It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by speaker
I've grown up and the contradiction remains. It's there for all to see in your posts. Maybe you need to learn what contradiction means?
Originally posted by speaker
Whether you focus on one possibility or not, you are aware of the other possibilities, thus you don't believe the horse winning the race is the only possibility.
Originally posted by speaker
You chose to answer the possibility of evolution happening with the infinite timescale. You brought this up, not me.
Originally posted by speaker
You brought up the Bible too. I'm just pointing out that the Bible is not evidence for the life and miracles of Jesus Christ. Not too difficult to understand.
Originally posted by speaker
Evolution has everything to do with a timescale! Why? Because you reckon evolution has already occurred to get us from the point of apes to humans!!!
Originally posted by speaker
Is the timescale between when we were supposedly apes and now infinite?
Originally posted by speaker
The only way your infinite timescale argument can hold up is if you believe evolution hasn't occurred yet, but will at some point in time in the infinite future!
Originally posted by speaker
2) This is evidence that different species can have chemical and anatomical similarities, not evolution.
Originally posted by speaker
Believe what you want Shaunybaby. Choose to ignore the proof in your own posts if you wish. As I mentioned previously, the contradictions are there for all to see.
Originally posted by speaker
The Bible is evidence that it was written at some point in time. The story it tells is not proof of anything. It is you who has the problem. Add evidence to the list of terms you need to look up the meaning for which already includes the term contradiction.
Originally posted by speaker
If the timescale is not infinite between when our ancestors were supposedly apes and us as humans now, then probability is most DEFINITELY a factor in the likelyhood of the transition between the two being a result of evolution.
Originally posted by speaker
I have a problem with all of evolution, as I have already stated previously. Of the examples you raise, I have a problem with the Big Bang (How did something come from nothing?)
Originally posted by speaker
I have a problem with sharing an ancestor with apes as the probability is just too ridiculously unlikely, and all other types of evolution as it relies on too many random events to occur in such a short timespan. I am aware the 4,600,000,000 years is a considerable amount of time, but it's a blink compared to the length of time required for evolution to account for the diversity of life we see today.
Originally posted by speaker
You are entitled to your opinion as I'm entitled to mine. Unfortunately opinions don't count for much on a thread posing the question, "Where is the evidence for evolution?." Perhaps if it was asking, "What do you think about evolution?", you might have something.
It doesnt matter how many times I read your post but your still wrong in your assessment that the ToE has anything to do with the creation of life - The ToE is how life evolved from the first lifeform (how that first lifeform got there is an entirely different story than the ToE)
Originally posted by smartie
What are you talking about!!!!!
READ THE POST PROPERLY.
NO LIFE CAN EXIST WITHOUT PROTEINS ETC.
THE BASIS FOR THE WHOLE EVOLUTION THEORY IS THAT LIFE STARTED IN A PRIMORDIAL SOUP.
Why not? - So you would have no problem with a fish evolving into a similar fish?
Do you believe that it is possible for any living creature to evolve into another through genetics or any other method?
If you mean fish to reptile, reptile to bird, then NO, NO, NO!
Yep quite correct
Originally posted by smartie
Without that first life form there is NO EVOLUTION.
Dont know - but has nothing to do with evolution
Evolution from what? Thin air?
I suppose some might believe that but there are more explanations than that - Abiogenesis or
Evolutionists believe that ALL life sprang from the ‘primordial soup’, how can this be?
Originally posted by smartie
An Ant millions of years ago is still that same ant today, thats because it did not evolve from something else, it was already an ant.
The most recent complete tabulation of ant species is that by Barry Bolton in his 1995 catalog of the ants of the world. He recognized 9563 names of ants described by science, each a distinct form. Since that publication, dozens of new species have been discovered by myrmecologists. The Social Insects/Antbase Web site gives the most recent count at 11844 ant species as of January 24, 2006. Since most of the ant species in studies of tropical areas are as yet unnamed, and new ones continue to be discovered even in relatively well-studied Japan, Europe and North America, myrmecologists estimate that there may be over 20,000 different kinds of ants inhabiting the earth.
