Al, sweetie, this couldn't be further from the truth.

Evolution is scientific fact, there are mounds of evidence to support it and no scientists that I know of are 'discarding' it. 

If you'd like to cite some sources for your claims, I'll gladly rip them apart for you. 

Proto-wings would have increased the organism's balance, allowing for faster and more agile running.

That's not true at all. Evolution is fantasy and fiction. There is NO evidence to support it.  Scientists know this that is why it is being discarded.

 

B

Having worked at the Max Planck institute as well as a slew of scientific institutions, I can honestly say that this is utterly absurd. No scientist who is not an evolutionist willl be taken very seriously.

As a molecular biologist, I can confimr that the evidence from molecular biology supports evolution and nothing else.

 

And before we begin, I shall introduce the terminology and the tests from which we gather our information:

 

Vocabulary:

 

Duplicative mutation: A genetic mutation where a gene string is accidentally duplicated during mitosis failure. This provides the mutation carrier with superfluous genetic baggage, basically an extra copy of a gene. This copy is free to mutate based solely on random frequency probability.

 

Homology: A family relationship between two or more genes (or sets of genes) as the result of a duplicative mutation. For instance, the human genome contains seven haemoglobin proteins, all of which are in a gene family called the haemoglobin family. This is part of a larger family called the globin family, under which all oxygen binding proteins are classed like myoglobins.

 

Paralogy: A relationship between two closely related genes in a single genome as the result of a mutation. These two genes (or sets) are said to be paralogous of each other in the same carrier species. For instance, the seven human haemoglobins are said to be paralogous of each other.

Orthology: A relationship between genes or sets of genes in different species. When two species diverge, the new genetic arm of the phylogenic tree retains much of the genetic code of it's predecessor. Any related batches of genes in two species are said to be orthologous of each other. The seven human haemoglobins are orthologous to the seven chimp ones.

Recombinative mutation: Chunks of genetic information are shuffled around. Bear this in mind for what we talk about below.

 

Vocabulary regarding protein organization:

Polypeptide chain: A tertiary protein is one consisting of only one polypeptide chain (one very long molecule made of many amino acid subunits all covalently bonded, usually 50-2000 amino acids long)

 

Tertiary domain: A recognizable subunit of a polypeptide chain. Domains are usually consistent of many alpha helices and beta sheets twisted around each other. A tertiary domain is essentially a clearly distinct building block of a polypeptide chain. When I say distinct, I mean obvious. For example, the protein nucleosaminade is constructed of four distinct regions symmetrically aligned in a tetramer (four identical domains). Perhaps telling you how obvious the domain distinct is. Perhaps a picture would help:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Domains can be aligned in stack-up formation (N-terminus to C and so on) to create long strandlike proteins as seen in fibronectin shown here

 

Hopefully these pictures will make you understand what I mean when I say that a domain is a “distinct region”. The technical definition of a domain is “a region of protein which folds up independent of the rest of the chain”. Thus we can see that a tertiary domain is a clear, distinct region of protein which makes up the large building subunits of polypeptide chains, a fact which will be important later.

 

Modular domain: A domain which pops up all over the proteome of many different proteins and many different domains in many different species, essentially a building block ubiquitous throughout evolution.

 

*critical note about tertiary and modular domains. When we say the domain is in many places, keep in mind that domains are not identical protein strings to the letter. Two protein strings can be 50% different in amino acid string and still be the same domain (as a domain is defined by its function). This is why the human haemoglobin alpha is a different protein string to say, the chimp haemoglobin alpha, but they are still the same domain. This is crucial for a test discussed soon called the molecular clock.

 

Quaternary domain: Many proteins are consistent of many polypeptide chains (tertiary proteins) noncovalently bonded together. If this is the case then it is called a quaternary protein complex, and the subunits of this large complex (called quaternary domains) are the tertiary proteins (the subunits of which of course, are tertiary domains)

 

Primary structure: Unfolded protein. A straight string of amino acids.

Secondary structure: The protein transforms into it’s secondary structure by folding at the kinks between the tertiary subunits.

Tertiary structure: The folding becomes further intricate during progression to tertiary structure when the folds between individual atoms and peptide bonds take shape.

Quaternary structure: Only applicable in a quaternary protein. Same as tertiary structure, except of course, with a protein complex holding multiple noncovalent bonded chains

 

Signature sequence: These are crucial for identifying two protein strings which are the same domain but which have very different amino acid sequences (note, the key factor in determining whether two strings are indeed the same domain is 3D geometry, aka the fold or conformation, but this can often take years to construct). For instance, two protein strings can still be considered the same domain even if, say, the match between them is 30% amino acids identical. This is because many of the mutations do not alter the geometry of the string (these neutral mutations are also called “background noise”).

 

So to help us tell where two protein strings are indeed the same domain, we need to find the signature sequences, conserved amino acid strings critical for the functioning of the protein (often these strings are so sensitive that they do not change whatsoever, even over two billion years). For example:

 

This is a comparison of the SH2 domain of the Src kinase protein (a domain which is more or less ubiquitous) between the human and the fruit fly Drosophila. Note that these are actually identical domains despite their clear differences in sequence. The results:

Homo Sapiens

WYFGKKITRRESERLLLNAERPRGTFLVRESETTKGAYCLSVSDFDNAKGL

Drosophila melanogaster:

WFFENVLREADKLLLAEENPEGTFLVRPSEHNNGYSLSVKDWEDGRKYGY

Protein Domain Signature Homologies in both: WYFGKITRRESERLL
GTFLVRESE

Side chain grouping matches:
W+F+R+E+++LLLENPRGTFLVRSEYLSVD+++_G

The reason we can ID these two strings as the same protein is due to the signature sequences which are conserved only in the SH2 domain.

 

Tests used (need to know about these):

 

Sequencing: Very simple. Run a gene sequence through a sequencer and determine the string of nucleotides that make up the gene.

 

Proteomic Sequencing: A protein’s amino acid string can be immediately determined through gene sequencing. This is really boring, so we just run it through a proteomic sequencer and the codons are matched with the correct amino acid.

