides

and you get 0.0001.

This is the ratio..of all nucleotides
that will/could be affected by the..200,000 mutations.

Step 2:..Multiply 10,000..(the number of "target nucleotides") times 0.0001 (the ratio or probability of a mutation..affecting a random group of nucleotides;..this will tell us how many nucleotides...in this group will be mutated)

and you get..*one.

One..is the number of "target nucleotides"
that will be affected by the 200,000 ERRORS/mutations!

If you did computer simulations..for this exercise 350 times,
on average only '1' of..the "target nucleotides" would be changed..per simulation.

The Most Damaging Question

The fact..that only one "target nucleotide" is changed
is not even remotely..the biggest problem for evolution.

For those who are bold enough,..here is an even bigger question:

How much damage to the DNA..of the new "child species" will be done
by the 199,999 mutations which affected "good nucleotides?

Hint:
these mutations could potentially damage many,..many of these critical
"good nucleotides?"

Try to calculate that number
..before reading on.

Evolution would have to take into account..both the one mutation that affected a.."target nucleotide..*plus the far more important 199,999 mutations.../that affected "good nucleotides"..*each of which could potentially replace a "good nucleotide"..with a "bad nucleotide!"

In other words,..how many of these 199,999 "good nucleotides"
will be converted..into "bad nucleotides" by these 200,000 crossover random mutations?

The answer to this question..will require a lot of explanation.

yet note the silence of science..

Let us start by talking about the third key issue,
what "type of nucleotide" ends up..at each location, an A, C, G or T?

Remember: the "location of the mutation" on
the DNA..is the first key issue..

and the "type of mutation"..is the second key issue.

The third key issue is.."what type of nucleotide..*ends up at what location."

Let us..analyze the third key issue..in detail.

Which Nucleotide..Will Result..From Each Mutation?

Suppose,..for a specific "target nucleotide" you want a mutation to change a 'C' (a
"target nucleotide") into a 'G' (the new "good nucleotide" for the new "child
species"); as part of creating this new "child species."

However, mutations create random nucleotides; meaning randomness (i.e.
evolution) could not care less what you want!! To convert a nucleotide into what
you want would be using intelligence, and God is not allowed.

Note: The reader may have noted in the above histogram of real
human DNA, that every permutation of four nucleotides was
represented in the chart.

This indicates that any permutation of four
nucleotides can be found on human DNA.

Remember also that 97%..of human DNA is not understood by scientists and its function is unknown.

A random "change mutation" can change a 'C' into an 'A' or into a 'C' (yes, as
noted above a mutation can change an "old C" nucleotide into a "new C"
nucleotide, but it ends up being a 'C' nonetheless) or into a 'G' or into a 'T'.
Of these four options,

*only one of them is correct, the 'G' in this case.
This means 25% (1 of 4) of all possible mutations are correct (the 'G')

and 75% (3 of 4) of..all possible mutations are incorrect (an 'A', a "new C," which is nothing but a 'C',and a 'T')!!

Thus, when there is a change mutation there is only a 25% chance the mutation will leave a correct nucleotide at the location.

Note: As a side note it should also be observed that any nucleotide can be..changed more than once. For example, suppose a 'C' "target nucleotide"
was changed into a 'G' by the 3,391st mutation, which is what you wanted.

However, there is nothing to "protect" this nucleotide from later being
changed into an 'A', which you don't want!! For example, in the 159,102nd
mutation the 'G' might be changed into an 'A', which you don't want.

The reason I mention this issue..is because some evolutionists have
claimed that if a nucleotide is changed into a good nucleotide,..that it is somehow "protected".

continues

protected..lol...from being changed again..by a later mutation...
This is absolute nonsense,

there is no such thing..as "protecting"..a nucleotide from being mutated...except by paring..which nullifies *all deletive/additive[crossover]..mutation

How would evolution..*know which nucleotides to protect..or
how would it protect..such a nucleotide?

Let's get back to the 199,999 mutations which occurred in locations you didn't..want to change (i.e. they affected "good nucleotides" which were already correct
for the new "child species" because they didn't need to be changed).

For each and every one of these mutations,
there is only a 25% chance a "good
nucleotide" ended up as a "good nucleotide," using the above logic!!

For this to happen,..for example,
the mutation of an "old T"..(which was a "good-nucleotide")..would have to be changed into a "new T" in order for the "good
nucleotide"..to remain "good."

In other words,..the mutation would not change the
nucleotide at that location..such that it remained a "good nucleotide."

But with the other..three options('A', 'C' and 'G'),
..*you have damaged a perfectly good nucleotide..and converted a "good nucleotide".,.into a "bad nucleotide"!

