In biochemistry, this term refers to alpha-amino acids with the general formula H2NCHRCOOH, where R is an organic substituent. In the alpha amino acids, the amino and carboxylate groups are attached to the same carbon, which is called the α–carbon. The various alpha amino acids differ in which side chain (R group) is attached to their alpha carbon. They can vary in size from just a hydrogen atom in glycine, through a methyl group in alanine, to a large heterocyclic group in tryptophan.

Beyond the amino acids that are found in all forms of life, many non-natural amino acids are also important. The chelating agents EDTA and nitriloacetic acid are alpha amino acids that are industrially synthesized (sometimes from naturally occurring amino acids).

Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a nucleic acid that contains the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms. The main role of DNA molecules is the long-term storage of information and DNA is often compared to a set of blueprints, since it contains the instructions needed to construct other components of cells, such as proteins and RNA molecules. The DNA segments that carry this genetic information are called genes, but other DNA sequences have structural purposes, or are involved in regulating the use of this genetic information.

Proteins are large organic compounds made of amino acids arranged in a linear chain and joined together by peptide bonds between the carboxyl and amino groups of adjacent amino acid residues. The sequence of amino acids in a protein is defined by a gene and encoded in the genetic code. Although this genetic code specifies 20 "standard" amino acids, the residues in a protein are often chemically altered in post-translational modification: either before the protein can function in the cell, or as part of control mechanisms. Proteins can also work together to achieve a particular function, and they often associate to form stable complexes.

All cells have several different abilities:

* Reproduction by cell division: (binary fission/mitosis or meiosis).
* Use of enzymes and other proteins coded for by DNA genes and made via messenger RNA intermediates and ribosomes.
* Metabolism, including taking in raw materials, building cell components, converting energy, molecules and releasing by-products. The functioning of a cell depends upon its ability to extract and use chemical energy stored in organic molecules. This energy is derived from metabolic pathways.
* Response to external and internal stimuli such as changes in temperature, pH or nutrient levels.
* Cell contents are contained within a cell surface membrane that contains proteins and a lipid bilayer.

Humans have an estimated 100 trillion or 10^14 cells;

Around 9 or 10 million species of the kingdom Animalia inhabit the earth

An ecosystem is a natural unit consisting of all plants, animals and micro-organisms in an area functioning together with all the non-living physical factors of the environment.

An example of mutual symbiosis is the relationship between Ocellaris clownfish that dwell among the tentacles of Ritteri sea anemones.

Some goby fish species live in symbiosis with a shrimp. The shrimp digs and cleans a burrow, which it shares with the fish,whose movements alert it to predators.

* Humans and intestinal bacteria
* Humans and the Greater Honeyguide bird (which may have a similar relationship with the Ratel or "honey badger")

* Vascular plants and fungi in mycorrhizae
* Flowering plants and pollinators such as bees
* Leafcutter ants and the fungus they "farm" (note also the third mutualist: a bacterium that secretes a chemical that kills molds that would otherwise feed on the fungus "farmed" by the ants)
* Leafhopper and meat ant
* Acacia Ants (Pseudomyrmex ferruginea) with the Swollen Thorn Acacia Tree (Acacia cornigera)
* Legumes and rhizobia (nitrogen-fixing bacteria)
* Euprymna squid (family Sepiolidae) and bioluminescent bacteria (Vibrio fischeri)
* Anglerfish and bioluminescent bacteria
* Moray eels and cleaner shrimp or cleaner fish at cleaning stations
* Goby fish and shrimp
* Groupers or snappers and gobies
* Corals and Zooxanthella
* Sea anemones and clownfish, crabs or shrimps
* Deep-sea pompeii worms and thermophilic bacteria
* Ruminants such as cows and their intestinal bacteria and protists
* Termites and their intestinal bacteria and protists
* Egyptian Plovers and crocodiles (not scientifically documented)
* Oxpeckers and rhinoceroses
* Polydnavirus and parasitoid wasps
* Cycads and cyanobacteria
* Foraminifera and algae
* Wolbachia bacteria and most insects
* Grasses and endophytic fungi
* Sponges and algae
* Aphids and Buchnera bacteria[1]
* Azolla (water fern) and Anabaena (cyanobacteria)
* Ambrosia Beetles and fungi
* Sharks and remora
* fig trees and Amazon fruit bats
* Honeyguide and honeybadger

Ecosystem services are “fundamental life-support services upon which human civilization depends,”i and can be direct or indirect. Example of direct ecosystem services are: pollination, wood, erosion prevention etc. Indirect services could be considered climate moderation, nutrient cycles, detoxifying natural substances and many more.

* Aquatic ecosystem
* Chaparral
* Coral reef
* Desert
* Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem
* Human ecosystem
* Large marine ecosystem
* Littoral zone
* Marine ecosystem
* Rainforest
* Savanna
* Subsurface Lithoautotrophic Microbial Ecosystem
* Taiga
* Tundra
* Urban ecosystem

Bravo! BRAVO!!!! way to go NB!