 

Microarray: Crucial test to measure how mutations affect gene expression. A Microarray is a tiny square on which we can array the genome or a section of genome of any organism we care to test. Each gene is arrayed on it’s own tiny glass square subunit within the array. A mixture of nucleotides is then passed over the array, which bond to the ones aligned on the array. These nucleotides have fluorescent chemical tags attached to them, and thusly, they light up. The rate of gene expression can be monitored based on the fluorescence of the nucleotides to which a particular gene is tagged. In this way, thousands of genes can be monitored simultaneously, the effect of adding or removing any gene can be monitored, different conditions on the gene set can be monitored, and the entire GRNP (Gene Regulatory Node Pathway) can be completely constructed, and the result of evolutionary changes on the GRNP can be monitored to a degree of exact detail. The evolutionary relationship between organisms becomes immediately clear as we can observe the effect of mutations on the organism as a whole (making this test much more accurate than knockout selective mutation test), albeit much more difficult to read).

 

Genetic engineering knockout: When we want to find out what a certain gene does, we can do this:

a) Knockout test. Engineer an organism with one and only one specific gene removed by a process called recombinative deleting. Observe effect on the phenotype to conclude what this gene does. By breeding many mutant versions of an organism with one particular gene, any gene that we wish to test, knocked out of it, we can discern what the missing gene does.

b) Engineered insertion: To help discern what the gene knocked out of one organism does, we can insert it into another and find out exactly how it works. A memorable example, I recall, is the removal of pax6 gene from a mouse, which is a master gene that commands a set of genetic instructions to make an eye. We only discovered this when we inserted it into a fly and astonishingly discovered a perfectly formed fly eye growing on the fly’s leg.

 

What this means is that we inserted pax6 next to the gene expression regulators responsible for coordinating development of the leg. This is the other useful piece of data obtained from an engineered insertion test. For instance, I trust you have all heard of the famous “glowing green monkey”, where researchers inserted a fluorescent green protein gene into a monkey genome and discovered that it was now glowing green, thus indicating that the gene had been inserted next to the one responsible for skin pigmentation.

 

Homologous match comparison:

 

Molecular Clock: A crucial test. The necessity of a protein domain for survival will affect the rate of mutation and change of that gene. Critical genes that are absolutely necessary for survival do not change very easily and are thusly called conserved genes. The rate at which mutations in domains occurs is measured by observing the rate of change of a domains by comparing the amino acid divergence in different species. For instance, haemoglobin changes at a rate of 6% every 100 million years. Due to the fact that the homologous domains are identical, this divergence would only exist if the species in question are descendants of a common ancestor. If ID, creationism, sponataneous appearance of complex life by God waving his magic finger, then these divergences should not eixst. An example of how this can be used to rip Behe's Irreducibile complexity a new asshole shown here:

[Digression]

 Blood Clotting Claimed Irreducible By Behe: False.

It might be best to step back and first determine how the metabolic pathways to blood clotting work. It is a complex process indeed. At the heart of blood clotting is a substance in your blood called fibrin. Fibrin is a sticky molecule soluble in water which has the natural tendancy to form a clot. The mesh which it forms stops haemopoitic cells from escaping. Fibrin forms about 3% of the blood. However, it obviously cannot exist normally as fibrin, or it would simply block up the vessels, hence when in the blood, fibrin exists as part of a larger molecule called fibrinogen. Fibrinogen is a complex, amino-acid rich macromolecular complex, which at it’s center contains the fibrin molecule. Surrounding it are many amino acid side chains, which have a negative charge (at the pH of blood, amines and side chains always have a charge). This causes them to repel each other, thus they exist as independent molecules in the blood, without clotting.

This changes when a wound initiates the metabolic pathways known as the blood clotting cascade. A protease enzyme has to catalyze the removal of the side chains, thus exposing the fibrin. This enzyme is called thrombin. But obviously thrombin has to exist as an inactive enzyme otherwise it would simply initiate the reaction whenever. It exists as protothrombin, and has to be activated to become the catalysis enzyme. A tiny additional chain on the protothrombin fold renders it inactive. This has to be removed by another clotting serine factor, Factor X. This too, as a serine, must be activated in the same manner. And so, the blood clotting cascade has four steps more until we reach the beginning. Factor X is activated by Factor XI, which is activated by Factor IX, which is activated by Factor XII, Which is activated by the Kininogen-Kallikrein system of co-activation, which is triggered by external stimuli. This is where the process starts.

 

The activation of the serine cofactors is a similar process. For XI to become XIa (Activated Factor 11), a side chain must be cut removing the ionic charge, which allows it to cascade into the next step. It seems unnecessary complex, almost like an infinite regress of serine-cofactor activation steps. But it makes sense, because for every step that is taken, an exponential signal transduction increase occurs. If it was just a very short pathway, say a single cofactor triggered by external stimuli to start the thrombin conversion, then the clot would be far too small, and would take hours to form. Thus, the six-step amplification works best.

 

In others words, blood coagulation is a complex and beautiful process. But does that mean it is irreducible and could not have evolved? One of the key establishment requisites of Behe’s irreducible complexity is that a mechanism could not evolve by gradual evolutionary steps. But I beg to differ. The implication that he made clear in Darwin’s Black Box was that the designer would have to put all the parts together at once, otherwise it would not really be irreducible or a challenge to evolution. But unfortunately, genetic analysis of the cofactor cascade tells us otherwise. Thus we return to my previous comment about the homologous nature of the cascade.

 

So how could this function have evolved, and how can we trace it? Typically, when we start looking at a biomolecular function, we have a base from which to start. We never start from scratch. Only primordial chemists deal in that. This base function might be exteremly primitive, almost bound by basic laws of chemistry. For instance, when we look at the eye in all it’s glory, we see that all nine divergences that have taken their course come from a highly simplified patch of light-sensitive cells. Likewise, when we observe the fantastic complexity and variation of the Eukaroytic cell membranes, with all their complex ion channels and protein transport functions, we see that in common they are all bound a very simple chemical law known as ampipathism, the tendency of hydrophilic/phobic molecules to align in a bilayer. The membrane’s composition resembles a flagellum in molecular shape, with a long twin hydrophobic fatty acid tail and a stubby hydrophilic choline-phosphate-glycerol head.