We definitely do not want to change..any "good nucleotides"..into "bad
nucleotides,"..*but 199,999 of the random mutations affected "good nucleotides"

so we have to consider this possibility!

When you do the math,
you mutated 199,999 nucleotides..*that you didn't want to
change,..and 75% of these "good nucleotides" will be changed into a "bad nucleotide"!

This is because..only one of four mutations(25%)
will yield the*..nucleotide you want..for the new genus!

And there is also a 75% chance..that the one "target nucleotide" you changed will still be..a "bad nucleotide".(i.e. there was a 25% chance the "target nucleotide"..was changed into what you wanted.

Thus, if you add 199,999..(the "good nucleotides" you changed)
to 1 (the "target nucleotide" you changed),..*statistically: 200,000 times 75% (or 150,000) of the nucleotides..*that were changed will end up being "bad nucleotides"

(all but one of which..were originally "good nucleotides")
as a result of the 200,000 random mutations!

Note also that 9,999..of the original 10,000 "bad nucleotides" where not affected by the mutations,..thus they remain "bad nucleotides."

I

In other words, because of the 200,000 mutations, you went from 10,000
"bad nucleotides" to 159,999 "bad nucleotides (if the one "target
nucleotide" was not fixed) or 159,998 bad nucleotides (if the one "target
nucleotide" was fixed)!

I'll bet that is not what you were expecting!
You probably thought the number of
"bad nucleotides" would drop as a result of the 200,000 mutations!

Nope, the
number of "bad nucleotides" skyrocketed from 10,000 to159,999 or 159,998
"bad nucleotides"!

What is wrong with this picture?

You went backwards as you tried to "fix" the
DNA to create a new species!

And this is always the case!
Attempting to "fix" DNA with random mutations
always causes far, far more damage than it fixes!

remember, if evolution were true you could take the DNA
of a parent species, apply random mutations to this DNA and end up with the
superior DNA of the child species which evolution claims was created. But the
mathematics doesn't add up!

Let us formalize these concepts above by creating an axiom:

The Axiom of Random Mutations: For every mutation, whether it
affects a "good nucleotide" that you don't want to change or a "target
nucleotide" that you do want to change or a "new nucleotide" that you
want to add;

the probability that the resulting nucleotide will be a "correct
nucleotide," meaning a "good nucleotide," is 25%. This means there is a
75% chance the wrong nucleotide will result.

I should mention that this axiom does not deal with the location issue, which is far
more important.

Note that deleted nucleotides were not discussed in the above axiom because
there is no resulting nucleotide.

But this does not mean deletions are not
important, only that I won't discuss them...presently

In other words,..because of the 200,000 mutations,
you went from 10,000.."bad nucleotides" to 159,999 "bad nucleotides (if the one "target nucleotide" was not fixed)..or 159,998 bad nucleotides..[if the one "target
nucleotide" was fixed)!

I'll bet..that is not what you were expecting!

You probably thought the number of
"bad nucleotides"..would drop as a result of the 200,000 mutations!

Nope,..the
number of "bad nucleotides"..skyrocketed from 10,000 to159,999 or 159,998
"bad nucleotides"!

What is wrong with this picture?

You went backwards..as you tried to "fix" the
DNA..to create a new species/genus!

And..*this is always the case!

Attempting to "fix" DNA..with random mutations
always causes far,..far more damage than it fixes!

remember,..if evolution were true..*you could take the DNA
of a parent species,..apply random mutations to this DNA and end up with the
superior DNA..of the child species..which evolution claims was created.

But the mathematics doesn't add up!

Let us formalize..these concepts above..by creating an axiom:

The Axiom of Random Mutations:

For every mutation,..whether it
affects a "good nucleotide"..that you don't want to change or a "target nucleotide"..that you do want to change..or a "new nucleotide"..that you want to add;

*the probability..that the resulting nucleotide will be a "correct
nucleotide,"meaning a "good nucleotide,"..is 25%...This means there is a..75% chance the wrong nucleotide will result!

I should mention ..hat this axiom
does not deal..with the location issue,..*which is far
more important.

Note that deleted nucleotides..were not discussed in the above axiom because there is no resulting nucleotide.

But this..*does not mean deletions are not
important,..only that I won't discuss them...presently

remember that deletions have..*exactly the same issues
with regards to location..(i.e. you will almost..*always
delete the wrong nucleotide).

What all of this means,..is that for every random mutation,
there is a 75% chance..the mutated nucleotide will end up as a "bad nucleotide,"..whether it was originally a "good nucleotide," a "target nucleotide"..(i.e. a "bad nucleotide") or a "new
nucleotide"!

