Waker Lewis and Me on Darwinism ( Random debate)
3 February 2016 at 15:37
( Sir Waker Lewis is my elder cousin who is a Phd from Cambridge I requested him to join with me to discuss with me on different scientific issue. Once we had a hard talk with him randomly in my timeline. Atlest more than 4000 people from my friend list watched it one among them was Mehreena Shehrash.
WakerLewis :
Ape to human evolution. Genetic matter of ape and human is 98% identical. Genes that make us human. Nothing is wrong there. Apes evolved into humans because of gradual changes to their genome. The biological instrument for "ape to human evolution" is changes in the genome, especially the genes. There were changes in the apes geneses but it was minor and over the course of over six million years, the accumulation of such small changes in the genes of apes resulted in "ape to human evolution." To evolve into the human genome through changes in apes' genes and very few changes were necessary
Chimpanzee Y chromosome evolved into the human Y chromosome. It is based on re-association kinetics, has set a ‘98 to 99% Gold Standard’ and the results of subsequent DNA sequence-based research conformed accordingly. Reports depend on the success in grantsmanship.
It was "gene duplication", organisms can create new genes and "chromosome fusion" of two ape chromosomes into a single chromosome resulted in humans having only 23 pairs of chromosomes. While apes have 24 pairs and by gene duplication 24 turned into 23. It has ability to create new genes. Can’t bacteria duplicate existing genes through "gene duplication? If that is possible, then why not for other species? Do you want to void fused chromosome among human babies?
ME:
How Ape's genome evolved? The information you provided is Wrong, incomplete, bogus.
Ape to human evolution, is absolutely impossible. There is no genetic mechanism that could have rearranged the genes. Apes do not have any gene generating system or gene insertion system. Can you say tat genetic matter of ape and human is 98% identical? But buried and obfuscated data related to Eugene Dubois and such reports said otherwise.
Bacteria can duplicate through existing genes but this only occurs in single sex bacteria and this is not evidence that apes and humans can create new genes with new functions.
Yes I want to void fused chromosome among human babies. Wot are you talking is translocations not fused chromosomes and it does not result in a change in the chromosome number.
HUMAN FOSSILS
Waker Lewis
Eugene Dubois found a skullcap a molar and a femur on the banks of Solo River, Java. Enough to prove the missing ling. It was Pithecanthropus erectus and he at last proved it . How can you ignore transitional fossil?
ME:
So it is helping you to set human fossils? Another mistake. The skullcap, a molar and a femur he found also suggests it was not erect ape-man but Archaeopteryx.
Even most modern scientists say some of the teeth found similar to be from an orangutan, rather than Homo erectus. Your Dubois did hide the reality of Wadjak skulls. It was in the middle Pleistocene age. Gish said , it is apelike qualities of the skullcap. Wot Mehlert stated? Java man skullcap might be of a large ape but not giant ape.
CHROMOSONAL ISSUE
WakerLewis
Listen my nerdy geek the genetic code is highly similar among all organisms and can be expressed in a simple table with 64 entries.
ME:
It is proving nothing. It tells about a common design and astonishingly, man and the chicken were paired off as closest relatives in almost all the cases. The next closest relative is the crocodile. Not giant apes. S Carl Linnaeus, who first systematized living things according to their similar structures, and Richard Owen regarded these structures as examples of common design. According to this idea, similar organs or, nowadays, similar genes are held to be so because they were intelligently designed to serve a particular purpose, not because they evolved by chance from a common ancestor.
Ape and human DNA are far too different for humans to have evolved from apes. The human Y chromosome has twice as many genes as the chimpanzee Y chromosome and the chromosome structures are not at all similar. The chimpanzee Y chromosome has 37 genes and the human Y chromosome has at least 78 genes. There is no genetic mechanism that creates new genes. For new genes there must hv morphological changes, such as gills into lungs or more efficient brains. Can they? Your so called "gene duplication" is not an evidence that organisms can create new genes.
WakerLewis : Haha you are a freak. It is not wrong. We shall again engage on it now my time is over. Hey don’t brag cya . Ba ba
....................................................................
CONTINUED FULL DISCUSSION ON DARWINISM BETWEEN Waker Lewis and ME
Waker Lewis
Is this only replicatin? Hey cheese don’t try word game .Why not recombination? Techie did ya try only on replication? you ws tryin to play game with me, it would have been repair &recombination. Okay now come to your point. And also tell me ma bookman do you exactly know what the fuck is DNA-repair enzymes?
ME:
Recombination occurs during meiosis so I better say repairing is mutation. Just to be clear, I propose that mutations, which r changes in the sequence of DNA due to errors in replication or repair, cannot produce the information, I mean adding change necessary for Darwinian evolution.
ME:
Just to be clear, I propose tat mutations, which r changes in the sequence of DNA due to errors in replication or repair, cannot produce the information, I mean adding change necessary for Darwinian evolution. lol yes all cells possess those enzymes, they attempt to minimize the number of mutations . So wot?
Waker Lewis
So a lot now you say haha. But mind it, you are again only takin on replication.
ME:
Yes cuz recombination is meant to be transcription and replication. So I shall stand on replication to void your recombination anyway. Wot I said above is macro-evolution but it can’t generate replicated full information thus mutation doesn’t mean cloning the same DNA. Then hw cn it be healthy evolution? It doesn’t match with the Darwin’s hypothetical tree of life.
Waker Lewis
haha haha imao,, do you really think so? rashiee does it disallow mutation?Boo!!! This is your definition but what are you tryin to reveal by this opinion of yours? Clarify it. Darwin didn’t surmise a tree of life. Talk on mutation or application of allele frequency. Why is it not possible by Mendelian genetics to changes in trait frequency? Okay boy why duplicatin or changin can’t make any change? Okay do you think changin colour of a gold fish is addin information or tell me do you have any idea of pre-replicative enzyme ? They are replaced before replication.