 

What similar base function might we find in blood clotting? Studying the evolution of metabolic pathways is different to studying other molecular functions. The job is made significantly easier by the Autocatalytic nature of the pathways as described in my previous link. Much of the steps in coagulation work like that too. The serine proteases that form the original primitive life forms (as being detected on the long arms of chromosomes 1 and 5) were not originally designed for blood clotting, but they were there. In his book Finding Darwin’s God, Ken Miller suggests that cAMP (that’s cyclic adenosine monophosphate) would be a significant launch pad to build up the homologous set of serine cofactors that make the cascade. He’s correct here. cAMP is cellular transduction molecule that acts somewhat like a neurotransmitter, smoothing muscular tissue around vascular epithelial tissue, and inhibiting blood flow. A damaged cell, spilling all of it’s contents, would pour the cAMP out along with it. Evolution could work with that. Cellular mechanisms already possess, for unrelated reasons, white blood cells, whose adhesive nature allowed them to clump the wound

 

From the rudimentary system, where several factors are in place and a simple automatic system of clumping exists, a highly complex multilayered system of cascading can accumulate by two well-known evolutionary processes. One is called duplicate error from which the various homologies are formed, and the other is exon shuffling as done by spliceosomes. From the receptors point of view, we could see how the repeated duplication and slight mutation of the serine cofactors would work, for reasons not the least of which that we can track it’s paralogies. For the most part, coagulation is autocatalytic, it just needs the materials to initiate. If the progenitors are already in place, then well…all that is needed is time for the duplicative errors to occur. If we have primordial serine cofactors (we do), the rudimentary single layer is pre-existing (ie, primordial enzyme A is cleaved to make Aa, which actives the thrombin). This would initiate itself. And we can imagine the naturally selective benefits that would come from the repeated duplication of the serine, as this would make clotting more efficient.

It is in no way Irreducible. You can be sure that we would notice it in the genome if it was (as it turns out, they are strewn all over the genomes across the strata, XII is in Chromosome 5, VII is on 13, Factor VIII is on the sex chromosome etc)

Blood clotting is an example of a zymogen cascade pathway, and any metabolism generated by zymogenes can be generated by duplication and homology. This particular cascade is composed almost exclusively of serine proteases. Surely, serine protease zymogenous cascade is the worst example of "intelligent design", not because it is poor, but because the homology in this particular protein family is more obvious than any other family, kinase domains, homeodomains, Cro repressor dimers, you name it, this is the textbook example of a protein family in an obvious homology. This particular domain is so close in amino acid structure of the proteases that some of the serines are nearly indistinguishable without close scrutiny of the difference in signature sequences. (Sig sequences are tiny stretches of amino acids 10-30 amino acids long used to ID domain stretches that have diverged alot). Of course, the serines haven't exactly diverged alot. In fact, they are one of the most conserved families in the whole proteome. They are the nemesis of intelligent design, an obvious example of duplication and homology.

[End of digression]

 

when I read your first thought was...that's it? Thats your response to 16,000 homology catalogues, Endogenous Retroviral insertions, and Mitochondrial DNA transfers? Sir, this relationship is extremely obvious, and it is not one, it is tens of thousands of homologies which clearly diverge as separation widens and close as it narrows, as indicated by time length separation. This test will come up on any protein domain I pick. It clearly indicates that life began a primordial genome, and as the genome duplicated, parts diverged and it expanded thusly. Genetic duplication error and polyploids are set in stone fact, and no geneticist would say otherwise. I can even watch gene duplication myself, using a microarray, although I hardly think it is worth the trouble. Using decoders, microarrays, and homology databases, geneticists have now catalogued evolutionary relationships between vast swaths of life, and the effects of these changes.

The existence of paralogies of genetics across the families in the proteome, even diverged as far as separations between the three domains themselves, and the fact that amino acid tracking reveals this to narrow as the organisms in question become more closely related (a fact which is reinforced by advanced radiometry) can only be possible via repeated duplication and divergence of genes, thusly bearing gene families which in turn branched out depending on the survival requisites of the organism and location, the lack of originality in the proteome, especially the vertebrae proteome, which can be explained entirely in terms of domain shuffling and protein string recombination can only be explained by origin from a common descent, a primordial genome who bore only the survival requisites for the simplest of life. What this genome may have looked like is mysterious, but insight into a small bacteria called Mycoplasm genitalium can give us the answer, when computationally recombined with cross-references of genes exclusive to archae, eubacteria and eukaryotes (Excluding ESP proteins of course) we arrive at an answer of roughly 200 genes dedicated to basic metabolic and structural proteins, rRNAs and mitosis control gates. Ad it is from this humble beginning that life evolved. A fact which is correlated 100% by genomic/proteomic analysis and ortholog/paralog/xenolog tracking.

Quite simply, molecular genetics tracking, ERVs and mtDNA, in addition to computational searches for paralogies across the spectrum, leads us inevitably to the conclusion that the whole swath of life arose from a single, simple, primodial cell.

 

It is about duplicative mutations, followed by recombinative mutations, or shuffling mutations. For instance, A protein is not subdivided merely by it’s amino acid. It is grouped into large subunits called polypeptides, regional stretches of protein subunit roughly 100 amino acids long. In this way we can see that massive proteins (>1000 amino acids) are not only defined by their individual, but ultimately, the order of different units created by smaller strings of amino acids within the complex. The protein transforms into it’s secondary structure by folding at the kinks between the subunits. The shape, therefore, of a protein is directly determined by it’s chemical sequence. The folding becomes further intricate during progression to tertiary structure when the folds between individual units take shape. Finally, the protein reaches it’s quaternary structure or it’s native state, with the intricate system of folds.

there is almost nothing original in the vertebrae genome. It is the result of multiple whole-global duplications throughout evolution. Even in humans, the proteome contains only 7% vertebrae-specific proteins. The only place we really seem to have any originality is in domain shuffling (Im pretty sure that the human tyrpsin can bind to at least 18 domains, while in drosophilia it's only 5). As I said about protein structure, much of the innovation merely comes from rearrangement of subunits, which is beneficial in terms of the shuffling mutation quite often.

 

These are divergences found in an identical protein domain confirmed exactly by molecular clock tracking against the known divergence rate of the domain and the orthologous seperation of these two species. If (as you claim) these species were created within days of each other, or had no common ancestor, this divergence would not exist. This is the same domain for each animal, which I took the liberty of sequencing myself. Because I can.

