Q of the week

[MustafaMc]

I don't believe that the person with the Hemophilia is more biologically fit than someone without the mutated gene, we have no mutated gene that offers any sort of advantage over being fit, I know it was I who before gave the example of Sickle Cell trait, .... it just so happens that African Americans are more affected by sickle cell than other types of anemia, and that confers some immunity against Malaria. but they don't have an advantage otherwise...their life expectancy isn't greater than a person who is biologically more fit!


.....I have not learned of a mutation that say will bring about an X men type of community of super humans or offer some sort of advantage ... mutations whether (nonsense, missense frameshift, small insertions/deletions, and one larger deletion) result in prematurely truncated proteins, either causing a disease state, cancer or death, but not an advantage certainly not newer species...

Yet this process of random genetic mutations and natural selection is supposedly how we went from a common ancestor to the different species of living organisms - all without a Higher Power directing or controlling the process. The strict naturalistic evolutionists never cease to amaze me by stating that evolution without Intelligent Design is a scientifically feasable theory.

 

[جوري]

BTW I wanted to add these two quotes, not to cement anything I stated, but just to show you most scientists aren't as the lay Atheists will have you believe.. the problem is science as we know it, isn't in concert with the bible, so they either have to change it (the bible that is) to a new improved version, take it as parables, or be adamant that science is wrong... Science is correct and is in perfect concert with the Quran!.. religion shouldn't negate science.. as far as I know only one religion doesn't!

John Polkinghorne, formerly a physicist at Cambridge University, concluded: "When you realize that the laws of nature must be incredibly finely tuned to produce the universe we see, that conspires to plant the idea that the universe did not just happen, but that there must be a purpose behind it."

Australian physicist Paul Davies made a similar point: "There is no doubt that many scientists are . . . scornful of the notion that there might exist a God, or even an impersonal creative principle." He added: "Personally I do not share their scorn. . . . I cannot believe that our existence in this universe is a mere quirk of fate, . . . an incidental blip in the great cosmic drama."

 

[جوري]

Yet this process of random genetic mutations and natural selection is supposedly how we went from a common ancestor to the different species of living organisms - all without a Higher Power directing or controlling the process. The strict naturalistic evolutionists never cease to amaze me by stating that evolution without Intelligent Design is a scientifically feasable theory.

those two PDF files I gave you one from a physics perspective, the other from a cellular perspective, go into painstaking details of the impossibility of a tiny cell even smaller than a virus and we all know that viruses really can't survive without a host for replication, but virtually the near impossibility of these phenomenal chances favorably happening, one after the next after the next without error to get us where we are today... I know both are quite a long read, but I really do think you'll enjoy them... the authors don't make the conclusion of G-D for you, they leave that to the reader to discern, but certainly discuss origins unfolding from scientific stand point to the place where we are today.. can't be anything but guided...

From experience, I find it futile to argue with atheists, they fancy themselves logical, and they are rude! In fact majority of them are "poetically and marginally scientific" if I can choose such terminology... just a few days ago, I discussed how our so-called earliest ancestor (coelacanth) which supposedly developed lungs and brains and walked on land is still found alive and swimming.. there is their missing link at the bottom of the ocean plus there are no intermediate fossils to confirm evolution!...
From this point onward, as far as evolutionist Atheists are concerned, I just say let's part ways amicably before it unfolds to another competition of vulgarity, which it almost always certainly degenerates to at some point of each debate!

 

[ranma1/2]

you have a 14 year old male with severe prolonged bleeding after a tooth extraction, he has a history of multiple episodes of painful joints after minor trauma. Evaluation reveals that he has an inherited disorder, his older sister WHO DOESN'T HAVE THE CONDITION, wants to learn of her risk of having an affected child... her chances of having an affected child are?
A-nearly 0
B-1/2
C-1/4
D-1/8
E-1/10
F-1/32

this Question is fairly easy if you are familiar with basic knowledge of Hardy-Weinberg Gene Frequencies which in fact has its roots in a famous mathematical formula.. for the "bleeding" portion of the Q, you may use google search engine, but let me know how you arrived to your answer..
thanks and good luck
oh all I can offer for a correct answer are 18 rep points :-[

So is the trait dominant or recessive?
Is the father or mother a carrerier or do they have the actual disease? " I assume they dont actualy have the problem so im assuming its not dominant"


If both are carriers id say...

Son Defective gene/ defective gene

Daughter Defective gene/ non defective or non defective / defective or non defective/ non defective.

Assuming parent are both carriers and she is a carrier then assuming her childs father is not and the disease is recessive.

Then id say no chance. Of course im in ahurry so i doubt im thiniking right.

argh got to go...