What the fuck you wanna say about mutation?Is this only replicatin? Hey cheese don’t try word game .Why not recombination? . First tell me ma bookman do you exactly know what the fuck is DNA-repair enzymes?Haha do you think so? This is the basis of the structure you are tryin to touch ma Baldwin.
ME:
sure and how do you shout of great mechanism of change? Sequence of DNA is like replicating. Recombination occurs during meiosis so I better say repairing is mutation. Just to be clear, I propose that mutations, which r changes in the sequence of DNA due to errors in replication or repair, cannot produce the information, I mean adding change necessary for Darwinian evolution.
Migration or genetic drift or other natural selection formulas r verified as wrong becuz if we human’s to be the common ancestor of apes as the product of changed mechanism then the mutation must hv larger amount of information.All cells possess those enzymes, they attempt to minimize the number of mutations. So wot?These pre-replicative enzymes are all formation of unusual structures and immature enzyme cn never carry any code of full information. Clear and out. I am not scrathing any thing those are much healthier than the average and u know tat , come to the point. I am stressing on information to say that without information a DNA is an empty faggot. DNA is DNA cuz it carries information to build a life. Why changing colour ll need additional information? There are the information within for its colour changing mechanism. I am talking about a new DNA to for a man from ape. Mutations to duplicate or inverse or delete cn never produce new information for macro-evolution. It cn be scrambling, not another high profiled new DNA. It is necessary for another DNA same as the previous one and this is not possible by distorted mutation. But why r u only taking about mutation?
Your formula of mutation is backed up with insufficient information of evolution. Lol wot is the difference between deletion and mutation? Deleting some chromosomes and adding some other typo chromosomes are the life line of your evolution. Why r u negating migration, genetic drift? Definitely mutation plays a vital role in evolution. Regarding mutation you hv to come to one point. Shaping up totally a different thing like a snake into tiger, tis is impossible. This is your rubbish. If I do agree in evolution then I hv to say it occurs I mean evolution occurs by the change of genetic material. Genes are inherited. It is the segments of DNA and the information of the DNA can be changed by mutation. Thus is it possible to change the fin into legs not a tiger into a falcon? So it needs additional information not deleting or scrambling.
Darwin’s Tree of Life. All life generated from a common ancestor? This is yours Darwin’s tree of life. Listen Darwin said all life descends from a common ancestor. This is crystal clear. But he did not or cud not say about genetic mutation cuz he was not aware of it. He was invested on natural selection that is fins are changed into legs. Ok cn u explain hw changes in allele frequencies cn change a fish into bear and hw mutation cn provide new unknown structure tat was not existed before? Not necessarily a new species ll be formed in the change of allele frequency. It cn even get changed as a cyclic response during the period of drought or due to crisis population. Like diabetics or blood pressure, therefore it is not mutation. So no way to convert microbes to man. I am talking about thrifty genotype.
Waker Lewis
rashiee does it disallow mutation?
ME:
Absolutely so my above mentioned comment vilifies the nature of definition of mutation by the Darwinists. Migration or genetic drift or other natural selection formulas r verified as wrong becuz if we human’s to be the common ancestor of apes as the product of changed mechanism then the mutation must hv larger amount of information.
Waker Lewis
Why is it not possible by Mendelian genetics to changes in trait frequency? Why are you always scratchin your balls on addin information? wait let me write not finished yet. Okay boy why duplicatin or changin can’t make any change? Okay do you think changin colour of a gold fish is addin information or tell me do you have any idea of pre-replicative enzyme ? They are replaced before replication.
ME
False… did u understand wot r u talking about? These pre-replicative enzymes are all formation of unusual structures and immature enzyme cn never carry any code of full information. Clear and out. I am not scarthing any thing those are much healthier than the average and u know tat , come to the point. I am stressing on information to say that without information a DNA is an empty faggot. DNA is DNA cuz it carries information to build a life. Why changing colour ll need additional information? There are the information within for its colour changing mechanism. I am talking about a new DNA to for a man from ape. Ok u tell me how is tat possible?
INFORMATION THEORY
Waker Lewis
Ma pundit ,what the fuck you understand by information? This is a property of mathematics. It is a claimed truth but it can be false too. You can’t bring this information theory in physical world. DNA carries information but this is not innately part of DNA. If I say the buildin is 400 meters high means it is containin information and this is an imposed property but not the buildin itself. You are fuckingly misinterpretin evolution. Changin through mutation can provide new code of information. Haha…
ME:
Lol never but wot u r saying is out of context. I cn never admit it as an evolution. Be rational. Mutations to duplicate or inverse or delete cn never produce new information for macro-evolution. It cn be scrambling, not another high profiled new DNA.
Waker Lewis
why addin information be necessary? What are the basics of your refutation?
ME
I am saying read me well, it is necessary for another DNA same as the previous one and tis is not possible by distorted mutation.
Waker Lewis
Rubbish, Are you a mud dabbler? By mutation any organism shall add & loss some the information. Altered chromosomes, endin organism’s trait, you puddle duck. New chromosome with new information.Shut the fuck up with your deletion theory, it is change not deletion, chanin always add some information & loose some information.
ME:
Why r u only taking about mutation? Your formula of mutation is backed up with insufficient information of evolution. Lol wot is the difference between deletion and mutation? Deleting some chromosomes and adding some other typo chromosomes are the life line of your evolution. Why r u negating migration, genetic drift? Definitely mutation plays a vital role in evolution. Regarding mutation you hv to come to one point. Shaping up totally a different thing like a snake into tiger, tis is impossible. This is your rubbish. If I do agree in evolution then I hv to say it occurs I mean evolution occurs by the change of genetic material. Genes are inherited.