 

Orthologous Divergence of the haemoglobin chain of various vertebrae correlated by molecular tracking:

Percentage divergence in amino acids between conserved domain of haemoglobin

Human/Lamprey (divergence: 550 million years ago) 35%

Human /Shark (Divergence: 520 million years) 51%

Human/tuna fish (450 million years) 55%

Human/frog (350 million years) 56%

Human/chicken (320 million years) 70%

Human/lizard (270 million years) 77%

Bird/Crocodile (220 million years) 76%

Human/Kangaroo (170 million years) 81%

Human/Sloth/Mouse/Elephant/Rabbit/Pig/Sheep/Whale/Cat/Dog/rat

All between 150 and 50 million years, all 80-85% related in this domain

Human/orangutang (10 million years) 98%

and finally...human/chimp (7 million years) 100%

 

All this in turn is corroborated by ERV tracking and the vertical transfers in Mitochondrial DNA

How do you explain and account for mitochondrial DNA horizontal transfer migration without common descent?

Endogenous retroviral insertion occurs when a retrovirus reverse transcribes it's own RNA into a host's DNA by means of polymerase RNA-DNA conversion, 3' and 5' enzymatic degradation and intergrase fusion. Retroviruses are the only organisms that can do this. That is what makes HIV so deadly. The ERV insertions are rare and very random. Although complementation ensures they can only bind to specific points on the host's genome, the amount of possible insertions that the ERV could transcribe, not to mention the fact that this has to be to the power of seven to account for all seven retroviruses, and of course, the fact that it is a very rare occurrence and the fact that even a single transcribed piece has numerous choices of insertion due to multiple duplication errors that exist in Eukaryotic genomes means the odds of finding even just one insertion (let alone 8% of the genome for humans alone) on one identical position in the chromosomal karyotype would be astronomical. And then, that number has to be raised to the power of seven, then multiplied by several thousand to account for all the possible transcribable genes, which has to multiplied by 10 again to account for the duplicative errors, and that doesn't even factor in how rare the insertions are.

The only way it is possible that we can find large strings of ERV's on identical interspersals throughout the genome of species throughout every eon is because of common descent.

It is empirically demonstratable that mitochondria are the result of billion year old symbiosis between ancient oxyphobic bacteria and proto-eukaryotes. This is the reason they have their own little genome. The mtDNA genome in humans is only 16,000 base pairs. Prokaryotes have a remarkable ability to exchange genetic material by a different process which is critical to bacterial evolution. This is called horizontal transfer. Vertical transfer is an ability eukaryotes do not have because their DNA is enclosed in an intercellular packaged membrane (hence the name eukaroyote). Vertical transfer occurs when bacteria simply exchange genes by passing them through the cell membrane to each other. This can occur either by direct junction fusing or literally uptaking of the new material. Prokaryotes can take any peice of nucleic acid string and simply incorporate it immediately because their DNA is not kept in an intercellular membrane.

So, mitochondria, as ancient prokaryotes, of course keep their DNA is a loop strand like every other bacteria. Indeed, mtDNA also undergoes transfer. This is very rare and obviously useless. In this case, it is intracellular thus the transfer is into the nucleus of the host cell, where the master genome is stored. Such is termed mtDNA migration.

I think mtDNA migration is even better than ERV because the probability is even lower by several orders of magnitude that we could find mtDNA on identical positions of the genotypes of multipe species throughout multiple eons without common descent whereby the offspring would inherit the mtDNA. The best part is that obviously, as time passes, the amount of mtDNA in the master genomes should accumulate, since more horizontal transfer is taking place over longer periods of time, and this should still turn up on the same positions in the genotype. What a surprise! It does.

Without common descent, the probability of individual horizontal transfers accounting for entire species inheriting identical mtDNA which remains so throughout geological eons and continues to accumulate and end up in the same places is so low the number is unfathomable.

And now to recall the discussion about protein domains is the clincher, namely the fact that there are no original protein domains in the whole proteomic spectrum makes it very obvious that they evolved by duplication and blind guidance. The entire vertebrae genome was created by shuffling mutations which rearranged domains into novel combinations. The human genome contains only 7% vertebrae specific protein, and differs in terms of size from a fruit fly by only a factor of 1.2, yet the fact that much more novel and complex arrangements of the same protein domains means the construction of a much more complex organism. There is nothing original about the vast diverstiy of life. It all came from very simple, repeating, diverging, primordial, protein domains.

 

 

 

AL500, you've been owned so many times your warranty has now expired. Bleating passionately without evidence and quoting creationist tracts that 'prove' evolution wrong and which have all been debunked multiple times is not the same as providing hard facts.

You're a liar and a fool. Nothing more remains to be said.

Top evidences against evolution: http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/top.htm"Many ...believe in evolution for the simple reason that they think science has proven it to be a `fact' and, therefore, it must be accepted... In recent years, a great many people...having finally been persuaded to make a real examination of the problem of evolution, have become convinced of its fallacy and are now convinced anti-evolutionists." -- Henry Morris, former evolutionist.

Before I even touch that on a scientific level, philosophically speaking, of what relevance is it that you (alledgedly) have evidence against evolution? How does that demonstrate a supernatural creator?What EVIDENCE do you have for your position? You seem to be of the bent that if you can shoot down current evolutionary theory that your position would be correct by default. I cannot begin to describe the logical mindfuck entwined in that.I can fill books with lectures on enodgenous retrogenes, coccyx retroposition, observed speciation, etc. What can you do? What empirical evidence can you offer to us?

The hypocrisy in this comment is stunning. Do you really think I have not read it? You bandy this book around because the author is a PhD. That is your argument. Never mind the thousands of evolutionary biologists with PhDs. I'm a PhD you idiot! But you never see me saying "Shut up. You have to listen to me because I have a PhD". In fact, this was the first time I have ever mentioned it on the forum (usually I don't, but you have made me so angry that  I did)

Flaunting my own credentials as arguments would be appalling. But as for you...Flaunting someone else's credentials is the epitome of trolling.

All of your claims except this one are abiogenesis. That is chemistry and not my field. This one however, struck me as utterly absurd.

And allow me to point out that

a) You ignored me

b) Did not refute my claims

c) Copied and pasted (as opposed to me, mine was my own writing

d) plagarized (which will get you banned)

e) Have an inabilty to think for yourself, copying off creationst websites.

Now, to debunk your utter misunderstanding of thermodynamics.

 

This is a lengthy explanation of the entropy laws, and how they relate to life. I understand that many people have been using the Second Law of Thermodynamics as if it were a challenge to evolution. You can imagine how amusing I find this.

