Thread: London terror attack, yo. :O

Originally Posted by saibot

Originally Posted by Pioner

saibot, do you have any idea what a chromosoma is?

Of course I know what chromosomes are. Tightly wound strands of DNA. That's a simple definition, but that's it.

So, it is containers for storing DNA, broadly speaking? What is the difference if a cell contains 46 of those containers or 100 or 200 of them? Not talking about their size.

BTW, a lot of plants contains chromosoms part of which are identical to each other. Like plant can contain 100 pairs of chromosomes but in realty it is just 50 pairs which are functional. I really do not understand, what you mean that it fact agains evolution.

If my computer got 2 CD-ROMs, and yours contain 8 CD-ROMs, does that mean that you have more complecated and more powerful computer?

Well, the more chromosomes, the more complex the organism, would you not agree? So why do some of the simplest organisms have many more pairs of functioning chromosomes then humans, when humans are undoubtedly more complex?

Even if half of the 800 chromosomes in the Radiolaria are functional, that is still 400. And lets say that half of the functioning ones are repeats, that just support the structure of the chromosomes. That's 200. And lets say that even just HALF of those are functional. Thats still 100.

And your little analogy about CD-ROMS dont really apply here. CD ROMS arent essential to functioning of the computer. But chromosomes are required by the cell.

RAM on the other hand is essential to a computer. If you have 2 sticks of RAM, and I have 8 sticks, then yes, mine is more powerful.

Originally Posted by TriggerHappyJack

Point is...like...I don't think I have one.
If creationism were true, more than two flippin people were made.

Yep, this is a good point, and one that causes difficulty for anyone attempting a literal view of Genesis. Strangely, I know more than a few Creationists who, in frustration, will say "well...then these paragraphs are literal...but these one's aren't!"...to avoid your question.

And I still think that it is possible for "evolution" to be a design plan by You-Know-Who. Why wouldn't He?

I think it's perfectly acceptable to subject the theory of evolution to critical scrutiny and examine the evidence closely. Most people would say evolution requires more evidence to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that it is an accurate explanation for the development of life on earth. But there's a big difference between that and trying to draw an equivalence between it and the Biblical account of creation. The creationists don't have a theory, no explanation for where the species came from, it's just an impenetrable mystery, so God is invoked as the only solution to that mystery. Their argument consists in pointing out flaws or inconsistencies in the evolution account and then saying, 'See, it's not perfect, so you can all relax and continue on believing what you've always believed because it said so in the Bible'.

But what about if someone says they believe aliens landed on earth, designed all the species, set up factories to produce them and then cleared off removing any signs of their presence. If someone said that was their explanation for life on earth, would you feel their 'explanation' was equally as valid as the evolution account? that the people who favoured evolution were no better than all the others?? This sort of attitude allows any kind of superstitious and irrational nonsense to flourish. 'Hey, cos we haven't got absolute certainty about evolution, anything goes, if it feels good, believe it'


The march of unreason continues apace

Originally Posted by saibot

Originally Posted by Pioner

And infections... infections... please explain me why bacterias getting more and more resistent to antibiotics? I can see that you guys, DDT saibot know biology better then me (forget about my Master's degree in biology), but can you explain why bacterias developing resistence to antibiotics from the point of view of Creationism?

You have a very good point Pioner. But, IMHO, building up a resistance to something is not evolution, but rather degeneration. Quite the opposite of evolution. I'm not sure about the exact way that bacteria develop resistance to antibiotics, but I can give another example.

A chemical compound called Warfarin was used to kill rats in England in the 1950's. But eventually, the rats devoloped a resistance to Warfarin.

Warfarin kills by inhibiting enzymes involved in the synthesis of Vitamin K. This, as you should know with your degree in biology, is essential to life.

The non-resistant rats exposed to warfarin, died. Duh!

But the resistant rats were found to have a mutated form of the enzyme that synthesizes Vitamin K. The active sites on the enzyme were not properly shaped to allow the binding of warfarin. Therefore, warfarin was not able to inhibit enzyme activity. On the outside, this may look like an "added" feature.

So, this is for SURE evolution. Or is it?

The mutated enzyme was found to be EXTREMELY inefficient in synthesizing Vitamin K. It required over 10 times the energy in the mutated enzyme to synthesize a single molecule of the vitamin.