It is the segments of DNA and the information of the DNA cn be changed by mutation. Thus is it possible to change the fin into legs not a tiger into a falcon? So it needs additional information not deleting or scrambling.
Waker Lewis
I never said mutations are not important. Don't fuck around. Darwin never talked evolution in terms of a tree. He tried to say how it plays its role in language & how it is used not the definition of information. Information never exists as an inborn part of any object. This is descriptive property. What is your problem with change? Deletion means zero. There was no zero. Who said about zero?
ME:
Listen Darwin said all life descends from a common ancestor. This is crystal clear. But he did not or cud not say about genetic mutation cuz he was not aware of it. He was invested on natural selection that is fins are changed into legs. Ok cn u explain hw changes in allele frequencies cn change a fish into bear and hw mutation cn provide new unknown structure tat was not existed before?
Waker Lewis
Haha ma smart boy. Okay listen evolution never proposes huge mutation changes. This is a slow buildup of changes. Mutation changes the DNA thus it changes the alleles, changed chromatophores in consequence. Alleles changes slowly in the gene pool. GP increases when mutation changes an allele so a new gene established by genetic drift.
ME
Not necessarily a new species ll be formed in the change of allele frequency. It cn even get changed as a cyclic response during the period of drought or due to crisis population. Like diabetics or blood pressure, therefore it is not mutation. So no way to convert microbes to man.I am talking about thrifty genotype.
Waker Lewis
Ew as if!! so when you are talkin on thrifty genotype then why shall you leave to discuss on drifty gene as genetic drift? Genotype comes from phenotype variations which one is essential for evolution.
ME:
I am very much happy on genetic drift . Accept genetic drift at least. Lol. R u ready to depend of mathematics of chance? Mind it genetic drift hv very little chance to alter allele frequency.
Waker Lewis
listen ma boy you are tryin to divert the attention. You need to concentrate on single nucleotide in the gene sequence. Lemme give the practical example. In sexual contraction multicellular organisms comes out then nucleotide substitution arises from the sex cells ....and in embryo the mutation contribute a new allele. This is neutral alleles. Genetic drift then actin on neutral alleles. Haha how shall you know about sex?
ME:
So wot?
Waker Lewis .
This formation is DNA replication. This is neutral theory you nerdy geek.This is for the molecular cloak & in time it becomes fixed for evolution. You are beatin around genetic drift & was tryin to disapprove changes in allele frequency.
ME:
lol bro this is 2016 not 1960. This neutral mutation is invalidated by your guru Darwin himself. You are also drifting from selections to neutralist controversy. Darwin himself said there are traits tat my exist without natural selection."Variations neither useful nor injurious would not be affected by natural selection, and would be left either a fluctuating element, as perhaps we see in certain polymorphic species, or would ultimately become fixed, owing to the nature of the organism and the nature of the conditions."
Genetic drift is not about neutral mutation bcuz if I take this formula for the sake of argument then I hv to say advantageous mutations are lost.
Waker Lewis
Imao haha, I may twist from selectionism to neutralism because both the branches are talkin about evolution. Haha.
ME:
This is not the point but the point is Very simple. Gene is composed of chromosomes and chromosomes are divided by DNA. So I shall go directly to the DNA. DNA carries the information and it passes generation to generation so if my DNA was from apes then I wud be an ape not a human being. On the other hand if mutation is to be considered then it cn at best can be said as distortion. If there is the same mutation of the DNA then it is carrying the same amount of information but if there is another replica of the original DNA then it can never carry the healthy information from a weak DNA.It cn be called as noise or entropy and entrophy in physics is from usefulness to uselessness. Noise can never give better sound but it decreases the sound then how the DNA of a Chimp started to give magnificent information tat formed human DNA?
This is absurd and I know wot ll be you next answer so carry on.lol
Waker Lewis
Haha Imao , no I shall not go directly to the polymer. I shall ask you to look at the nucleotide bases those are attached inside each backbone of the molecule so that the nucleotides is one helix or strand of the DNA There the human evolutionary lineage.. chromosomes of apes were fused
ME:
Why r you skipping the hydrogen bond as another strand? These two are creating the double helix of the DNA.
Waker Lewis
Because Nucleotide pairin between strands allows the sequence in one strand to determine the sequence in the complementary strand.
ME:
How cn you formulate Nucleotide paring without the backbone? The backbone of your Nucleotide is sugar-phospate with nitrogen bases? Are these two not forming the helix?
Waker Lewis
Haha because the deoxyribose sugar is free.It’s not goin to effect Nucleotide pairin. None of the two strands are identical.
ME:
But the hydrogen bonds hold these two strands. Thus your Nucleotide is not identical in a DNA. They cn be free but in order to form DNA it must depend on hydrogen. If so hw fusion is possible?
Waker Lewis
Dissimilarity of the two ends of a strand creates the ability to uniquely distinguish each end of the strand. They are antiparallel.
ME:
This is not my point. My point is how Nucleotide activate polymere to fuse when itself is not a complete phenomenon . It alone even cannot make any cell then how cn there be mutation?
Waker Lewis
Fanatic !! When Nucleotide is not parallel then why the fuck it can’t as a minor groove regulate gene transcription ba bindin proteins?
ME:
Bcuz in order to gene transcription there must hv some other ingredients like guanine-cytosine base pairs,It also pairs with cytosine in other strand and tat other strand may be hydrogen bond and may contain a phosphate
Waker Lewis
haha just tell me can a minor groove work independently?
ME:
Never. Both the major groove and minor groove must work together
...........................................................
ON MICROEVOLUTION
ME:
Microevolution is not possible. Little changes to lead into another spices is absurd cuz for new spices it needs full genetic information. It may create variations with a kind of animal or plant but they shall not have total genetic information of a new organism. Dog can produce numerous dogs with this allele frequency change and by gene flow, but they will never produce fundamentally different kind of animal, such as cat.