Originally posted by smartie
As a fish was a fish, need I go on...
Originally posted by smartie
BTW I mean I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE WHOLE EVOLUTION THEORY.
Originally posted by smartie
sorry could not get the quote thing to work!
Contribution of individual random mutations to genotype-by-environment interactions in Escherichia coli
Susanna K. Remold* and Richard E. Lenski
Center for Microbial Ecology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824
Edited by M. T. Clegg, University of California, Riverside, CA, and approved July 30, 2001 (received for review March 22, 2001)
Numerous studies have shown genotype-by-environment (G×E) interactions for traits related to organismal fitness. However, the genetic architecture of the interaction is usually unknown because these studies used genotypes that differ from one another by many unknown mutations. These mutations were also present as standing variation in populations and hence had been subject to prior selection. Based on such studies, it is therefore impossible to say what fraction of new, random mutations contributes to G×E interactions. In this study, we measured the fitness in four environments of 26 genotypes of Escherichia coli, each containing a single random insertion mutation. Fitness was measured relative to their common progenitor, which had evolved on glucose at 37°C for the preceding 10,000 generations. The four assay environments differed in limiting resource and temperature (glucose, 28°C; maltose, 28°C; glucose, 37°C; and maltose, 37°C). A highly significant interaction between mutation and resource was found. In contrast, there was no interaction involving temperature. The resource interaction reflected much higher among mutation variation for fitness in maltose than in glucose. At least 11 mutations (42%) contributed to this G×E interaction through their differential fitness effects across resources. Beneficial mutations are generally thought to be rare but, surprisingly, at least three mutations (12%) significantly improved fitness in maltose, a resource novel to the progenitor. More generally, our findings demonstrate that G×E interactions can be quite common, even for genotypes that differ by only one mutation and in environments differing by only a single factor.
High Bone Density Due to a Mutation in LDL-Receptor–Related Protein 5
Lynn M. Boyden, Ph.D., Junhao Mao, Ph.D., Joseph Belsky, M.D., Lyle Mitzner, M.D., Anita Farhi, R.N., Mary A. Mitnick, Ph.D., Dianqing Wu, Ph.D., Karl Insogna, M.D., and Richard P. Lifton, M.D., Ph.D.
ABSTRACT
Background Osteoporosis is a major public health problem of largely unknown cause. Loss-of-function mutations in the gene for low-density lipoprotein receptor–related protein 5 (LRP5), which acts in the Wnt signaling pathway, have been shown to cause osteoporosis–pseudoglioma.
Methods We performed genetic and biochemical analyses of a kindred with an autosomal dominant syndrome characterized by high bone density, a wide and deep mandible, and torus palatinus.
Results Genetic analysis revealed linkage of the syndrome to chromosome 11q12–13 (odds of linkage, >1 million to 1), an interval that contains LRP5. Affected members of the kindred had a mutation in this gene, with valine substituted for glycine at codon 171 (LRP5V171). This mutation segregated with the trait in the family and was absent in control subjects. The normal glycine lies in a so-called propeller motif that is highly conserved from fruit flies to humans. Markers of bone resorption were normal in the affected subjects, whereas markers of bone formation such as osteocalcin were markedly elevated. Levels of fibronectin, a known target of signaling by Wnt, a developmental protein, were also elevated. In vitro studies showed that the normal inhibition of Wnt signaling by another protein, Dickkopf-1 (Dkk-1), was defective in the presence of LRP5V171 and that this resulted in increased signaling due to unopposed Wnt activity.
Conclusions The LRP5V171 mutation causes high bone density, with a thickened mandible and torus palatinus, by impairing the action of a normal antagonist of the Wnt pathway and thus increasing Wnt signaling. These findings demonstrate the role of altered LRP5 function in high bone mass and point to Dkk as a potential target for the prevention or treatment of osteoporosis.