So clearly you can see that the built up resistance was not evolution, but rather a degeneration of the working enzyme (quite the opposite). The enzyme became less functional, not more functional. This doesnt fit the description of evolution at all!

Another example.

In 1992, and experiment was done involving a species of aquatic worms and cadmium. Cadmium is a naturally occuring, toxic element.

The scientist was out to prove that animals can "evolve" and develop resistance to anything. He placed non-cadmium resistance worms in a cadmium free environment. Obviously, the worms survived. He then placed more non-cadmium resistant worms in an environment containing cadmium. After only 3 generations, all the worms in the tank were cadmium resistant. The scientist published a report declaring this as proof for evolution.

Upon, closer insepction, there was no evidence of mutation, or new structures that helped with the resistance to cadmium. But how can this be?

Easy. Some of the worms had to have already been resistant to cadmium, or all the worms would have died. If this was evolution, the worms would have had to instantly develop a resistance to cadmium, or they ALL would have immediately died! Even evolutionist say that evolution just does not happen that fast.

So the result we saw with all the worms becoming resistant was not evolution, because nothing was changed or added to the gene pool, but rather a disturbance in the frequency of appearance of the genes involved in the resistance to cadmium.

Wow, that drained my energy. Im gonna go drink a red bull.

Well, if you think about it, humans have become more resiliant to certain bacterias over the years. And I'm not talking about with vaccines. Does that mean we've evolved? Hmm not really. It's more like being called adaptation.

Originally Posted by saibot

Well, the more chromosomes, the more complex the organism, would you not agree?

no. Who said that? Where it was said?

RAM on the other hand is essential to a computer. If you have 2 sticks of RAM, and I have 8 sticks, then yes, mine is more powerful.

Ok, lets go with memory. I used to have 486dx-66 computer, it had 4 sticks (if I remember corrrectly) of memory, each 4mb, 32 mb total.

Right now I have computer AMD-2800xt with 1 stick of the memory - 1 GB.

What computer is more powerful and more complecated?

Originally Posted by saibot

Originally Posted by Pioner

And infections... infections... please explain me why bacterias getting more and more resistent to antibiotics? I can see that you guys, DDT saibot know biology better then me (forget about my Master's degree in biology), but can you explain why bacterias developing resistence to antibiotics from the point of view of Creationism?

You have a very good point Pioner. But, IMHO, building up a resistance to something is not evolution, but rather degeneration. Quite the opposite of evolution. I'm not sure about the exact way that bacteria develop resistance to antibiotics, but I can give another example.

A chemical compound called Warfarin was used to kill rats in England in the 1950's. But eventually, the rats devoloped a resistance to Warfarin.

Warfarin kills by inhibiting enzymes involved in the synthesis of Vitamin K. This, as you should know with your degree in biology, is essential to life.

The non-resistant rats exposed to warfarin, died. Duh!

But the resistant rats were found to have a mutated form of the enzyme that synthesizes Vitamin K. The active sites on the enzyme were not properly shaped to allow the binding of warfarin. Therefore, warfarin was not able to inhibit enzyme activity. On the outside, this may look like an "added" feature.

So, this is for SURE evolution. Or is it?

The mutated enzyme was found to be EXTREMELY inefficient in synthesizing Vitamin K. It required over 10 times the energy in the mutated enzyme to synthesize a single molecule of the vitamin.

So clearly you can see that the built up resistance was not evolution, but rather a degeneration of the working enzyme (quite the opposite). The enzyme became less functional, not more functional. This doesnt fit the description of evolution at all!

You got a very wrong idea of evolution. It is not said that it goes to build more complecated organisms, no, it goes in direction to build more adapted organism, so that quite often means more complecated organism, but it is not a rule, you can cosider that more as a guideline. Quite often organisms loose organs. Humans and apes do not have a tale, monkeys do, does that mean that monkeys are more developed then us human? Parasites got simpler then their ansenstors, Soliter does not have eyes, very primitive neuron system, while worms they involved from did have eyes and more comlecated central neuro system. There are a lot of samples like that. Dolfins do not have legs, they are more primitive then, let's say dogs?

Another example.

In 1992, and experiment was done involving a species of aquatic worms and cadmium. Cadmium is a naturally occuring, toxic element.

The scientist was out to prove that animals can "evolve" and develop resistance to anything. He placed non-cadmium resistance worms in a cadmium free environment. Obviously, the worms survived. He then placed more non-cadmium resistant worms in an environment containing cadmium. After only 3 generations, all the worms in the tank were cadmium resistant. The scientist published a report declaring this as proof for evolution.