The genetic information of dog is different than cats. If the genetic information is completely mutated then it can be said as distorted information of the genome which can never form different spices. In order for different things to happen, something very fundamental must occur: new genetic information must arise in an organism. The organism must then pass on its genes on to its descendents, and with later accumulation. We talked on it. Therefore I shall again post my early comments:-
……………………..
Recombination occurs during meiosis so I better say repairing is mutation. Just to be clear, I propose that mutations, which r changes in the sequence of DNA due to errors in replication or repair, cannot produce the information, I mean adding change necessary for Darwinian evolution.
Recombination is meant to be transcription and replication. So I shall stand on replication to void your recombination anyway. Wot I said above is macro-evolution but it can’t generate replicated full information thus mutation doesn’t mean cloning the same DNA. Then hw cn it be healthy evolution? It doesn’t match with the Darwin’s hypothetical tree of life. All life generated from a common ancestor? This is yours Darwin’s tree of life.
Absolutely so my above mentioned comment vilifies the nature of definition of mutation by the Darwinists. Migration or genetic drift or other natural selection formulas r verified as wrong becuz if we human’s to be the common ancestor of apes as the product of changed mechanism then the mutation must hv larger amount of information.
All cells possess those enzymes, they attempt to minimize the number of mutations. So wot?These pre-replicative enzymes are all formation of unusual structures and immature enzyme cn never carry any code of full information. Clear and out. I am not scarthing any thing those are much healthier than the average and u know tat , come to the point. I am stressing on information to say that without information a DNA is an empty faggot. DNA is DNA cuz it carries information to build a life. Why changing colour ll need additional information? There are the information within for its colour changing mechanism. I am talking about a new DNA to for a man from ape.
Mutations to duplicate or inverse or delete cn never produce new information for macro-evolution. It cn be scrambling, not another high profiled new DNA. It is necessary for another DNA same as the previous one and this is not possible by distorted mutation. But why r u only taking about mutation? Your formula of mutation is backed up with insufficient information of evolution. Lol wot is the difference between deletion and mutation? Deleting some chromosomes and adding some other typo chromosomes are the life line of your evolution. Why r u negating migration, genetic drift? Definitely mutation plays a vital role in evolution. Regarding mutation you hv to come to one point. Shaping up totally a different thing like a snake into tiger, tis is impossible. This is your rubbish. If I do agree in evolution then I hv to say it occurs I mean evolution occurs by the change of genetic material. Genes are inherited. It is the segments of DNA and the information of the DNA can be changed by mutation. Thus is it possible to change the fin into legs not a tiger into a falcon? So it needs additional information not deleting or scrambling.
Genetic Drift…. I am very much happy on genetic drift. Accept genetic drift at least. Lol. R u ready to depend of mathematics of chance? Mind it genetic drift hv very little chance to alter allele frequency.
Neutral mutation is invalidated by your guru Darwin himself. You are also drifting from selections to neutralist controversy. Darwin himself said there are traits tat my exist without natural selection. "Variations neither useful nor injurious would not be affected by natural selection, and would be left either a fluctuating element, as perhaps we see in certain polymorphic species, or would ultimately become fixed, owing to the nature of the organism and the nature of the conditions." Genetic drift is not about neutral mutation bcuz if I take this formula for the sake of argument then I hv to say advantageous mutations are lost.
Gene is composed of chromosomes and chromosomes are divided by DNA. So I shall go directly to the DNA. DNA carries the information and it passes generation to generation so if my DNA was from apes then I wud be an ape not a human being. On the other hand if mutation is to be considered then it cn at best can be said as distortion. If there is the same mutation of the DNA then it is carrying the same amount of information but if there is another replica of the original DNA then it can never carry the healthy information from a weak DNA.It cn be called as noise or entropy and entrophy in physics is from usefulness to uselessness. Noise can never give better sound but it decreases the sound then how the DNA of a Chimp started to give magnificent information tat formed human DNA? This is absurd and I know wot ll be you next answer so carry on.lol
The hydrogen bond is another strand. These two are creating the double helix of the DNA. How cn you formulate Nucleotide paring without the backbone? The backbone of your Nucleotide is sugar-phospate with nitrogen bases? Are these two not forming the helix? Hydrogen bonds hold these two strands. Thus your Nucleotide is not identical in a DNA. They cn be free but in order to form DNA it must depend on hydrogen. If so hw fusion is possible? How Nucleotide activate polymere to fuse when itself is not a complete phenomenon . It alone even cannot make any cell then how cn there be mutation? In order to hv gene transcription there must hv some other ingredients like guanine-cytosine base pairs, It also pairs with cytosine in other strand and tat other strand may be hydrogen bond and may contain a phosphate.
Both the major groove and minor groove must work together.
......................................................................
SUMMARIZED BY Mehreena Shehrash .
lol let me make it little easy
After reading it read the whole again.
…………
Bro Waker and that man who posted in your blog want to say the same thing. They want to say we are the process of evolution. From an algae. Ok algae had its genes and DNA, RNA. Suppose gene is a molecule of a living thing. I am not going details or it may become complicated. DNA and RNA is closely related with genes. This DNA and genes carry information of the nature of that species.
The evolutionists are saying genes or DNA is changed in the course of time and start to change the information inside it. In this process of changing algae turns into reptiles and so on. It ends up at human being. This is mutation or drifting.
But another argument is gene and DNA of a particular species have information of that particular living thing and it transports the same information to its descendants. That is why cat is from cat and dog is from dog. The information of a particular species cannot be changed but it can be distorted or broken then there can be different kind of dogs and cat can be turned into tiger. Tiger can be the distorted version of cat. The gene of a fish can be changed into dolphins but not as a bird or buffalo.
Human being is totally different than a cat with different genetic information. A can be changed as A+ or A- but it cannot become B. B is B, A is A .