At any rate, we need to understand some basic concepts first. These are The laws of thermodynamics, entropy, enthalpy and free energy.

Let us imagine a box, a system closed off from the universe, with a cell inside it. The cell in a box is a closed system with a fixed amount of free energy. This system will have a total amount of Energy denoted E. Let us suppose the reaction A to B occurs in the box and releases a great deal of chemical bond energy as heat. This energy will increase the rate of molecular motions (transitional, vibrational and rotational) in the system. In other words it will raise the temperature.

However, the energy for these motions will soon transfer out of the system as the molecular motions heat up the wall of the box and then the outside world, which is denoted sea. Eventually, the cell in a box system returns to it’s initial temperature, and all the chemical bond energy released has been transferred to the surroundings. According to the first law of thermodynamics, the change in energy in the box (denoted ∆Ebox or just ∆E) must be equal and opposite to the amount of heat energy transferred out, denoted as h. Therefore ∆E=-h.

 

E in the box can also change during a reaction due to work done in the outside world. Suppose there is a small volume increase in the box (∆V) which must decrease the energy in the box (∆E) by the same amount. In most reactions, chemical bond energy is converted to work and heat. Enthalpy(H) is a composite function of work and heat, (H=E+PV). Technically it is the Enthalpy change (∆H) is equal to the heat transferred to the outside world during a reaction.

 

Reactions with a -∆H are exothermic, and ones with +∆H are endothermic. Therefore –h=∆H. The volume change in reactions is so negligible that this is a good approximation.

 

-h≈∆H≈∆E

 

The Second Law of Thermodynamics allows us to predict the course of a reaction.

Let us consider 1000 coins in a box, all facing heads. It is a closed system, which, by definition, does not exchange energy input or output with the rest of the universe. States of high order have low probability. For instance, if we imagine a box with 1000 coins lying heads up, and we shake it twice, it is vastly more probable that we will end up with a chaotic arrangement of coins than the arrangement that we had previously. Thus, the law can be restated closed systems tend to progress from states of low probability to high probability. This movement towards high probability in a system where the energy is E, is progressive. In order for the entropy (the progression towards high probability) to be corrected, there must be periodic bursts of energy input, which would break the closed nature of the system. In this case, it would require someone to open the box and rearrange the coins.

Therefore, for a living organism to maintain order and increase order, there must be a useful energy input. For that to happen, there will be a useless energy output. Thus increasing the order in the cell will increase the disorder of the entire universe. In this way, we can imagine life forms and other complexities as islands of order in a universe progressing towards disorder. For this to happen, there must be a colossal influx of free energy all the time. This is one the requisites for life. As luck would have it, we have such a system: The sun.

We need a quantitative unit to measure this, and to measure the degree of disorder or probability for a given state (recall the coins in a box analogy). This function is entropy (denoted S) The change in entropy that occurs when the reaction A to B converts one mole A to one mole B is

 

∆S= R log PB/PA

 

PA and PB are probabilities of states A and B. R is the gas constant (2 cal/deg^-1/mole-¹⁾ ∆S is measured in entropy units (eu).

 

In an example with a box containing one thousand coins all facing heads, the initials state (all coins facing heads) probability is 1. The state probability after the box is shaken vigorously is about 10^298. Therefore, the entropy change when the box is shaken is R log 10^298 is about 1370eu per mole of each container (6.02x10^23 containers). ∆S is positive in this example. It is reactions with a large positive ∆S which are favorable and occur spontaneously. We say these reactions increase the entropy in the universe.

 

Heat energy causes random molecular commotion, the transfer of heat from the cell in a box to the outside increases the number of arrangements the molecules could have, therefore increasing the entropy (analogous to the 1000 coins a box).The release of X amount of heat energy has a greater disordering effect at low temp. than at high temp. therefore the value of ∆S for the surroundings of the cell in a box denoted ∆Ssea is equal to the amount of heat transferred divided by absolute temperature or

 

∆Ssea =h/T

 

We must now look at a critical concept: Gibbs Free Energy (G)

 

When observing enclosed bio-systems, we need to know whether or not a given reaction can occur spontaneously. The question regarding this is whether the ∆S for the universe is positive or negative for the reaction, as already discussed.

 

In the cell in a box system there are two separate components to the entropy change in the universe. The ∆S for the inside of the box and the ∆S for the surrounding sea. These must be added together.

 

For example, it is possible for an endothermic reaction to absorb heat therefore decreasing the entropy of the universe (-∆Ssea) but at the same time cause such a large disorder in the box (+∆Sbox) that the total ∆S is greater than zero. Note that ∆Suniverse=∆Ssea+∆Sbox. 13

For every reaction, ∆Suniverse must be >0. We have just encountered another way to restate the Second Law of Thermodynamics

 

In this case, the reaction can spontaneously occur even though the sea gives heat to the box during the reaction. An example of this is a beaker of water (the box) in which sodium chloride is dissolving. This is spontaneous even though the temp of the water drops as it is occurring.

 

The most useful composite function is Gibbs Free Energy (G) which allows one to deduce ∆S in the universe due to the reaction in the box. The formula is: G=H-TS.

 

For a box of volume V, H is the Enthalpy (E+PV), T is the absolute temperature and S is the entropy. All of these apply to the inside of the box only. The change in free energy in the box during a reaction is given as the ∆G of the products minus the ∆G of the reactants. It is a direct measure of the disorder created in the universe when a reaction occurs. At a constant temp, ∆G= ∆H+T∆S. ∆H is the same as –h, the heat absorbed from the sea. Therefore

 

-∆G= -∆H +T∆S or -∆G=h+T∆S Therefore -∆G/T=h/t+∆S

 

h/T still equals ∆Ssea but the ∆S in the above equation is for the box. Therefore.

 

-∆G= ∆Ssea +∆Sbox =∆Suniverse

 

A reaction will spontaneously proceed in the direction where ∆G<0, because it means that the ∆S will be >0. They are inverse functions of each other. For a complex set of coupled reactions involving many molecules, one can calculate ∆G by adding the ∆G of all the different types of molecules involved before the reaction, and comparing that to the ∆G of all the molecules produced by the end of the reaction. For example, comparing the ∆G of the passage of a single proton through the inner mitochondrial membrane across the electrochemical proton gradient to the ∆G for ATP hydrolysis, we can conclude that ATP synthase requires the passage of more than one proton for each molecule of ATP synthesized.

