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.

 

------FORUM GUIDELINES------

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 10:07 AM
link   
As far as i am aware the answer hasn't been proven either way as of yet


I personnaly feel we where created by superior beings, be it aliens or Aliens mistaken for a God!

It won't be long before we conduct experiment's seeding another planet and observing the results over many melenia. Who is to say it hasn't happened to us. Infact I even think the evidence is there such as pyramids on Mars and the unexplained glass tunnels, only our governments think we will freak if the truth was exposed!

Anyway even i 'm not saying this is the right answer it's just my own thought's. It makes logical sence to me personnally. Anyone here share a similer thought or do you totally think i am "Far off man"




posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 10:23 PM
link   
I'm undecided between creationism and evolution. Both sides of the issue have points that make sense.

The idea that WE (the human body) evolved from basicly nothing is a hard pill to swallow. Yet in the same sense, we underestimate the awesome power that is nature. The idea of a planet creating life, and species adapting to habitats and constantly evolving towards perfection is still very real to me.

As you can see i'm very split on the topic, so I look forward to discussing this subject more with researchers in this thread.

[edit on 16-7-2005 by gangster45]



posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 02:12 PM
link   
well I have a point to make really quick. Evolution states that all organisms are adapted to their environment. ok that is a good statement. but evolution theory also goes one step further and says that its how they survive, by adapting.
here is an example.
fish are adapted to their environment.
that is a good statement if you know what that statement means.
but when the evolution text books are going to say that gills are an adaptation for living in water. that is not a good statement.
how did the fish survive before they adapted the gills?

everything is designed for its environment with the ability to adapt to a certain extent if their environment changes.



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 04:28 PM
link   
Kent Hovind (a well known creationist) has a contest going on right now. The contest is for anyone to give any proof of evolution, and any person who gives any proof will win some 50, 000 dollars (I am not sure of the exact amount)... regardless no Evolutionist, or anyone else for that matter, has won the money. The point is, there is no solid evidence that proves evolution. And so, why would anyone teach an unprovable subject in a publically funded institution? Shouldn't that be reserved for people who want to pay to recieve teaching on a theory. For instance only in a private school or perhaps only university? I believe that this is the way it should be!



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 04:30 PM
link   
This was a reply to SkepticOverlord's post on TEACH EVOLUTION



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 10:14 PM
link   
I read in another that we can mix genes across plant in animal kingdoms because we all came from a common ancestor, so out DNA is simmiliar, and there is your proof evolution, wheres my 50,000.



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 12:57 AM
link   
What disparity will come about if our knowledge discovers our obscurd orgins? If it be creationism to be valid or evoultion theory to be correct, things of this world at present are still the same.Nothing changes about a theory of the past as it pertains to the present.



posted on Jul, 27 2005 @ 09:47 AM
link   


Believe in beliefs. Science is not a belief.


I just have a quick question. if science is not a belief, then what is it? I hear different thing about science all the time. I some people tell me that science is based on theory, well a theory is something that we assume to be true sometimes, and if you assume that its true, ultimately you are believing. if science is not a belief that that must mean that it is based on facts and observations to build those facts.

the word science means: knowledge gained by observation, testing, demonstrating ect. at least thats what the def is in my dictionary.

im just trying to get your definition of science. what you consider science to be?

thanks



posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 07:40 PM
link   


What disparity will come about if our knowledge discovers our obscurd orgins? If it be creationism to be valid or evoultion theory to be correct, things of this world at present are still the same.Nothing changes about a theory of the past as it pertains to the present.


I have a question, if it was proven that God existed, would that change your lifestyle at all?



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 01:35 AM
link   
Do you have proof he created anything? That is just more christian bs. Christians actually think that if somehow evolution were to be wiped off the earth that creation would be accepted. What they don't realize that even if evolution went away creation would still be wrong because it is wrong. It isn't wrong because evolution is right, it is wrong because it is wrong.



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 01:38 PM
link   
Then show us the proff. I sure if there was an offer of 50,000.oo to prove ID was correct no one would collect the money.

It all seams the there are some people that need to figure why they are here. They need to beleive that there is some type of meaning to life. What if there isn't. What is this was all a mistake of nature?

At some point there will be an answer to all of the question. We are just not to the point were we can figure it out.

My own feelings are somewhere in between. I don't understand how there could be a god if he(she) allows so much pain and suffering in the world. And do get me started with " god works in misterious way"(spelling).


Peace out brother.



posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 07:31 PM
link   
Interesting topic you have going here...

I believe that natural selection is fact - we see it around us everyday. It is the process by which a population adapts to change due to environmental stimulus. For example - dogs.

We know that all breeds of dogs have come from a common ancestor - a wolf-like animal. From the wolf DNA, canines in different environments have adapted to their environment by expressing specific genes that aid their survival. i.e. heavy coats for canines in cold climates (huskies) and lighter coats for canines in warmer climates (dingos). These dogs have also been interbred (with the help of humans) to produce the kind of various breeds we see in dogs today, from great danes to chiuahuas.

However, i believe evolution cannot take credit for these changes, since all genetic variability is due to a loss of genetic material or gene supression. In every area of genetic research (that I know of), when DNA information and coding is studied, scientists find that genetic mutations nearly always produce harmful results. Even on the incredibly few times that a beneficial mutation is found, it is due to a loss of genetic information.