3 February 2016 at 15:37
( Sir Waker Lewis is my elder cousin who is a Phd from Cambridge I requested him to join with me to discuss with me on different scientific issue. Once we had a hard talk with him randomly in my timeline. Atlest more than 4000 people from my friend list watched it one among them was Mehreena Shehrash.
WakerLewis :
Ape to human evolution. Genetic matter of ape and human is 98% identical. Genes that make us human. Nothing is wrong there. Apes evolved into humans because of gradual changes to their genome. The biological instrument for "ape to human evolution" is changes in the genome, especially the genes. There were changes in the apes geneses but it was minor and over the course of over six million years, the accumulation of such small changes in the genes of apes resulted in "ape to human evolution." To evolve into the human genome through changes in apes' genes and very few changes were necessary
Chimpanzee Y chromosome evolved into the human Y chromosome. It is based on re-association kinetics, has set a ‘98 to 99% Gold Standard’ and the results of subsequent DNA sequence-based research conformed accordingly. Reports depend on the success in grantsmanship.
It was "gene duplication", organisms can create new genes and "chromosome fusion" of two ape chromosomes into a single chromosome resulted in humans having only 23 pairs of chromosomes. While apes have 24 pairs and by gene duplication 24 turned into 23. It has ability to create new genes. Can’t bacteria duplicate existing genes through "gene duplication? If that is possible, then why not for other species? Do you want to void fused chromosome among human babies?
ME:
How Ape's genome evolved? The information you provided is Wrong, incomplete, bogus.
Ape to human evolution, is absolutely impossible. There is no genetic mechanism that could have rearranged the genes. Apes do not have any gene generating system or gene insertion system. Can you say tat genetic matter of ape and human is 98% identical? But buried and obfuscated data related to Eugene Dubois and such reports said otherwise.
Bacteria can duplicate through existing genes but this only occurs in single sex bacteria and this is not evidence that apes and humans can create new genes with new functions.
Yes I want to void fused chromosome among human babies. Wot are you talking is translocations not fused chromosomes and it does not result in a change in the chromosome number.
HUMAN FOSSILS
Waker Lewis
Eugene Dubois found a skullcap a molar and a femur on the banks of Solo River, Java. Enough to prove the missing ling. It was Pithecanthropus erectus and he at last proved it . How can you ignore transitional fossil?
ME:
So it is helping you to set human fossils? Another mistake. The skullcap, a molar and a femur he found also suggests it was not erect ape-man but Archaeopteryx.
Even most modern scientists say some of the teeth found similar to be from an orangutan, rather than Homo erectus. Your Dubois did hide the reality of Wadjak skulls. It was in the middle Pleistocene age. Gish said , it is apelike qualities of the skullcap. Wot Mehlert stated? Java man skullcap might be of a large ape but not giant ape.
CHROMOSONAL ISSUE
WakerLewis
Listen my nerdy geek the genetic code is highly similar among all organisms and can be expressed in a simple table with 64 entries.
ME:
It is proving nothing. It tells about a common design and astonishingly, man and the chicken were paired off as closest relatives in almost all the cases. The next closest relative is the crocodile. Not giant apes. S Carl Linnaeus, who first systematized living things according to their similar structures, and Richard Owen regarded these structures as examples of common design. According to this idea, similar organs or, nowadays, similar genes are held to be so because they were intelligently designed to serve a particular purpose, not because they evolved by chance from a common ancestor.
Ape and human DNA are far too different for humans to have evolved from apes. The human Y chromosome has twice as many genes as the chimpanzee Y chromosome and the chromosome structures are not at all similar. The chimpanzee Y chromosome has 37 genes and the human Y chromosome has at least 78 genes. There is no genetic mechanism that creates new genes. For new genes there must hv morphological changes, such as gills into lungs or more efficient brains. Can they? Your so called "gene duplication" is not an evidence that organisms can create new genes.
WakerLewis : Haha you are a freak. It is not wrong. We shall again engage on it now my time is over. Hey don’t brag cya . Ba ba
....................................................................
CONTINUED FULL DISCUSSION ON DARWINISM BETWEEN Waker Lewis and ME
Waker Lewis
Is this only replicatin? Hey cheese don’t try word game .Why not recombination? Techie did ya try only on replication? you ws tryin to play game with me, it would have been repair &recombination. Okay now come to your point. And also tell me ma bookman do you exactly know what the fuck is DNA-repair enzymes?
ME:
Recombination occurs during meiosis so I better say repairing is mutation. Just to be clear, I propose that mutations, which r changes in the sequence of DNA due to errors in replication or repair, cannot produce the information, I mean adding change necessary for Darwinian evolution.
ME:
Just to be clear, I propose tat mutations, which r changes in the sequence of DNA due to errors in replication or repair, cannot produce the information, I mean adding change necessary for Darwinian evolution. lol yes all cells possess those enzymes, they attempt to minimize the number of mutations . So wot?
Waker Lewis
So a lot now you say haha. But mind it, you are again only takin on replication.
ME:
Yes cuz recombination is meant to be transcription and replication. So I shall stand on replication to void your recombination anyway. Wot I said above is macro-evolution but it can’t generate replicated full information thus mutation doesn’t mean cloning the same DNA. Then hw cn it be healthy evolution? It doesn’t match with the Darwin’s hypothetical tree of life.
Waker Lewis
haha haha imao,, do you really think so? rashiee does it disallow mutation?Boo!!! This is your definition but what are you tryin to reveal by this opinion of yours? Clarify it. Darwin didn’t surmise a tree of life. Talk on mutation or application of allele frequency. Why is it not possible by Mendelian genetics to changes in trait frequency? Okay boy why duplicatin or changin can’t make any change? Okay do you think changin colour of a gold fish is addin information or tell me do you have any idea of pre-replicative enzyme ? They are replaced before replication.