Upon, closer insepction, there was no evidence of mutation, or new structures that helped with the resistance to cadmium. But how can this be?

Easy. Some of the worms had to have already been resistant to cadmium, or all the worms would have died. If this was evolution, the worms would have had to instantly develop a resistance to cadmium, or they ALL would have immediately died! Even evolutionist say that evolution just does not happen that fast.

So the result we saw with all the worms becoming resistant was not evolution, because nothing was changed or added to the gene pool, but rather a disturbance in the frequency of appearance of the genes involved in the resistance to cadmium.

Wow, that drained my energy. Im gonna go drink a red bull.

Great example! That is called selection! Natural, but in this case artificial selection. Organisms do not change because of the environment, that theory is wrong and called Lamarkism, not Darwinism. Neo-Darwinism (Darwinism + Genetics) speaks about selection. All of us got different variation of genes, which are quite stable, mutations are quite rare and they often useless or fatal, but some of them usefull. Anyhow, when cadmium did not exist, all worms were OK, but they some of them had genes of cadmium-resistence. Then environment changed and here we go, all useless (from evolution point of view) in current situation organisms died but those who had "right" genes survived. Look at Giraffes. Long ago they had normal necks. Let's say that 1% of them had slightly longer neck, guess what? They manage to get leaves better then other. They had higher chances to survive. So in several generations those with longer necks survived. Then it goes futher, out of them who had even longer necks survived. Etc. Looks simple, but it is complecated at the same time. Because long neck creates other comlecations for the organism. So out of longer neck giraffes survive those organism who had possibility to deal with high blood pressure etc. Evolution selects by many factors. Look at cars. Lets say there is an almost perfect car, powerful engine, great milage, great design, but horrible brakes? Who is going to buy that? Nobody. That car does not survive. People select cars which better value for a buck but with all needed stuff. Manufacturers of wrong cars do not survive, like many eastereropean manufacturers of cars disappeared.

once again. Darwinism is not about that organisms change because of change of environment, but some organisms survive (got selected) if they got better set of genes for changed environment.

complications, complicated, ...
it is a language forum after all..

Originally Posted by CTPEKO3A

complications, complicated, ...
it is a language forum after all..

я пизграматный

Let's switch the discussion towards cars!
I liked the Pioner's word "eastereropean". What manufacturers exactly disappeared? could you shed more light on that, please?

I heard there has been another bombing in London, today. Apparantly bombs did not go off, though.

Originally Posted by CTPEKO3A

Let's switch the discussion towards cars!
I liked the Pioner's word "eastereropean". What manufacturers exactly disappeared? could you shed more light on that, please?

maybe manufacturers survived (I am not sure about eastern German) but the models of those cars are really gone.

BTW GM got biiig problems on sales last year. The company may be closed or sold.

Originally Posted by DDT

I heard there has been another bombing in London, today. Apparantly bombs did not go off, though.

yes, unfortunately. that is something new for Al-Queda.

http://www.radiomayak.ru/interview/05/0 ... audio.html

"Новые теракты в Лондоне
2005/21/07 | 17:52
Информационная служба (радио "Маяк")

Тревога в Лондоне возникла через две недели после взрывов в метро и автобусе, когда погибли более 50 человек и около 700 получили ранения. На этот раз взрывы не были такими серьезными. Подробности - от корреспондента газеты "Лондон-Инфо" Дмитрий Дроздов.

ДРОЗДОВ: ... и полиция, и транспортные организации Лондона говорят только об одном человеке, который находится в близлежащем госпитале. Станция оцеплена. Говорится о том, что в поезде метро взорвался рюкзак, потом было задымление, паника и эвакуация пассажиров. По версии полиции, 21 июля в обед произошло три взрыва одновременно на трех станциях. Это станции "Уоррен-стрит", в центре столицы, станции "Овэл", на юге Лондона, и "Шепердс Буш", на западе. В принципе, они находятся в пределах первой зоны, это самый центр Лондона. Также была взорвана небольшая бомба на втором этаже автобуса ? 26, который двигался по Коламбиа-Роуд на востоке британской столицы. И в результате этого взрыва были выбиты стекла в автобусе, о пострадавших не сообщается... Лондонские госпитали работают в экстренном состоянии...