Do the math..the more mutations that occur;
the more wrong nucleotides..*will result!

..*EVERY "change mutation,"..no matter what nucleotide you are
talking about,..*results in a 75% chance..you will end up with a "bad nucleotide" in..that DNA strand.

news/adenda..your re-search money at weork?
http://news.yahoo.com/mine-why-monogamy-evolved-mammals-231528117.html
Why Monogamy Evolved in Mammals

blah blah

we can see an evolutionary pathway where infanticide evolved first, then as one of the responses to that, monogamy evolved, and then in those species — but not all — paternal care evolved."

A far-reaching analysis?

While the study offers insight into the evolution of monogamy, the results are highly dependent on how the researchers classified the various species of primates,..

..we can see an evolutionary pathway
where infanticide evolved first,

then as one of the responses to that, monogamy evolved,
and then in those species — but not all — lol..paternal care evolved."

A far-reaching analysis?

While the study offers insight into the evolution of monogamy, the results are highly dependent on how the researchers classified the various species of primates,

Using a new genetic classification technique,
the researchers of the new study inferred..how species were related..l0l

..and when they split off from one another in the evolutionary tree.

typical

The scientists classified each species as solitary (living alone), socially monogamous (living in breeding pairs) or as group-living. A total of 2,500 mammalian species were involved

The findings failed to support the idea that the risk of infanticide led to monogamy in mammals, even in primates. The researchers suggest the discrepancy between the two studies could be explained by differences in how group-living is classified.

For instance, some species that Opie's team classified as group-living were classified by Lukas as socially monogamous.

Alternatively, the smaller sample of animals in Opie's study could have skewed their findings, Lukas and his colleagues said.

However, both studies found that parental care was more likely a consequence, not a cause, of the evolution of monogamy

back to pdf

..75% chance you will end up w
ith a "bad nucleotide"

Thus, in addition to the "location issue" (meaning the probability you actually
change a "target nucleotide"),..75% of all mutations, whether of the "target
nucleotides" or of the "good nucleotides"...will yield a bad or wrong nucleotide in
that slot!
Now let's use this axiom on the above example to simplify obtaining the answer.

you started with 2,000,000,000 nucleotides.
Ten thousand (10,000) of these
were "target nucleotides" or "bad nucleotides."

1,999,990,000 were "good
nucleotides." You mutate or change 200,000 of these nucleotides.

Because of the "location" issue, you changed 199,999 "good nucleotides" and
you changed one "target nucleotide."
B
y the Axiom of Random Mutations, you end up with 150,000 wrong nucleotides
(75% of 200,000)!

Add these 150,000 wrong nucleotides to the initial 9,999 "bad nucleotides" that
were not changed, leads to 159,999 "bad nucleotides" which resulted after the
200,000 mutations (assuming you did not fix the one "target nucleotide")!

This is the same number we calculated above.

Note also that the newly damaged nucleotides are randomly scattered over the
entire DNA, meaning they will likely affect the critical and complex morphing of
the embryo algorithm multiple times, many genes, etc. etc.

This is going to be difficult to comprehend, but try to understand this: it doesn't
significantly matter how many "target nucleotides" there are, the results are the
essentially the same!

Only the 9,999 number will change if you change the
number of initial "target nucleotides."

In other words, it doesn't matter if there are 10,000 "target nucleotides" or
100,000 "target nucleotides,"
the 200,000 mutations will always leave at least
150,000 "bad nucleotides" by the Axiom of Random Mutations.

This is the real axiom:
"Every time you mutate DNA the DNA will get worse."

You may have originally thought..these 200,000 mutations would improve the new
species,..*but in fact..they were a giant step backwards*..in creating a new and
improved species!

You also probably thought..that every one of the 200,000 mutations would change
only "target nucleotides."..&But in fact they..(statistically)..only changed one of
them!

you may not have realized..that in this process you went from 10,000 "bad
nucleotides" to 159,999..or 159,998 "bad nucleotides."

That is not a good thing,
especially when you were trying to..*fix the DNA!

any attempt to" fix" these 159,999..or 159,998 "bad nucleotides"
(which resulted after the first 200,000 mutations),..with another 200,000
mutations, ..ill make things even worse!

This is obvious..by the Axiom of Random Mutations.

In summary,..you "may" have fixed one "target nucleotide,"..but you definitely
ended up with at least..159,998 bad nucleotides!

The combination of the "location issue"
and the Axiom of Random Mutations is
far more than enough..to totally obliterate the theory of evolution

It is always a fact..that the more mutations you have
the more damage..is done..to the DNA.