What the fuck you wanna say about mutation?Is this only replicatin? Hey cheese don’t try word game .Why not recombination? . First tell me ma bookman do you exactly know what the fuck is DNA-repair enzymes?Haha do you think so? This is the basis of the structure you are tryin to touch ma Baldwin.
ME:
sure and how do you shout of great mechanism of change? Sequence of DNA is like replicating. Recombination occurs during meiosis so I better say repairing is mutation. Just to be clear, I propose that mutations, which r changes in the sequence of DNA due to errors in replication or repair, cannot produce the information, I mean adding change necessary for Darwinian evolution.
Migration or genetic drift or other natural selection formulas r verified as wrong becuz if we human’s to be the common ancestor of apes as the product of changed mechanism then the mutation must hv larger amount of information.All cells possess those enzymes, they attempt to minimize the number of mutations. So wot?These pre-replicative enzymes are all formation of unusual structures and immature enzyme cn never carry any code of full information. Clear and out. I am not scrathing any thing those are much healthier than the average and u know tat , come to the point. I am stressing on information to say that without information a DNA is an empty faggot. DNA is DNA cuz it carries information to build a life. Why changing colour ll need additional information? There are the information within for its colour changing mechanism. I am talking about a new DNA to for a man from ape. Mutations to duplicate or inverse or delete cn never produce new information for macro-evolution. It cn be scrambling, not another high profiled new DNA. It is necessary for another DNA same as the previous one and this is not possible by distorted mutation. But why r u only taking about mutation?
Your formula of mutation is backed up with insufficient information of evolution. Lol wot is the difference between deletion and mutation? Deleting some chromosomes and adding some other typo chromosomes are the life line of your evolution. Why r u negating migration, genetic drift? Definitely mutation plays a vital role in evolution. Regarding mutation you hv to come to one point. Shaping up totally a different thing like a snake into tiger, tis is impossible. This is your rubbish. If I do agree in evolution then I hv to say it occurs I mean evolution occurs by the change of genetic material. Genes are inherited. It is the segments of DNA and the information of the DNA can be changed by mutation. Thus is it possible to change the fin into legs not a tiger into a falcon? So it needs additional information not deleting or scrambling.
Darwin’s Tree of Life. All life generated from a common ancestor? This is yours Darwin’s tree of life. Listen Darwin said all life descends from a common ancestor. This is crystal clear. But he did not or cud not say about genetic mutation cuz he was not aware of it. He was invested on natural selection that is fins are changed into legs. Ok cn u explain hw changes in allele frequencies cn change a fish into bear and hw mutation cn provide new unknown structure tat was not existed before? Not necessarily a new species ll be formed in the change of allele frequency. It cn even get changed as a cyclic response during the period of drought or due to crisis population. Like diabetics or blood pressure, therefore it is not mutation. So no way to convert microbes to man. I am talking about thrifty genotype.
Waker Lewis
rashiee does it disallow mutation?
ME:
Absolutely so my above mentioned comment vilifies the nature of definition of mutation by the Darwinists. Migration or genetic drift or other natural selection formulas r verified as wrong becuz if we human’s to be the common ancestor of apes as the product of changed mechanism then the mutation must hv larger amount of information.
Waker Lewis
Why is it not possible by Mendelian genetics to changes in trait frequency? Why are you always scratchin your balls on addin information? wait let me write not finished yet. Okay boy why duplicatin or changin can’t make any change? Okay do you think changin colour of a gold fish is addin information or tell me do you have any idea of pre-replicative enzyme ? They are replaced before replication.
ME
False… did u understand wot r u talking about? These pre-replicative enzymes are all formation of unusual structures and immature enzyme cn never carry any code of full information. Clear and out. I am not scarthing any thing those are much healthier than the average and u know tat , come to the point. I am stressing on information to say that without information a DNA is an empty faggot. DNA is DNA cuz it carries information to build a life. Why changing colour ll need additional information? There are the information within for its colour changing mechanism. I am talking about a new DNA to for a man from ape. Ok u tell me how is tat possible?
INFORMATION THEORY
Waker Lewis
Ma pundit ,what the fuck you understand by information? This is a property of mathematics. It is a claimed truth but it can be false too. You can’t bring this information theory in physical world. DNA carries information but this is not innately part of DNA. If I say the buildin is 400 meters high means it is containin information and this is an imposed property but not the buildin itself. You are fuckingly misinterpretin evolution. Changin through mutation can provide new code of information. Haha…
ME:
Lol never but wot u r saying is out of context. I cn never admit it as an evolution. Be rational. Mutations to duplicate or inverse or delete cn never produce new information for macro-evolution. It cn be scrambling, not another high profiled new DNA.
Waker Lewis
why addin information be necessary? What are the basics of your refutation?
ME
I am saying read me well, it is necessary for another DNA same as the previous one and tis is not possible by distorted mutation.
Waker Lewis
Rubbish, Are you a mud dabbler? By mutation any organism shall add & loss some the information. Altered chromosomes, endin organism’s trait, you puddle duck. New chromosome with new information.Shut the fuck up with your deletion theory, it is change not deletion, chanin always add some information & loose some information.
ME:
Why r u only taking about mutation? Your formula of mutation is backed up with insufficient information of evolution. Lol wot is the difference between deletion and mutation? Deleting some chromosomes and adding some other typo chromosomes are the life line of your evolution. Why r u negating migration, genetic drift? Definitely mutation plays a vital role in evolution. Regarding mutation you hv to come to one point. Shaping up totally a different thing like a snake into tiger, tis is impossible. This is your rubbish. If I do agree in evolution then I hv to say it occurs I mean evolution occurs by the change of genetic material. Genes are inherited.
It is the segments of DNA and the information of the DNA cn be changed by mutation. Thus is it possible to change the fin into legs not a tiger into a falcon? So it needs additional information not deleting or scrambling.
