It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: josehelps
a reply to: kayej1188
noun: aetiology; plural noun: aetiologies; noun: etiology; plural noun: etiologies
the cause, set of causes, or manner of causation of a disease or condition.
"a disease of unknown etiology"
the causation of diseases and disorders as a subject of investigation.
the investigation or attribution of the cause or reason for something, often expressed in terms of historical or mythical explanation
If an Etiology can be an investigation of the cause or reason for something, then there should be nothing wrong with saying one can do an etiology of our disorders, as described verbatim in the definition.
originally posted by: TzarChasm
Why is this thread still alive? No one is going to "win". All that's left to see now is who gets the last word. You guys have done all the educating that's going to happen in this thread. And you can't make anyone accept the facts. so what's the point?
You have summed up this threads problem in its entirety. Because you believe what you believe to be fact, you will never agree. Same with us. Difference is, you guys see it as about winning. That says it all.
Are we going to continue this thread or should we just let it die out?
I vote for the latter..
originally posted by: josehelps
a reply to: TzarChasm
The theory (which by the way, theory implies opinion or unproven guesses) that evolution is the model for which all life stems, is impossible.
You see, there is a 50/50 chance of life coming out with defects, so much so that all species would have ended long ago. However we aren't even talking about the impossible changes in which Evolution is able to allegedly make by starting a new species, and erasing all of it's prior origin in it's own DNA. In English what this means is that we are only related to primates, because you pretend that we are. Even if science has concluded that our DNA and chromosomes are similar enough to call it such, that's all in the eye of the beholder. In this case, who exactly is the beholder.
It's already been determined that the two chromosomes which are fused in humans but not in primates, clearly have different DNA, and are NOT related, and that diagnoses actually came from an evolutionist.
In addition, fused chromosomes are NOT found naturally in the wild, meaning our chromosomes were fused in a lab, or at least in this case, Adam and Eve's were.
NIH is also omitting information about the backdating of our TRUE lineage. All they are letting is know about is the MRCA. Isn't this in the slightest suspicious to you? I mean, they basically had two options. They could reveal to the public that they have concluded that our species is probably billions of years old, and be looked down upon by incredulous people like they obviously don't know what they are doing, or they just come forward with the MRCA.
In essence you are believing that Humans are so much alike to primates that it's indisputable, while there is over 4,000 defects which are telling a different story. Also notice how NIH also made no mention about defects prior to the MRCA.