Originally posted by smartie
The erroneous nature of producing evolutionary fantasies in the absence of any information about the animal’s soft tissues emerged following an important discovery in 1938. A living Coelacanth was caught, showing that it was not, as had previously been thought, an extinct life form at all.
Originally posted by smartie
The fish, which they had assumed to live in shallow waters and to move by crawling over the seabed, actually lived at depths of around 180 meters, and they also observed that its fins never made contact with the seabed at all.
Originally posted by smartie
In short, the ongoing propaganda through the media is based on nothing more than the exaggeration of scientifically vague information in the light of evolutionist dreams.
Originally posted by shaunybaby
So when you said evolution was extremely unlikely, you meant that it was extremely unlikely that during this period of time we evolved from the same species that apes evolved from?
Originally posted by shaunybaby
Nothing?
Well there was something, energy is neither created nor destroyed, so it's been here in one form or another. So it wouldn't start with 'nothing'. Who says it starts with nothing?
Originally posted by shaunybaby
Your strongest arguement is that? Wow. You really do work on facts and evidence. Your arguement here is complete guess work, relies on nothing at all apart from the probability of evolution occuring, which is absolutely ridiculous.
Originally posted by shaunybaby
I've already stated examples of evolution. You chose to ignore that part about bone structure, maybe that was on purpose, or maybe you had no answer for why we share the same bone structure as other vertebrate mammals. I'm stating examples for evolution, yet you're more interested on whether or not I'm a contradiction, now are you here to disprove evolution, learn more about evolution, or to attack other people's character?
Originally posted by speaker
Here we go again. Another evolutionist ignores probability as a valid counter-argument. On that basis, I have no reason to believe that I won't win tattslotto every week for the rest of my life. The only reason I have to think I won't is the probability, which according to you doesn't make a satisfactory argument! Whose being ridiculous?
Originally posted by speaker
And you are accusing me of guesswork without facts or evidence. When are you likely to find some evidence for that? Will it be this eternity or the next?
Originally posted by speaker
Here we go again. Another evolutionist ignores probability as a valid counter-argument. On that basis, I have no reason to believe that I won't win tattslotto every week for the rest of my life. The only reason I have to think I won't is the probability, which according to you doesn't make a satisfactory argument! Whose being ridiculous?
Originally posted by speaker
I believe I answered this already. Different mammals share similarities, such as bone structure with other mammals. It doesn't prove evolution!
Originally posted by speaker
I'm not trying to prove or decide whether or not you are a contradiction, it has been proven, you are!
Originally posted by speaker
I would give you the probability for evolution occurring but unfortunately it is 1 over a number that is so large it hasn't been given a name yet! There also isn't a calculator that has been invented that has been able to handle the answer without generating an error. If you manage to get your hands on one, try blugging in the number of different permutations of groups of 60,000,000 in a pool of 3,000,000,000!
Origin of human chromosome 2: An ancestral telomere-telomere fusion
J. W. IJDO*t, A. BALDINIt§, D. C. WARDt, S. T. REEDERS**, AND R. A. WELLS*¶
*Howard Hughes Medical Institute and tDepartment of Genetics, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT 06510
ABSTRACT
We have identified two allelic genomic cosmids from human chromosome 2, c8.1 and c29B, each containing two inverted arrays of the vertebrate telomeric repeat in a head-to-head arrangement, 5'(TTAGGG),,- (CCCTAA),,3'. Sequences fln g this telomeric repeat are characteristic of present-day human pretelomeres. BAL-31 nuclease experiments with yeast artificial chromosome clones of human telomeres and fluorescence in situ hybridization reveal that sequences flanking these inverted repeats hybridize both to band 2q13 and to different, but overlapping, subsets of human chromosome ends. We conclude that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of an ancient telomeretelomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2.
Originally posted by speaker
It's very interesting how evolutionists are happy to fall back on probability when it suits them, but ignore it when it doesn't.