It is impossible,..and I mean impossible,
to blast a DNA strand with a lot of
random mutations..(both random in terms of location and random in terms of the
final nucleotide..at that location)..*and end up with better DNA.

It is mathematical
nonsense..to think otherwise!

Try it on computer/programs.
Take an existing computer program..and try to turn
it into a superior program..by blasting it with random mutations of '0's and '1's in
random locations.

But instead of using individual bits..use pairs of bits..(e.g. '00',
'01','10',or'11')..to simulate the base 4 nucleotides.

No superior computer program..*will ever be created..by this process even if you
have no direction!

The Axiom above..has nothing to do with direction.

Randomness*..cannot create intelligence;
..*in fact it always damages or randomizes
any existing intelligence.

In the case of a computer program,..one bad "bit"
can destroy the entire functionality..of the program.

In the case of a human being,
a handful of mutations..*can destroy the human or
give him..or her a serious genetic disease.

Mutations..*are never good.

Evolution is abuse..*of true science.

what..one mutation can do

http://healthland.time.com/2013/07/25/single-genetic-glitch-may-explain-most-allergies-and-asthma/

Allergies are certainly the result..of both genetic and environmental factors,*but there is fresh evidence to suggest that at least one major genetic aberration!*!..could be behind everything from hay fever to food allergies to asthma.

For decades now, rates of allergies and other immune-related diseases such as asthma and eczema have been rising in the U.S., and the rapid increase suggests that it’s more than just genes, or just changes in lifestyle that made us too clean that are at work.

Now researchers studying the genetics behind the rare tissue disorders Marfan and Loeys-Dietz syndromes have discovered that there may be a common genetic driver behind almost all allergic diseases.

Reporting in the journal Science Translational Medicine, scientists from Johns Hopkins Children’s Center and the Johns Hopkins Institute of Genetic Medicine say that they were surprised to find..*..that the same mutation they found in the Marfan and Loeys-Dietz patients may also trigger the immune changes responsible for allergies;

most of the patients with the two rare disorders also have higher than normal rates of allergies.

The culprit, they say, is abnormal signaling by a protein called transforming growth factor-beta (TGF-beta).

TGF-beta is responsible for regulating cell growth and communication, and in the Marfan and Loeys-Dietz patients, mutations in the TGF-beta gene, combined with other genetic aberrations, contribute to dangerous thinning of the blood vessels.

People with seasonal or food allergies are not more likely to develop the conditions, but improper functioning of this protein can also trigger other effects — most notably the cascade of events that are familiar to anyone who suffers from allergies

edited

“Disruption in TGF-beta signaling does not simply nudge immune cells to misbehave but appears to singlehandedly unlock the very chain reaction that eventually leads to allergic disease,” said the study’s senior author Dr. Harry Dietz, a cardiologist at Johns Hopkins Children’s Center in a statement.

Read more: http://healthland.time.com/2013/07/25/single-genetic-glitch-may-explain-most-allergies-and-asthma/#ixzz2aZcctgtZ

more bad parents
making sick mutations/mutants
http://healthland.time.com/2013/07/09/mothers-antibodies-may-explain-a-quarter-of-autism-cases/?iid=obinsite
A test for six antibodies in an expectant mom’s blood may predict with more than 99% certainty which children are at highest risk of developing autism.

In a study published in Translational Psychiatry, researchers report that 23% of all cases of autism may result from the presence of maternal antibodies that interfere with fetal brain development during pregnancy.

MORE: Unique Brain Pattern Could Predict Autism in Youngest Children

The research is already leading to what could be the first biological test for autism; the antibodies are found almost exclusively in mothers of autistic children, and not in children with other types of disorders or in mothers of non-autistic children.

Only 1% of mothers whose children were not affected by autism had the antibodies in their blood, compared to 23% of mothers of autistic children.

“We haven’t found any [mothers] who have these antibodies
*and don’t have children with some sort of developmental disability issue,” says Van de Water. “We feel this really identifies a subtype of autism.”

The antibodies belong to a class of compounds called autoantibodies, which are immune cells that the body makes to target — often mistakenly — its own cells.

Scientists do not know why or when the mothers produce these antibodies, which appear to monkey with normal nerve development in the fetal brain by interfering with their growth, migration and genetic replication.

It is possible that infections during pregnancy — a known risk factor for autism —can prompt the immune system to produce them. Exposure to toxic chemicals can also cause immune defenders to mistake healthy cells for invaders, Van de Water notes.

Read more: http://healthland.time.com/2013/07/09/mothers-antibodies-may-explain-a-quarter-of-autism-cases/#ixzz2aZdyC6vS