From this, I am inevitably led to the question - How did we evolve from bacteria to humans (which requires vast amounts of increase in DNA volume and complexity) when all mutations that add DNA base pairs to the genome always cause major detrimental results in the organism? This is not my theory, all basic cell biology / genetics courses taught in high schools and universities teach these principles of genetic mutations and their results.

Therefore it is logical in my mind that when studying the basics of genetics, that life could have been created perfectly and then through natural selection and loss of genetic information through mutations, we find the variations in nature we see today.

-Eternal Rider.



posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 08:23 PM
link   
We often hear claims that "most mutations are harmful" and "mutations do not add new information," but there are serious flaws with these claims. They are, in essence, baseless.

"Most mutations are harmful, so the overall effect of mutations is harmful."


Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but a significant fraction are beneficial. The harmful mutations do not survive long, and the beneficial mutations survive much longer, so when you consider only surviving mutations, most are beneficial.


"Mutations are random noise; they do not add information. Evolution cannot cause an increase in information."


It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of

- increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
- increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
- novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
- novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)


This information was taken from Talk Origins. Does this information affect your outlook, or are you going to stand by your beliefs?

Go Astros.

Zip



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 02:45 AM
link   
good points, however perhaps I should be more specific.

I would like to know if there is any scientifically observed occurrence of an addition frame shift mutation that has resulted in a new and beneficial structure within an organism.

thanks.



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 03:36 PM
link   
Do u know that the ref from Ezeikeal freaks me out. The being with four faces, an ox, a lion, a man and an eagle. Where the ox Lion and Eagle humanoid? Just a bit chilling. There are many ref to humanoid Lions of which i am carrying on research on this. Murry Hope the author of THE LION PEOPLE belives we were seeded from these beings.

Mice share 99% of our genetic make up, they are the closest animal genetically to humans which is why we grow ears on them. Gross!!



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Earth Angel
Mice share 99% of our genetic make up, they are the closest animal genetically to humans which is why we grow ears on them. Gross!!

Mice do not share 99% sequence id with humans and aren't the closest genetically to humans. Where did you get this info?



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 06:39 PM
link   
An expert on the "THIS MORNING PROGRAM" uk WHICH IS ALWAYS A VERY RELIABLE SOURCE.

If you go into thier website there should be information regarding this. Not many people are aware of this fact apparently but none the less.

Yes mice are 99% the genetics of humans, why do you think the poor buggers are experimented on such as growing human ears on them. Because it is the closest thing to a human ear you will get that a human will not reject!



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Earth Angel
An expert on the "THIS MORNING PROGRAM" uk WHICH IS ALWAYS A VERY RELIABLE SOURCE.

If you go into thier website there should be information regarding this. Not many people are aware of this fact apparently but none the less.

Yes mice are 99% the genetics of humans, why do you think the poor buggers are experimented on such as growing human ears on them. Because it is the closest thing to a human ear you will get that a human will not reject!


Sorry - irrespective of the historical veracity of your morning news show with respect to scientific manners, what you're saying isn't exactly true.

Mice and humans are roughly 85% homologous at the sequence level with respect to coding genes. The actual calculated values vary from 70 - 90%. This says that in the CODING regions of the mice and human genomes, about 15% on the average will be different.

Now what this expert might have said is that we share 99% of our genes with mice. That could be true, I don't know that for sure, and am feeling to lazy to look it up. Believe it or not those are completely different statements though. The latter says that 99% of the genes present in humans are present in mice - but the differences between homolgous genes between mice and humans is still ~15% of the nucleotides. That is to say if Gene X is present in both humans and mice, and the gene is 100 nucleotides in length, 85 would be the same between mice and humans, not 99.

Mice are popular experimental animals for a number of reasons including but not limited to: being cheap, readily available, established laboratory animals, with short reproductive times, low maintenance demands, that serve as a good model organism for several diseases, and have a wide variety of established protocols associated with them. In particular, protocols for "knocking-out" and somewhat less so "Knocking-in" genes to the mouse genome are readily established, making them very attractive for genetics studies. Why spend millions on research with primates, for which there are significantly fewer protocols, etc. and orders of magnitude more hassles, when you can spend thousands on research with rodents, which are incredibly easy to work with?



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 09:29 PM
link   
The number is "at least 80%," (later referenced as "about 80%") in reference to actual genes shared and not the similarities between "coding genes" as matt discussed.



It shows that about 80% of genes in mice and men are like for like.

But if one considers just the different classes of genes - mice have more genes involved in reproduction and smell, for example - then the similarity rises to 99%.


This information is regarding the 95% of the mouse genome that has so far been studied.

Zip

[edit on 11/10/2005 by Zipdot]



posted on Nov, 22 2005 @ 06:51 PM
link   
As"Parabola...(something - I couldn't find the post again) pointed out; many in here have no idea what a theory is. A theory is NOT, as "Evolution Cruncher" incorrectly states, a mere opinion or assumption. That definition, however, well describes Creationism and its pathetic attempt at a re-write, "Intelligent Design".
A theory must meet specific criteria and include required elements the sum of which is then offered for peer review. The first time a theory fails at any of these it is thrown out the closest window.
To refer to any religious dogmatic assumption as theory is absurd.
It is my hope that the pendulum of life in the USA will reach the apex of the swing to the right and soon begin its path back to a more reasoned public discourse. One can even hope for leadership which is not steeped in ignorance. The irony is that we, as a country, are tolerant of religious radicalism while those same people are hatefully intolerant of those who do not support them and that’s just about most of the population. My guess is that fundamentalists make up less than 20% of our population
skep



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join