Waker Lewis
I never said mutations are not important. Don't fuck around. Darwin never talked evolution in terms of a tree. He tried to say how it plays its role in language & how it is used not the definition of information. Information never exists as an inborn part of any object. This is descriptive property. What is your problem with change? Deletion means zero. There was no zero. Who said about zero?
ME:
Listen Darwin said all life descends from a common ancestor. This is crystal clear. But he did not or cud not say about genetic mutation cuz he was not aware of it. He was invested on natural selection that is fins are changed into legs. Ok cn u explain hw changes in allele frequencies cn change a fish into bear and hw mutation cn provide new unknown structure tat was not existed before?
Waker Lewis
Haha ma smart boy. Okay listen evolution never proposes huge mutation changes. This is a slow buildup of changes. Mutation changes the DNA thus it changes the alleles, changed chromatophores in consequence. Alleles changes slowly in the gene pool. GP increases when mutation changes an allele so a new gene established by genetic drift.
ME
Not necessarily a new species ll be formed in the change of allele frequency. It cn even get changed as a cyclic response during the period of drought or due to crisis population. Like diabetics or blood pressure, therefore it is not mutation. So no way to convert microbes to man.I am talking about thrifty genotype.
Waker Lewis
Ew as if!! so when you are talkin on thrifty genotype then why shall you leave to discuss on drifty gene as genetic drift? Genotype comes from phenotype variations which one is essential for evolution.
ME:
I am very much happy on genetic drift . Accept genetic drift at least. Lol. R u ready to depend of mathematics of chance? Mind it genetic drift hv very little chance to alter allele frequency.
Waker Lewis
listen ma boy you are tryin to divert the attention. You need to concentrate on single nucleotide in the gene sequence. Lemme give the practical example. In sexual contraction multicellular organisms comes out then nucleotide substitution arises from the sex cells ....and in embryo the mutation contribute a new allele. This is neutral alleles. Genetic drift then actin on neutral alleles. Haha how shall you know about sex?
ME:
So wot?
Waker Lewis .
This formation is DNA replication. This is neutral theory you nerdy geek.This is for the molecular cloak & in time it becomes fixed for evolution. You are beatin around genetic drift & was tryin to disapprove changes in allele frequency.
ME:
lol bro this is 2016 not 1960. This neutral mutation is invalidated by your guru Darwin himself. You are also drifting from selections to neutralist controversy. Darwin himself said there are traits tat my exist without natural selection."Variations neither useful nor injurious would not be affected by natural selection, and would be left either a fluctuating element, as perhaps we see in certain polymorphic species, or would ultimately become fixed, owing to the nature of the organism and the nature of the conditions."
Genetic drift is not about neutral mutation bcuz if I take this formula for the sake of argument then I hv to say advantageous mutations are lost.
Waker Lewis
Imao haha, I may twist from selectionism to neutralism because both the branches are talkin about evolution. Haha.
ME:
This is not the point but the point is Very simple. Gene is composed of chromosomes and chromosomes are divided by DNA. So I shall go directly to the DNA. DNA carries the information and it passes generation to generation so if my DNA was from apes then I wud be an ape not a human being. On the other hand if mutation is to be considered then it cn at best can be said as distortion. If there is the same mutation of the DNA then it is carrying the same amount of information but if there is another replica of the original DNA then it can never carry the healthy information from a weak DNA.It cn be called as noise or entropy and entrophy in physics is from usefulness to uselessness. Noise can never give better sound but it decreases the sound then how the DNA of a Chimp started to give magnificent information tat formed human DNA?
This is absurd and I know wot ll be you next answer so carry on.lol
Waker Lewis
Haha Imao , no I shall not go directly to the polymer. I shall ask you to look at the nucleotide bases those are attached inside each backbone of the molecule so that the nucleotides is one helix or strand of the DNA There the human evolutionary lineage.. chromosomes of apes were fused
ME:
Why r you skipping the hydrogen bond as another strand? These two are creating the double helix of the DNA.
Waker Lewis
Because Nucleotide pairin between strands allows the sequence in one strand to determine the sequence in the complementary strand.
ME:
How cn you formulate Nucleotide paring without the backbone? The backbone of your Nucleotide is sugar-phospate with nitrogen bases? Are these two not forming the helix?
Waker Lewis
Haha because the deoxyribose sugar is free.It’s not goin to effect Nucleotide pairin. None of the two strands are identical.
ME:
But the hydrogen bonds hold these two strands. Thus your Nucleotide is not identical in a DNA. They cn be free but in order to form DNA it must depend on hydrogen. If so hw fusion is possible?
Waker Lewis
Dissimilarity of the two ends of a strand creates the ability to uniquely distinguish each end of the strand. They are antiparallel.
ME:
This is not my point. My point is how Nucleotide activate polymere to fuse when itself is not a complete phenomenon . It alone even cannot make any cell then how cn there be mutation?
Waker Lewis
Fanatic !! When Nucleotide is not parallel then why the fuck it can’t as a minor groove regulate gene transcription ba bindin proteins?
ME:
Bcuz in order to gene transcription there must hv some other ingredients like guanine-cytosine base pairs,It also pairs with cytosine in other strand and tat other strand may be hydrogen bond and may contain a phosphate
Waker Lewis
haha just tell me can a minor groove work independently?
ME:
Never. Both the major groove and minor groove must work together
...........................................................
ON MICROEVOLUTION
ME:
Microevolution is not possible. Little changes to lead into another spices is absurd cuz for new spices it needs full genetic information. It may create variations with a kind of animal or plant but they shall not have total genetic information of a new organism. Dog can produce numerous dogs with this allele frequency change and by gene flow, but they will never produce fundamentally different kind of animal, such as cat.
