Originally posted by RJHinds rror correction is a property of some, but not all, DNA polymerases. This process corrects mistakes in newly synthesized DNA. When an incorrect base pair is recognized, DNA polymerase reverses its direction by one base pair of DNA. The 3'-5' exonuclease activity of the enzyme allows the incorrect base pair to be excised (this activity is known as proofreadin ...[text shortened]... .youtube.com/watch?v=HYS6EKnQcv0&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lniOVodlYrI
okay, so cancers don't exist. what a revelation, hallelujah!
Isn't is annoyingly repetitively stupid of him how he just keeps saying “X Proves Evolution is Wrong” “Y Proves Evolution is Wrong” “Z Proves Evolution is Wrong”
when it is obvious to all of us that it doesn't and he never gives any valid explanation why it does.
Perhaps two can play at this extremely stupid game of his: I say “strawberry ice-cream proves creationism wrong” 😛 if we can have “DNA Error Checking Proves Evolution is Wrong“, why not “strawberry ice-cream prove creationism wrong”?
Originally posted by humy Isn't is annoyingly repetitively stupid of him how he just keeps saying “X Proves Evolution is Wrong” “Y Proves Evolution is Wrong” “Z Proves Evolution is Wrong”
when it is obvious to all of us that it doesn't and he never gives any valid explanation why it does.
Perhaps two can play at this extremely stupid game of his: I say “strawberry ice-cream proves ...[text shortened]... r Checking Proves Evolution is Wrong“, why not “strawberry ice-cream prove creationism wrong”?
Look, I have already repeated given you the evidence and you refuse to look at it. You guys just keep shoving your head further up your arse.
Originally posted by RJHinds When are you going to get your head out of your arse and look at the evidence instead of just saying, false, false, false?
Here is the deal: because it is FALSE, FALSE, FALSE. Unequivocally FALSE. All your hand waving, hair pulling, cloth rendering will not make your creationism worth the paper it was written on, which, BTW, was first told to the Egyptians about a thousand years before Judaism. I saw the cartouche myself in Cairo at the museum.
Originally posted by RJHinds Look, I have already repeated given you the evidence and you refuse to look at it. You guys just keep shoving your head further up your arse.
No people look at the evidence, write a considered reply refuting your argument and you are incapable of dealing with that. You are incapable of arguing your case.
Originally posted by RJHinds rror correction is a property of some, but not all, DNA polymerases. This process corrects mistakes in newly synthesized DNA. When an incorrect base pair is recognized, DNA polymerase reverses its direction by one base pair of DNA. The 3'-5' exonuclease activity of the enzyme allows the incorrect base pair to be excised (this activity is known as proofreadin ...[text shortened]... .youtube.com/watch?v=HYS6EKnQcv0&feature=related
Originally posted by RJHinds I might as well ignore it. He can't prove anything of a sort, because he would have to start with the same old wrong assumptions and he hasn't got enough time and it is all untestable. It is nothing but evolutionary lies and pure crap.
I can prove it, and all I need is a concrete example in the here and now that contradicts your claim in the OP - no assumptions required. But you know that so you chose to ignore my question - essentially admitting that you know your OP is false.
Originally posted by RJHinds There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. The chromosome count within each species is fixed. This is the reason a male from one species cannot mate successfully with a female of another species.
Have you ever heard of a mule? Also look up "liger"
Originally posted by finnegan No people look at the evidence, write a considered reply refuting your argument and you are incapable of dealing with that. You are incapable of arguing your case.
Originally posted by twhitehead Have you ever heard of a mule? Also look up "liger"
Yes, but that is a dead end. Mules and ligers can not breed among themselves to reproduce more mules and ligers. Mules are still within the horse kind and ligers are still within the cat kind.
Originally posted by RJHinds Yes, but that is a dead end. Mules and ligers can not breed among themselves to reproduce more mules and ligers. Mules are still within the horse kind and ligers are still within the cat kind.
so you concede that lions and tigers may have had a common ancestor providing it was 'within the "cat" kind' ?
Proof evolution is wrong
06 Jun '12 17:37
Back to Top