- Дмитрий, как только появились первые сообщения о ЧП, полиция стала успокаивать людей, говоря, что речь может идти о незначительных происшествиях. Так было и в прошлый раз. Сначала полиция говорила, что это не взрывы, а сбой в электроснабжении. Что сейчас заявляют полицейские?

ДРОЗДОВ: Сейчас совершенно четко говорится о том, что все-таки сработали небольшие взрывные устройства. И, действительно, ситуация очень напоминает такую же, какая была две недели, опять три взрыва в метро и один в автобусе, снова начинается перебой с мобильной связью, уже практически нельзя никуда дозвониться. Но сейчас, мне кажется, транспортные и спасательные организации, полиция больше готовы к этим событиям. Да и сами лондонцы меньше паникуют, потому что все это было две недели назад.

- Дмитрий, приходят разрозненные сообщения о том, что видели человека с рюкзаком. В его рюкзаке что-то взорвалось, он бросил рюкзак и побежал вверх по эскалатору. У вас что-то говорят об этом?

ДРОЗДОВ: Насколько я знаю, действительно, взрыв произошел в рюкзаке одного из пассажиров метро...

Премьер-министр Великобритании Тони Блэр заявил, что погибших в результате взрывов, прогремевших в Лондоне 21 июля, нет. На пресс-конференции на Даунинг-стрит, 10, он заявил, что организаторы взрывов преследовали целью запугать народ Британии. В то же время премьер подчеркнул, что в этой ситуации "полиция проявила себя наилучшим образом". Он заявил, что необходимо предпринять все, чтобы жизнь в Лондоне нормализовалась уже в ближайшее время."

You got a very wrong idea of evolution. It is not said that it goes to build more complecated organisms, no, it goes in direction to build more adapted organism, so that quite often means more complecated organism, but it is not a rule, you can cosider that more as a guideline. Quite often organisms loose organs. Humans and apes do not have a tale, monkeys do, does that mean that monkeys are more developed then us human? Parasites got simpler then their ansenstors, Soliter does not have eyes, very primitive neuron system, while worms they involved from did have eyes and more comlecated central neuro system. There are a lot of samples like that. Dolfins do not have legs, they are more primitive then, let's say dogs?

Evolution - "a gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form"

OK. Building a resistance to poison seems like a positive. But did you see the after-effects? The enzyme was completely useless basically. So they weren't killed by poison anymore, they were killed by their defense against the poison. How is this a positive? How is a useless enzyme a good trait to pass on?

Originally Posted by saibot

You got a very wrong idea of evolution. It is not said that it goes to build more complecated organisms, no, it goes in direction to build more adapted organism, so that quite often means more complecated organism, but it is not a rule, you can cosider that more as a guideline. Quite often organisms loose organs. Humans and apes do not have a tale, monkeys do, does that mean that monkeys are more developed then us human? Parasites got simpler then their ansenstors, Soliter does not have eyes, very primitive neuron system, while worms they involved from did have eyes and more comlecated central neuro system. There are a lot of samples like that. Dolfins do not have legs, they are more primitive then, let's say dogs?

Evolution - "a gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form"

OK. Building a resistance to poison seems like a positive. But did you see the after-effects? The enzyme was completely useless basically. So they weren't killed by poison anymore, they were killed by their defense against the poison. How is this a positive? How is a useless enzyme a good trait to pass on?

saibot, there is no such conception as positive and negative in Darwin's evolution. Those words are for humans. There is conception of surviving and adaptiveness. If this feature helps to survive and produce next generations, it is positive, if not, it's negative, that is it.

Great example! That is called selection! Natural, but in this case artificial selection. Organisms do not change because of the environment, that theory is wrong and called Lamarkism, not Darwinism. Neo-Darwinism (Darwinism + Genetics) speaks about selection. All of us got different variation of genes, which are quite stable, mutations are quite rare and they often useless or fatal, but some of them usefull. Anyhow, when cadmium did not exist, all worms were OK, but they some of them had genes of cadmium-resistence. Then environment changed and here we go, all useless (from evolution point of view) in current situation organisms died but those who had "right" genes survived. Look at Giraffes. Long ago they had normal necks. Let's say that 1% of them had slightly longer neck, guess what? They manage to get leaves better then other. They had higher chances to survive. So in several generations those with longer necks survived. Then it goes futher, out of them who had even longer necks survived. Etc. Looks simple, but it is complecated at the same time. Because long neck creates other comlecations for the organism. So out of longer neck giraffes survive those organism who had possibility to deal with high blood pressure etc. Evolution selects by many factors. Look at cars. Lets say there is an almost perfect car, powerful engine, great milage, great design, but horrible brakes? Who is going to buy that? Nobody. That car does not survive. People select cars which better value for a buck but with all needed stuff. Manufacturers of wrong cars do not survive, like many eastereropean manufacturers of cars disappeared.