 

Let’s review:

2^nd Law: Basically an expression dictating that the whole universe progresses towards disorder, and any reaction must contribute to that disorder. Disorder is energetically favorable and probability-wise favorable.

Heat Energy: The energy in the random motion and hubbub of molecular jostling and movement. This is basically a measure of temperature, but all reactions give off heat energy, which is irretrievable (another way to restate the second law). Heat energy is denoted h.

Enthalpy: A composite function of heat and work, but since ∆V is always next to nothing, we can regard it as the inverse of heat. Enthalpy is a measure of heat energy lost or ∆H=-h

Gibbs Free Energ

 

The total ∆G for a reaction measures how far from equilibrium the reaction is. The large negative ∆G for ATP hydrolysis means that the cell keeps it very far from equilibrium. Equilibrium is reached when the forward and backward rates of each reaction are precisely equal and the ∆G is zero. For ATP hydrolysis, this occurs when the vast majority of ATP has been hydrolyzed (because ATP hydrolysis is much more favorable than ATP synthesis), like in a dead cell.

 

What we can conclude is that every reaction must have a negative ∆G to occur.

 

But how? What about anabolism, free energy creation, energy stores? Many reactions in cells are energetically unfavorable. Most polymerizations are, oxaloacete generation, ADP condensation etc as well as supramolecular operation like ribosomal assembly, mitosis, mRNA synthesis etc

 

These seemingly impossible reactions make use of a key concept covered earlier. Let us return to our cell in the sea scenario. Except the cell is not in the box, it is in the sea, receiving free energy from the sun.

 

Recall: ∆Ssea +∆Sbox =∆Suniverse

 

Except now it becomes: ∆Ssea +∆Scell =∆Suniverse

 

For an unfavorable reaction to occur, it must be coupled to a favorable reaction of higher magnitude. IN this way, even the order in the cell increases, the disorder in the sea increases by a greater amount therefore the ∆S is still positive and the ∆G is still negative, leaving the laws of thermodynamics intact.

 

There are a vast number of examples to choose from. Let us consider a typical unfavorable condensation reaction

 

A-H+ B-OH = A-B + H20

 

This reaction will not occur spontaneously. It cannot. It will create free energy of its own accord. That’s impossible. Fortunately there is a mechanism to bypass this.

 

A favorable reaction is coupled to it. ATP Hydrolysis is a favorable and readily occurring reaction where ATP splits one phosphanhydride to ADP, leaving a very reactive inorganic phosphate. This bond, because it is highly reactive, readily bonds with B-OH forming B-O-PO3.

 

This is called a high-energy intermediate. Because the bond is so high-energy, it will immediately react with B-H producing A-B + H2O + Pi + ADP

 

This concept exists in a huge number of reactions. Many reactions involve critical stepwise passing of high energy intermediate chains.

 

The cells must maintain order by maintaining a constant stream of biochemical catabolism and anabolism being driven by enzymes which lower the activation energy. Food is broken down from macromolecular giant biological polymers like polysaccharides, polypeptides, proteins and giant fatty acids by oxidation, electron carrying, and catalysis of favorable reactions into simple molecules like glucose, amino acids and glycerol. Some of this is in turn, catabolized to break the phosphate bonds which release heat energy to power the cell (and increase entropy in the universe). The rest of it is used to be anabolized again into giant structures in glycogen or lipid storage for later consumption or construction into cellular structures like ribosomes. All of these highly intricate metabolic pathways that do these things must be set in motion by thermodynamically favorable events.

For instance, imagine rocks falling off a cliff onto the ground. The kinetic energy is being converted into heat and sound. This is useless. But if we set up a turbine underneath the rock which powers a small hydraulic pump, we are obtaining useful work from free energy.

 

 

 One last thing:

 

WWW.Creationism.org 

Darwinism Refuted

Evolution is Dead

Was Darwin Right?

Creation   

 Young Earth Creation, and Pro Life Videos

Answers in Genesis

Creation Illustrated Magazine

Institute for Creation Research

Biblical Creation Society

Center for Scientific Creation

Creation Evidences Museum

David Plaisted's Creation Page

Revolution Against Evolution

Creation vs. Evolution - A debate/discussion site for teens

Creation Resource Foundation

Creation Education Center

Mt. Blanco Fossil Company and Museum

Genesis Corner

Omniological Society

Evidence of Human/Dinosaur Coexistence - Dr. Don Patton's man tracks web site

 

Evolution refuted:

"Mission Impossible: the Monarch Butterfly" by Ron Lyttle - http://www.creationism.org/batman/monarch.htm

"Evolutionists' 'Primordial Soup' Theory Being Replaced" by Stephen Caesar - CrtnismOrg/caesar/primordial.htm

"Louis Agassiz" by Bolton Davidheiser - http://www.creationism.org/symposium/symp6no5.htm

"Jurassic Park: The New Orthodoxy?" by Trevor J. Major - http://www.creationism.org/csshs/v16n2p23.htm

"Giraffes: Animals that Stand Out in a Crowd" by Lynn Hofland - CrtnismOrg/articles/giraffes.htm

"Biblical Creation and Personality" by Ellen Myers - http://www.creationism.org/csshs/v16n1p16.htm

"Who Designed Woodpeckers?" by Thomas F. Heinze - CrtnismOrg/heinze/Woodpecker.htm

"Do Genetic Studies Demonstrate Evolution?" by Stephen Caesar - CrtnismOrg/caesar/genesevolution.htm

"Water, Water Everywhere . . . and not a Drop to Drink?" by O'Daniel - http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-348.htm

"The Human Genome: A Creationist Overview" by Wood - http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-335.htm

"The Unselfish Green Gene" by Demick - http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-325.htm

"Evolution Is Biologically Impossible" by Mastropaolo - http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-317.htm

"The Bible and/or Biology" by H. Morris - http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-312.htm

"Scientific Roadblocks to Whale Evolution" by Sherwin - http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-304.htm

"Genetics" AIG Section - http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/genetics.asp

"Origin of Life" AIG Section - http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/origin.asp

"Thermodynamics and Order" AIG Section - http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/thermodynamics.asp

"Mad Cow Disease and the Enormous Complexity of Protein Folding" CRS Newsletter (pdf) - http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/pdf/2001/cm0606.pdf

"The DNA Disaster" CRS Newsletter (pdf) - http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/pdf/2000/cm0503.pdf

Link-spewing is clearly against the rules of the forum. This is the last straw AL500. You are not aware of this, but I have already conducted a poll with the mod team (only mods can read the mod forums) and they all agree: This is your last warning. If you act like this again, you will be banned. Not blocked. Permanently banned. And just so you know, not a single one of them stuck up for you. We'd all be very happy to see you go, so don't go handing us excuses to do it.