The genetic information of dog is different than cats. If the genetic information is completely mutated then it can be said as distorted information of the genome which can never form different spices. In order for different things to happen, something very fundamental must occur: new genetic information must arise in an organism. The organism must then pass on its genes on to its descendents, and with later accumulation. We talked on it. Therefore I shall again post my early comments:-
……………………..
Recombination occurs during meiosis so I better say repairing is mutation. Just to be clear, I propose that mutations, which r changes in the sequence of DNA due to errors in replication or repair, cannot produce the information, I mean adding change necessary for Darwinian evolution.
Recombination is meant to be transcription and replication. So I shall stand on replication to void your recombination anyway. Wot I said above is macro-evolution but it can’t generate replicated full information thus mutation doesn’t mean cloning the same DNA. Then hw cn it be healthy evolution? It doesn’t match with the Darwin’s hypothetical tree of life. All life generated from a common ancestor? This is yours Darwin’s tree of life.
Absolutely so my above mentioned comment vilifies the nature of definition of mutation by the Darwinists. Migration or genetic drift or other natural selection formulas r verified as wrong becuz if we human’s to be the common ancestor of apes as the product of changed mechanism then the mutation must hv larger amount of information.
All cells possess those enzymes, they attempt to minimize the number of mutations. So wot?These pre-replicative enzymes are all formation of unusual structures and immature enzyme cn never carry any code of full information. Clear and out. I am not scarthing any thing those are much healthier than the average and u know tat , come to the point. I am stressing on information to say that without information a DNA is an empty faggot. DNA is DNA cuz it carries information to build a life. Why changing colour ll need additional information? There are the information within for its colour changing mechanism. I am talking about a new DNA to for a man from ape.
Mutations to duplicate or inverse or delete cn never produce new information for macro-evolution. It cn be scrambling, not another high profiled new DNA. It is necessary for another DNA same as the previous one and this is not possible by distorted mutation. But why r u only taking about mutation? Your formula of mutation is backed up with insufficient information of evolution. Lol wot is the difference between deletion and mutation? Deleting some chromosomes and adding some other typo chromosomes are the life line of your evolution. Why r u negating migration, genetic drift? Definitely mutation plays a vital role in evolution. Regarding mutation you hv to come to one point. Shaping up totally a different thing like a snake into tiger, tis is impossible. This is your rubbish. If I do agree in evolution then I hv to say it occurs I mean evolution occurs by the change of genetic material. Genes are inherited. It is the segments of DNA and the information of the DNA can be changed by mutation. Thus is it possible to change the fin into legs not a tiger into a falcon? So it needs additional information not deleting or scrambling.
Genetic Drift…. I am very much happy on genetic drift. Accept genetic drift at least. Lol. R u ready to depend of mathematics of chance? Mind it genetic drift hv very little chance to alter allele frequency.
Neutral mutation is invalidated by your guru Darwin himself. You are also drifting from selections to neutralist controversy. Darwin himself said there are traits tat my exist without natural selection. "Variations neither useful nor injurious would not be affected by natural selection, and would be left either a fluctuating element, as perhaps we see in certain polymorphic species, or would ultimately become fixed, owing to the nature of the organism and the nature of the conditions." Genetic drift is not about neutral mutation bcuz if I take this formula for the sake of argument then I hv to say advantageous mutations are lost.
Gene is composed of chromosomes and chromosomes are divided by DNA. So I shall go directly to the DNA. DNA carries the information and it passes generation to generation so if my DNA was from apes then I wud be an ape not a human being. On the other hand if mutation is to be considered then it cn at best can be said as distortion. If there is the same mutation of the DNA then it is carrying the same amount of information but if there is another replica of the original DNA then it can never carry the healthy information from a weak DNA.It cn be called as noise or entropy and entrophy in physics is from usefulness to uselessness. Noise can never give better sound but it decreases the sound then how the DNA of a Chimp started to give magnificent information tat formed human DNA? This is absurd and I know wot ll be you next answer so carry on.lol
The hydrogen bond is another strand. These two are creating the double helix of the DNA. How cn you formulate Nucleotide paring without the backbone? The backbone of your Nucleotide is sugar-phospate with nitrogen bases? Are these two not forming the helix? Hydrogen bonds hold these two strands. Thus your Nucleotide is not identical in a DNA. They cn be free but in order to form DNA it must depend on hydrogen. If so hw fusion is possible? How Nucleotide activate polymere to fuse when itself is not a complete phenomenon . It alone even cannot make any cell then how cn there be mutation? In order to hv gene transcription there must hv some other ingredients like guanine-cytosine base pairs, It also pairs with cytosine in other strand and tat other strand may be hydrogen bond and may contain a phosphate.
Both the major groove and minor groove must work together.
......................................................................
SUMMARIZED BY Mehreena Shehrash .
lol let me make it little easy
After reading it read the whole again.
…………
Bro Waker and that man who posted in your blog want to say the same thing. They want to say we are the process of evolution. From an algae. Ok algae had its genes and DNA, RNA. Suppose gene is a molecule of a living thing. I am not going details or it may become complicated. DNA and RNA is closely related with genes. This DNA and genes carry information of the nature of that species.
The evolutionists are saying genes or DNA is changed in the course of time and start to change the information inside it. In this process of changing algae turns into reptiles and so on. It ends up at human being. This is mutation or drifting.
But another argument is gene and DNA of a particular species have information of that particular living thing and it transports the same information to its descendants. That is why cat is from cat and dog is from dog. The information of a particular species cannot be changed but it can be distorted or broken then there can be different kind of dogs and cat can be turned into tiger. Tiger can be the distorted version of cat. The gene of a fish can be changed into dolphins but not as a bird or buffalo.
Human being is totally different than a cat with different genetic information. A can be changed as A+ or A- but it cannot become B. B is B, A is A .
0 Comments