Oh I disagree. Environment has a very big effect on organisms.

http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/ ... oxins.html

Evidence that the genes of developing fetuses can be permanently changed by exposure to compounds that act like hormones and that this effect is then passed on to future generations is sending shock waves through the ecotoxicology community. A study reported this week in June at the annual Endocrine Society meeting in San Diego, Calif., found that if pregnant rats were dosed with the fungicide vinclozolin or the pesticide methoxychlor, their young later suffered fertility problems. Further, this defect was passed on to future offspring, evidence that the chemicals had permanently reprogrammed the animals’ genetics.

saibot, they are not killed by their defense against the poison. They survive. Their effective enzyme is useless (actually, it's lethal) in poisonous environment. Their ineffective enzyme nevertheless let them survive and possible develop more effective enzyme resistant to poison.

Originally Posted by Vesh

saibot, they are not killed by their defense against the poison. They survive. Their effective enzyme is useless (actually, it's lethal) in poisonous environment. Their ineffective enzyme nevertheless let them survive and possible develop more effective enzyme resistant to poison.

My point is that in developing a defense against the poison, the essential enzyme became very very useless. This will kill the organism.

Yes, the ineffective enzyme let's them survive the poison, but in the long run they wont survive.

Originally Posted by saibot

Great example! That is called selection! Natural, but in this case artificial selection. Organisms do not change because of the environment, that theory is wrong and called Lamarkism, not Darwinism. Neo-Darwinism (Darwinism + Genetics) speaks about selection. All of us got different variation of genes, which are quite stable, mutations are quite rare and they often useless or fatal, but some of them usefull. Anyhow, when cadmium did not exist, all worms were OK, but they some of them had genes of cadmium-resistence. Then environment changed and here we go, all useless (from evolution point of view) in current situation organisms died but those who had "right" genes survived. Look at Giraffes. Long ago they had normal necks. Let's say that 1% of them had slightly longer neck, guess what? They manage to get leaves better then other. They had higher chances to survive. So in several generations those with longer necks survived. Then it goes futher, out of them who had even longer necks survived. Etc. Looks simple, but it is complecated at the same time. Because long neck creates other comlecations for the organism. So out of longer neck giraffes survive those organism who had possibility to deal with high blood pressure etc. Evolution selects by many factors. Look at cars. Lets say there is an almost perfect car, powerful engine, great milage, great design, but horrible brakes? Who is going to buy that? Nobody. That car does not survive. People select cars which better value for a buck but with all needed stuff. Manufacturers of wrong cars do not survive, like many eastereropean manufacturers of cars disappeared.

Oh I disagree. Environment has a very big effect on organisms.

http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/ ... oxins.html

[quote:2ik4c11l]Evidence that the genes of developing fetuses can be permanently changed by exposure to compounds that act like hormones and that this effect is then passed on to future generations is sending shock waves through the ecotoxicology community. A study reported this week in June at the annual Endocrine Society meeting in San Diego, Calif., found that if pregnant rats were dosed with the fungicide vinclozolin or the pesticide methoxychlor, their young later suffered fertility problems. Further, this defect was passed on to future offspring, evidence that the chemicals had permanently reprogrammed the animals’ genetics.

[/quote:2ik4c11l]

DNA is a huge but nevertherless regular chemical molecula. And some chemicals effect it, changing it's structure, those chemicals are called mutagens. But, those changes are not directed, spontaneous, and does not develop resistence to that mutagen, unless by some luck there appear a mutation protecting against that. Mutagens increase variations in DNA, mutations, most of them fatal. But, things like, for example cold climate do not change genes that animals start to produce thicker fir. No, it is just so happen that animals with thicker fir have more chances to survive and produce babies with thicker fir. But environment does to change genom of animals directing it going in "right" direction. I hope I am clear here. Quite busy at my work right now.