All of them. Evolution is decent with modification. What do you mean by Mechanism of action? Action implies an agency. I’m not going to choose your words for you.
Really? so such mutations as, nonsense mutation, point mutation, frameshift mutation , deletion , inversion haven't given us such things as, Cystic fibrosis, Duchenne muscular dystrophy , Beta thalassaemia (β-globin), Hurler syndrome, hypercholestreolemia etc etc according to you all of them have given us rock into fish into duck? that is great, let me be the first to applaud you and if I may escort you down to Stockholm for your Nobel prize ..
As for 'Mechanism of action' that was hard for you to understand? I mean it is the actual title of the page, expend some mild effort or don't bother write at all!
A mechanism of action, looks something like this:
If I am looking for how a mutation works or how a neurotransmitter works--
General Mechanism of Action
Neurotransmitters are formed in a presynaptic neuron and stored in small membrane-bound sacks, called vesicles , inside this neuron. When this neuron is activated, these intracellular vesicles fuse with the cell membrane and release their contents into the synapse, a process called exocytosis.
Once the neurotransmitter is in the synapse, several events may occur. It may (1) diffuse across the synapse and bind to a receptor on the postsynaptic membrane, (2) diffuse back to the presynaptic neuron and bind to a presynaptic receptor causing modulation of neurotransmitter release, (3) be chemically altered by an enzyme in the synapse, or (4) be transported into a nearby cell. For the chemical message to be passed to another cell, however, the neurotransmitter must bind to its protein receptor on the postsynaptic side. The binding of a neurotransmitter to its receptor is a key event in the action of all neurotransmitters.
That is actually a superficial level of doing it but I'd still find that acceptable, I don't expect everyone to be a walking encyclopedic effort on molecular biology and biochemistry, however if you are going to engage in a topic that is repulsed by 'the god of the gap' then please show us what is better, preferably articulate it in your own words rather than referencing us to some website from which we are magically to draw some brilliant conclusion.. Do you think you can do the same instead of saying 'all of them?
That is pretty much all you have to do with your pearls, sort of like your previous complaints about the laryngeal nerve, if you'd like to sever it from the vagus, perhaps you can discuss with us the route that 'nature' should have rather taken, how it came to take that first route to begin with, which parts were innervated first and why.. I am not interested in poetic science!
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
Thanks, I found it as informative as this:
What happens to your soul after Death?
http://www.funeralplan.com/askexperts/soul.html
amusing and virtually appealing!
No, I'm sorry. The problem with the god of that gaps "story" is that it is a form of argument from ignorance. If there was no explanation for our evolutionary past/present, that does not mean you get to choose whatever you theory you like without providing any evidence for it. The god of the gaps theory has been around for ages and every time a gap in knowledge is filled the believers wait until they can’t ignore the evidence any longer and then find another smaller hole to shove god into.
And what would you choose to call this? scientifically sound?
.. you mistake the swaggering bluster of fools as sound scientific evidence, but that is indeed because you take lesser gods for sound reason... as Dr. Bert Thompson put in his reason number four:
Reason #4 Without a doubt, there are many who believe in evolution because they have rejected God. For those who refuse to believe in the Creator, evolution becomes their only escape. They generally make no pretense of believing it based on anything other than their disbelief in God. Henry Fairfield Osborn, one of the most famous evolutionists of the early twentieth century, suggested: “In truth, from the earliest stages of Greek thought man has been eager to discover some natural cause of evolution, and to abandon the idea of supernatural intervention in the order of nature” (1917, p. ix). Henry Morris noted: “Evolution is the natural way to explain the origin of things for those who do not know and acknowledge the true God of creation. In fact, some kind of evolution is absolutely necessary for those who would reject God” (1966, p. 98).
Sir Arthur Keith of Great Britain wrote: “Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable” (as quoted in Criswell, 1972, p. 73). Professor D.M.S. Watson, who held the position of the Chair of Evolution at the University of London for more than twenty years, echoed the same sentiments when he stated that “evolution itself is accepted by zoologists, not because it has been observed to occur or can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is incredible” (1929, 123:233). These kinds of statements leave little to the imagination, and make it clear that those who say such things believe in evolution not because of any evidence, but instead because they have made up their minds, a priori, that they are not going to believe in God.
In his text, Man’s Origin: Man’s Destiny, the eminent United Nations scientist, A.E. Wilder-Smith, observed that “Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism, rightly or wrongly, have been used everywhere in the East and West, in the hands of the atheists and agnostics, as the main weapon against the biblical doctrine of origins” (1975, p. 31). For the person who stubbornly refuses to believe in God, belief in evolution becomes automatic. Similarly, opposition to God as the Creator, the Bible and His Word, and the system of origins the Bible describes become just as automatic. Whenever a person rids himself of God, he simultaneously (even if unknowingly) embraces evolution. By his disbelief, he has eliminated creation as an option regarding his origin.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/238
I’m not going to sit here and have this conversation regress towards particle physics simply to satisfy that there are to gaps for your god to fit into. Provide us with some reason to believe a god exists, because withholding belief is the default position, as you would withhold belief in Odin or Quetzalcoatl.
Who is asking you to sit here and explain anything? I think you have demonstrated your abilities in your opening statements and in fact they echo all you write here.. why you are under the impression that Muslims aboard regard what you say as of value is a mystery to me? you spend too much time on an Islamic forum, and yet your position stands on more absurd grounds-
As for the mechanism, you'll have to clarify what you mean. There are no motives in evolution via natural selection. There are no "end results", that is a byproduct of your religious beliefs.
All the best,
See previous paragraph on the matter, if you can't discuss the marrow of this with any dexterity then don't waste my time or yours, I have already wasted my day off on the other two and not looking for new gadflies to while my hours!...
all the best!