Here are a few things to add...

1) as far as the protein deal goes, the chances that the order would have fallen correctly is 1 in 1 to the 152 power. (1 followed by 152 zero’s)
Actually, 1 to the 152nd power is... 1.
I think you mean 10 to the 152 power.

2) even if evolution could explain this, it cannot account for man’s moral standards.
The response would likely be that morals are evolved instincts which are directed towards the overall "good of the species" and "good of the individual"

3) and then they must answer why aren’t we evolving forwards (in economical progress) now? Instead of moving forwards we are moving backwards (look at the news)
First, fluctuations are normal. Second, who said that the market evolved as a biological entity? It evolved as a social institution, and I don’t think anyone here will argue against that.

4) why aren’t apes evolving still today?
Who says they’re not? The rate of macroevolution isn’t exactly rapid or noticeable....
Plus, there’s also multiple approaches to the thoery of evolution, I forget the names, but one argues that there are times of rapid (well, relatively rapid) change as a particular mutation takes hold and times of nearly no change, while the less useful mutations squablle around and ultimately never amount to anything. I think that’s called punctuated equilibrium, (but, heck, I could be wrong, and "punctuated equilibrium" is a type of soft drink....)

5) why aren’t humans evolving into something greater? this can’t be the best there is.
See above. Plus, Ever seen Stargate? We’re gonna turn into glowy-butterfly-thingies with all sorts of special powers! Or X-men...



5) why
Because, Why, I Don’t Know, (he’s on third) and I don’t give a darn!

as far as the protein deal goes, the chances that the order would have fallen correctly is 1 in 1 to the 152 power. (1 followed by 152 zero’s)

1. Evolution vs 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Irreconcilable. If things go from simple to complex and complex to simple simultaneously, then evolution and entropy would undo each other and we would get nowhere. Thus, evolution must discard the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics in order to even operate.

2. Gene Pool. Mutations almost ALWAYS cause a loss of information. This obviously does nothing for the theory of evolution except prove species variation.

3. Natural Selection. This very component that evolutionists use to advocate evolution is the very thing that kills it! Think about it. If bats evolved from rats, natural selection would kill the intermediate species before gradual evolution could cause a new species. Badly formed feet without fully formed wings would almost DEFINITELY make the "ratbats" easy prey.

4. Lack of intermediate fossils. Evolution has yet to find any intermediate fossils. Although many have been claimed to be intermediate fossils of humans, all of the fossils have fallen into one of four categories.

A. Fully Ape
B. Insufficient Fossils
C. Hoax
D. Fully Man

5. Vestigial Organs

Every so called vestigial organ except the appendix has been found to be necessary or very beneficial to the function of the body.

*steps into the lion’s den* I just hope at the end of the day we can all sit around a table clinking glasses. Mine will likely be poisoned.

Nah, we’re not murderous. I’m not mad at anyone who believes in evolution. We’ll approach this rationally.

First, I want to say that evolution is accepted by most scientists, including cosmologists, geologists, paleontologists, and biologists. This alone of course does not prove that it is correct or complete, but I don’t want anyone to give you the impression that it’s reeling on its last legs being besieged by the general populace, unless you’re in Kansas.

Its not reeling, but there is increased debate over it. It is accepted as the number one theory, which doesn’t make it correct.

I would also like to point out that BOTH points of view ARE theories. Neither of them can be proven, mainly because they’re not observable or repeatable.

Secondly, it would be great if our current understanding of evolution explains everything. It does not. At least not now. However as a model it does fit our world remarkably well, and this is why mainstream scientists accept it, and continue to improve on it.

As I stated in my first argument, it doesn’t seem plausible to fit the immense complexity of our universe.

Well, here we go.


Okay, this you should definitely ask your physics professor, as there are several equivalent statements of the Second Law, and several ways people have shown the lack of a contradiction. Although I’m not sure how you got that they (perfectly) "undo each other" to get nowhere, so what’s your reasoning behind that?

I guess the perfectly undo each other was more of an assertion, I’ll retract that until I can back it up more thoroughly. But still, increasing complexity vs breakdown aren’t really compatible.

One way to think about this is in terms of energy. The Second Law can actually favor the formation of molecules, because they can have less energy than they started out with--something more complex that is energetically favored!

Eh...explain more please? Not quite getting what you’re saying. It seems to be saying the same thing as below.

Another angle (that I’m not a fan of, because it uses "disorder" for entropy, and that can be misleading), is that you can have an increase in order in one part of a closed system as long as the net result tends to disorder. For example, your mug of hot chocolate getting colder. When the liquid cools the molecules group closer together and become more ordered--but of course it’s also releasing heat (disorder) to the surrounding air.

So...when the mug of hot chocolate gets cool enough, its no longer hot chocolate but begins forming a completely different item?