Posting links is not plagerizing. YOU are the one who has copied, pasted and plagerized. Give me a break.

Plagarizing? No. This is my own work. I wrote it. I took the time, and have done the experiments. YOu know what, since you are so impressed by someone having a PhD, I'll say it.

I am a PhD in molecular biology

I am a PhD in molecular biology 

I am a PhD in molecular biology 

Are you impressed? Of course not. Why would you be. I dont expect you to be. So stop being a hypocrite. 

Thank you jread. I appreciate you very much for sticking up for me.

In my other thread, I will respond in several hours, but I must leave now. I hope you know that I find you to be very intelligent, scholarly, and polite. I hope the troll could take a lesson from you on how one conducts themselves in a debate. 

deludedgod has absolutely no need to plagiarize.  He's a molecular biologist who sees, on a daily basis, that evolution is a fact.  In fact, I daresay that his work would not make sense without acknowledging the reality of Darwinian evolution.

Correct me if I'm wrong.  I can't always understand your posts, deludedgod, because I don't have the necessary background education.  

TYPING REALLY BIG MAKES YOU RIGHT!!!!

Thanks for your kind words of understanding deleduded and yellow. In honor of this defense, I wrote a thread explaining my thoughts on this kind of theistic rudeness.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/7739

 

AL500, just do yourself a favour and stop now.

You're embarassing yourself.

 Perhaps what Deluded God is saying is too complicated for you, so I'll post my explaination of evolution written in laymans terms for you.

 

Misconceptions About The Theory Of Evolution

What is Science?


Statistically, the American public doesn't understand what science is, or how it works, which is why I include this.
Science is a particular branch of knowledge that deals with how humans categorize, study and view the world.
Science is a system that is free from passion; what I mean is that it is a rational, methodical process that does not allow personal feelings to come into play.
Any and every scientific law or fact has been tested using the scientific method.


What is the Scientific Method?

The scientific method is comprised of several separate steps. The most important of which are Hypothesis, Test, Conclusion, Falsifiability and then the experiments are subject to Peer Review.

Hypothesis is an idea about how something works. The scientist sees a natural phenomena and postulates an idea as to how said phenomena could work.

Test is when the scientist gathers evidence that would support the hypothesis. This is achieved through scientific experimentation in a controlled laboratory setting and a lot of research.

After testing, the scientist arrives at a Conclusion. In a conclusion the scientist verifies that the collected evidence supports his/her original hypothesis. If the evidence does NOT support the hypothesis, the hypothesis is thrown out. It can also be revised, but if it is, the scientist must go back to step one.

Falsifiability.
For an assertion to be falsifiable, one must be logically able to make an observation or do a physical experiment that would show the assertion to be false. Remember, 'falsifiable' doesn't mean 'false'. For more on Falsifiability.

Peer Review occurs when the scientist has concluded that his evidence supports his hypothesis. He then submits his findings to a peer reviewed scientific journal. Then, accredited scientists worldwide attempt to disprove the original hypothesis. If the hypothesis can not be disproved by any scientist in the world, then the hypothesis becomes a scientific theory.

What is a Scientific Theory?

A scientific theory is something that has been proven true multiple times by using the scientific method.
The misconception is that when you use the word 'theory' in layman's terms, it means 'idea you made up'. However, when it is used in a scientific context, the word 'theory' takes on a much more serious meaning.

Theory, when used in a scientific context is an explanation that best fits all of the evidence available. A theory can take years to prove, and it must be agreed upon by the scientific community.

The reality is, that if evolution were erroneous, then it would have been thrown out again years ago. Scientists don't play favorites with their theories. In example, Newton's laws of Gravity were revised by Einstein when they were found to not adequately explain gravity in many adverse situations; this was Einstein's theory of relativity.
Gravity is "only" a theory.
Heliocentrism is "only" a theory.
In general, a theory is a collection of smaller scientific facts that are placed together to allow for an explanation of a larger topic.

Theory refers to a "logical, tested, well-supported explanation for a great variety of facts." - National Center for Science Education.

What is the Theory of Evolution?

The theory of Evolution is held up to the same level of scrutiny that any other scientific finding is subject to. Perhaps more, due to its controversial nature.
It is erroneous and kind of foolish to assert that the same scientific method that brings us flight, electricity, open heart surgery, space travel, the internet(I could go on like this) - was CORRECT about all of these things, but completely wrong about the theory of evolution.
The fact of the matter is that if there were compelling evidence against evolution, the theory would have been discredited and thrown out. For all of the criticism evolution has received from theists, not one piece of evidence has ever been able to discredit evolution, and they've been trying for 150 years.
Modern biology(ie medical science) is based on and dependent on the theory of evolution.

Evolution works off of at least 3 independent processes, and when taken together form what we mean by 'evolution'. These are replication, variation and selection, and they are all observable facts.
a> Replication is simply reproduction. Everything alive in nature reproduces, from the orchid to the oyster to the human.
b> Variation- How things change from the parent to the offspring.
-"shuffling": involves the various genes in male and female sex cells after these cells combine. The 'shuffling' puts together new gene combinations, thus making the offspring different from their parents(You have brown hair, your mother doesn't, etc).
-Mutation: rare changes in genes, usually inherited. Can occur as copying errors in early stages of cell reproduction. Mutations can be neutral, harmful or beneficial to the organism.
Yes, variations are random, but to deny they exist is an exercise in tedium.
c>If you've followed so far, you'll realize that things reproduce, and when they reproduce their offspring can be different from the parents in many ways, both good and bad. Some of these changes, say better eyesight, can be beneficial to the organism in question. Now we're down to Selection.
-Natural Selection is where these variations get tested. If a certain variation gives that individual a higher chance of survival, the odds increase that this individual will live long enough to reproduce and pass along this new trait. Natural Selection is not random. It does not 'decide' to let a particular variation get passed along to new generations en masse, rather it only allows that the beneficial variations do. To state that such a process is 'random' is to misunderstand it entirely. What can be random about only allowing beneficial deviations to pass en mass to future generations?
-Sexual Selection involves members of one sex preferring certain characteristics in the opposite sex and then choosing a mate based on those characteristics. How is this random? The preferred characteristics are the ones that are passed on because those are the animals that mate.
Put all of those things together, and that's how evolution works.
Once again, each and everything I've listed is an observable scientific fact.