Mutations change DNA to create new information; might be harmful, might be helpful, or might not even be noticeable (thankfully, because our bodies don’t work perfectly).

First, a quick illustration on how a small mutation can have a pronounced effect on a strand of DNA. A strand consists of nucleotides (A, C, G, T in DNA), grouped in sequences of three to form codons. Each codon codes a single amino acid. For example, here’s a bit of a strand:

ACGTCGAACCTG -> ACG TCG AAC CTG

Now let’s introduce a frameshift mutation through the deletion of a single nucleotide:

ACGTGAACCTG -> ACG TGA ACC TG-

As you can see, even a single small mutation can have a greater effect than otherwise expected; now you’ll be coding for a whole bunch of different amino acids.

Has this produced beneficial new information? Yes, one extensively studied and extensively trotted-out example is nylon-eating bacteria. Not talking about a change in species here, just that new information can be created.

Although you did say "almost always" and not a flat-out "always" like some other Creationists, so...

Okay, counter example. How many mutations are necessary to create a new species? Let’s look at your frameshift mutation.

ACGTGAACCTG -> ACG TGA ACC TG-

Let’s drop another.

ACGTGAACCTG -> AGT GAA CCT G--

And another

ACGTGAACCTG -> AGG AAC CTG ---

By this point, we’ve lost an amino acid. Let’s continue down the line for...say...9 more mutations?

--- --- --- ---

We’ve completely killed the strand.

Now, this is a bit of an exaggeration, however, with the enormous amount of mutations required for evolution to occur (see increasing complexity model), to form species perfectly, I wold have to say that its more likely that the whole species would die before the mutations occur in the exact correct order for the species to mutate.


Not necessarily. For example, birds. Let’s say they began as land-bound animals that developed feathers. These feathers are used as insulation or maybe to attract mates; very useful. Then later these animals became proto-birds who used feathers to help with gliding. Still useful. And later on, these animals become full-fledged birds with true flight. Awesome. If you imagine proto-birds as featherless monstrosities tumbling heads over heels, though, you’d have missed the connection.

Again, probabilities of the mutations causing them to not only evolve, but evolve in a specific way to be conducive to natural selection are infinitesimal


Evolution has yet to find ANY intermediate fossils? Source, please. Archaeopteryx which you mentioned is considered a transitional fossil, although perhaps not a direct ancestor of modern birds. A quick Google search comes up with this.

Also, what do you mean by "fully ape" and "fully Man"? There’s plenty of stuff on human evolution in Wikipedia’s article, or do you disagree with it all? And out of curiosity, what’s your stance on other species in the genus Homo (think of them like our cousins), like H. habilis and H. neanderthalensis?

Glad you asked. I’d like to go through the species...

Australopithecus

Lucy- Most scientists believe her to be an extinct organism that was fully ape.

Homo Habilis- A young gorilla. That’s it. The fact that a tool was found near its skeleton tells you exactly nothing. Very few bones were found, and not enough to determine if it was human or ape.

Zinjanthropus- Evolutionists now admit it was an ape.

Homo Erectus- So-called Transitional Fossils

Java Man- Some teeth, a thigh bone, and a bone skull top. Wahoo. This find could be anything.

Peking Man- Skeletons of men and animals were found in the same area, possibly got jumbled together. Altogether insufficient evidence.

Nebraska Man- Teeth were called human, but later found out to be from an extinct pig.

Gigantopithecus- They found teeth. Wahoo. So this proves what?

Piltdown Man- Hoax. Someone pulled a prank and stuck a filed-down jawbone in the area of the dig.

Homo Sapiens- Fully Man

Rhodesian Man- Fully human. The skull looks part ape, part human, but hormonal disorders in people today cause them to have skulls that look identical to that of Rhodesian Man.

Neanderthal Man- Many complete skeletons seem to show that Neanderthals were fully human, albeit with slightly different traits. I’d say they were an ancient human race, but still fully human. Many of their traits match those of American Indians and Eskimos.

Cro-Magnon Man- Fully human. They look almost identical to modern man. Again, possibly a different race, but still fully human.[/b]


What’s your contention here? That vestigial organs don’t exist?

The human tailbone. Sexual organs in dandelions. Flightless birds. Blind fish. Hind leg bones in whales. Male nipples. Sure there’s more.

Of course, you do have to define what you mean by vestigial; I use it to mean something degenerate or imperfect.

Okay, so some of these I don’t have the answer to right now. But that was the same case a couple hundred years ago with...

Pituitary Gland
Tonsils
Appendix
Thymus Gland

I’m confident that uses for all those will be discovered. And with the human tailbone, it already has! The tail bone in humans is a place of attachment for leg and lower back muscles. Its crucial to the muscular system, although it serves no purpose in the skeletal system.

No, I don’t believe Vestigial Organs exist. By Vestigial, I mean useless. Every organ has a role, whether we know what it is or not.