Micro-evolution: small changes within a particular species.
Macro-Evolution: small changes that, over thousands or millions of years can lead to new species.

 

Now, which one of these observable, scientific fact(replication, variation, selection) do you believe doesn't happen? 

Please keep in mind that we have several PhD's on our forums who are far more versed in evolutionary biology than you, yourself are.

Please keep in mind that just because you read it on an apologetics website doesn't make it true. These people who oppose evolution do so for one reason - so that they can believe in a divine creator. I have never met a non-theist who opposed evolution, because they don't feel the need to believe that we were created 'special' by a god. The apologetics websites, the evangelicals, these people all have agendas, many of them are selling books, dvds and whatever else. People like Ray Comfort are making literally millions of dollars just simply by telling people what they want to hear. Can you point me to some evolutionary biologst who's making millions explaining evolution to people? No, you can't. Science doesn't have an agenda.

Please keep in mind that  all of those websites you posted have more than likely been debunked, and a quick google search would have shown you as much.

 

 

You're a non-theist?

Then how do you suppose everything got here?

 

Also, do you have any sources that you can cite that would prove that the claims you're levelling against scientists here are true? 

By the way,

Elephant evolution

Girraffe evolution

 

OKay Cap'n Arrogant.

Lets look at the facts here;

1- I posted a laymans guide to science, scientific method, scientific theory and what the theory of evolution actually says. Did you read it? If so, why do you believe that it doesn't happen?

2-You're copying and pasting arguments from apologetics sites without, a) verifying the source b) looking to see if there are any refutations already written to them here or elsewhere. 

3-All I asked was if you had any sources to back up your claim that scientists, " line up pictures of similar looking species and claim they evolved one to another. Humans are a great example. There are hundreds of species of extinct monkeys and apes. Petrified skulls and bones exist from these creatures. Evolutionists line up the most promising choices to present a gradual progression from monkey to modern man. They simply fill in the big gaps with make-believe creatures to fit the picture." If you don't have any evidence that scientists do this, then why would you waste our time saying that they do?

"There is NO evidence to support it"
Say what?

Even if there was no evidence to show that evolution happens in nature (which there is a ton of evidence for), it has been shown to work VERY well for solving very difficult problems.

Ever hear of genetic algorithms? They demonstrate the power of evolution for solving problems. Genetic Algorithms and Evolutionary Computation is a great document about genetic algorithms.

Lets quote from it what I believe to be the most jaw-dropping example:

Also, given that several major corporations have used genetic algorithms to design products, this theory with "NO evidence" for it seems to work VERY well.

 

Respect is given where respect is warranted.  You have shown complete ignorance on the subject of evolution and your arguments and the ones given by your "book" have also been refuted.  You do not follow the course of the debate and you flaunt a Ph.d Ph.d Ph.d.   You resort to GOD EXISTS..GOD EXISTS..GOD EXISTS because it is YOU who are too afraid to be disappointed by the truth.  Fact of the matter is, there are many more scientists out there who support the theory of evolution, even christians.  You cling on to a book as if it's your bible.   Fact is...molecular biology has undoubtedly proven evolution beyond reasonable doubt.  If you want a real book to read.  Read the Making of the Fittest: DNA and the ultimate forensic record of evolution.  If you cannot trust DNA, then I suggest you start a campaign, against DNA testing in courts.  You are blind because you only see the evidence you want to see. THat is all. It is sad that you should take such narrow view of life.  

 Fact of the matter is, you have been refuted, beaten and emabarassed here, but are too blind to see it. 

Yes there is, I've actually induced it before, then arrayed it on a karyotype. You should read the section I wrote on speciative mechanisms. It's called chromosomal polymorphism. Chromosomal fusion in polyploid organisms (more rarely in cyclic organisms that switch between haploid/diploid, although I have induced it in Saccharomyces cerevisiae). THe condition can be detected in thousands of species, as they undergo invariable transitions towards better symbiosis with the environment.

Well, if you believe that the monkey is the only species in the monkey-man gap, then that statement would be correct. Except that there are 22 more species in that gap (the Pan/Homonid orthologous split), the monkey just happens to be our closest surviving relative, because all the other Hominids went extinct, most of them killed by us. Humans did not evolve from monkeys. The family of organisms which the human belongs to (the homonids) evolved from monkeys.

Oy vey. Not this again. I've studied DNA repair for a large portion of my career, and I assure you that it is not a limiting factor. THe enzymatic lockstep (it is controlled by ribosomal machines at the site of transcription) is operated on a feedback loop that only detects harmful mutations. Like I said, evolution is mostly about recombinative and shuffling and duplication mutations. DNA repair is a system to fix point mutations, which are mostly harmful, and when harmful, the enzymatic response performs , BER, MMR or NER (Base-excision, Nucleotide excision or mismatch repair) to correct the nucleotide incorrect arrangement (as it will be detected by the ribosomal transcription checkers). This is why nearly all divergences are preceded by duplication (homology.

Repair is designed to respond to two things

-Point mutations that are interrupting the transcription (these are sometimes called Stop codons or nonsense mutations)

-A physical break in the DNA strand

Not the evolution mutation mechanisms, which are recombination, homology, duplication and shuffling.

 

 

 Evolution is based on lies and deceit.

 

Creation Scientists debate (refute) Evolutionists. Free Online Videos at Youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wr6uvUNJLww&mode=related&search=Richard Dawkins and 3,000 other evolutionists refused to debate this manhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eL-cORRZdng&mode=related&search=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cffk0zQ33k&mode=related&search=

 

Kent hovind and people who use his arguments have been debunked multiple times on RRS and elsewhere.  No one in the scientific community takes him seriously.  It's like asking bozo the clown to come and talk about molecular kinetics of erythrocyte binding ligands in a malaria conference.  Of course he's not taken seriously...the fact that you believe his bullshit does not say much about your level of intelligence, either that, or you're very naive.  I recomment reading real science books...and listening to people who actualy have real PhD in molecular and evolutionary biology.  This guy is a joke.