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 edmc^2
Can you please tell me the probability number?
Side note: one of you friends said this:
Debunky
I can tell you the propability: 1
Propability only matters in things that have not yet happened.
If you win the lottery, do you give back the money, since the chance is too small?
Do you think science and mathematics and common sense will back up his opinion?
[edit on 18-7-2010 by edmc^2]
Originally posted by Wolfenz
Originally posted by mf_luder
Very interesting write-up indeed, supported by what looks to be some halfway-decent research.
But I still severely doubt we all just popped into existence out of thin air.
Can't prove that one. Can you?
Cheers!
Ill give it a shot
this universe is a Parallel from another The Creators are from another Layered Dimension ! that some how punched through this Dimension
Theres a Balance
one rule for a Physicist is!
for every Action there is a Reaction !!!!!!
you Know Matter - Anti Matter push Pull positive negative Gravity Anti Gravity Space Black Matter and the in between what we would call Ghost
its just a Guess as we have claims of UFOs Aliens Unexplained Ancient Anomalies
but still no PUBLIC proof of any existence of Life outside our Solar System None to the Public (disclosure ) except a few Astronauts and Some military officials with security clearances or CIA NSA Officals coming into the Spot light , Still no Communication Signals From Seti program yet Millions of Stars (Suns) out there in our Galaxy and there is millions+ Galaxy s there got to be life out there
Find a Galaxy
Originally posted by mf_luder
Originally posted by Wolfenz
Originally posted by mf_luder
Very interesting write-up indeed, supported by what looks to be some halfway-decent research.
But I still severely doubt we all just popped into existence out of thin air.
Can't prove that one. Can you?
Cheers!
Ill give it a shot
this universe is a Parallel from another The Creators are from another Layered Dimension ! that some how punched through this Dimension
Theres a Balance
one rule for a Physicist is!
for every Action there is a Reaction !!!!!!
you Know Matter - Anti Matter push Pull positive negative Gravity Anti Gravity Space Black Matter and the in between what we would call Ghost
its just a Guess as we have claims of UFOs Aliens Unexplained Ancient Anomalies
but still no PUBLIC proof of any existence of Life outside our Solar System None to the Public (disclosure ) except a few Astronauts and Some military officials with security clearances or CIA NSA Officials coming into the Spot light , Still no Communication Signals From Setti program yet Millions of Stars (Suns) out there in our Galaxy and there is millions+ Galaxy s there got to be life out there
Find a Galaxy
What you just said made absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Try again.
Plus, whatever it was you were trying to convey does not support that some God-Being willed us all to just appear here.
Sorry.
this universe is a Parallel from another The Creators are from another Layered Dimension ! that some how punched through this Dimension
in every interaction, there is a pair of forces acting on the two interacting objects. The size of the force on the first object equals the size of the force on the second object. The direction of the force on the first object is opposite to the direction of the force on the second object. Forces always come in pairs - equal and opposite action-reaction force pairs.
But the fact that one cannot understand how something came to be does not indicate that one may conclude it was designed.
So in other words if I don’t understand how the space shuttle was put together, how it came to be or how gene splicing works, how it came to be , etc, then I’m supposed to conclude that it was not designed?
Do you agree that the DNA - its function, its components, its remarkable process to sustain life was a product of design? Is it scientific? If not please let me know how it came to be?
What chance is there that the correct amino acids would come together to form a protein molecule? What is the chance of even a simple protein molecule forming at random?
Do you think science and mathematics and common sense will back up his opinion?
Originally posted by soleprobe
reply to post by NoHierarchy
Every real person on this site knows global warming is a fraud... and those who say that it's real science along with evolution in the same breath reveal the single source of these frauds
...What is with creationist wanting disprove Atheism and Evolution?...
Originally posted by evil incarnate
reply to post by Deuteronomy 23:13
Here is a good place to start. I will expect a well thought out god inspired refutation. Live Evolution Witnessed in Controlled...
Then you can check out Birth of a new species witnessed
Which more addresses the issue you seem to be confused about in having different genetic makeup from your progenitors.
[edit on 7/18/10 by evil incarnate]
As part of your equipment have something to dig with, and when you relieve yourself, dig a hole and cover up your excrement.
Originally posted by debunky
Of course, people like me need to look up what it says in Deuteronomy 23:12
Designate a place outside the camp where you can go to relieve yourself.
Ah, ok.
I'd like to apologize if I was a bit snarky.
Thing is, what you said has not been observed, has been observed on numerous occassions. You want me to give you a specific example?
en.wikipedia.org...
And if you read the article on the bacteria, note how many generations they were observing:
300
With humans that would be around 6000 years. even for dogs it would still be 900, and we managed to breed those into quite a variety of different animals than wolves.
While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.
Digby (1912) crossed the primrose species Primula verticillata and P. floribunda to produce a sterile hybrid. Polyploidization occurred in a few of these plants to produce fertile offspring. The new species was named P. kewensis. Newton and Pellew (1929) note that spontaneous hybrids of P. verticillata and P. floribunda set tetraploid seed on at least three occasions. These happened in 1905, 1923 and 1926.
A species of hemp nettle, Galeopsis tetrahit, was hypothesized to be the result of a natural hybridization of two other species, G. pubescens and G. speciosa (Muntzing 1932). The two species were crossed. The hybrids matched G. tetrahit in both visible features and chromosome morphology.
In a series of papers (Rice 1985, Rice and Salt 1988 and Rice and Salt 1990) Rice and Salt presented experimental evidence for the possibility of sympatric speciation. They started from the premise that whenever organisms sort themselves into the environment first and then mate locally, individuals with the same habitat preferences will necessarily mate assortatively. They established a stock population of D. melanogaster with flies collected in an orchard near Davis, California. Pupae from the culture were placed into a habitat maze. Newly emerged flies had to negotiate the maze to find food. The maze simulated several environmental gradients simultaneously. The flies had to make three choices of which way to go. The first was between light and dark (phototaxis). The second was between up and down (geotaxis). The last was between the scent of acetaldehyde and the scent of ethanol (chemotaxis). This divided the flies among eight habitats. The flies were further divided by the time of day of emergence. In total the flies were divided among 24 spatio-temporal habitats. They next cultured two strains of flies that had chosen opposite habitats. One strain emerged early, flew upward and was attracted to dark and acetaldehyde. The other emerged late, flew downward and was attracted to light and ethanol. Pupae from these two strains were placed together in the maze. They were allowed to mate at the food site and were collected. Eye color differences between the strains allowed Rice and Salt to distinguish between the two strains. A selective penalty was imposed on flies that switched habitats. Females that switched habitats were destroyed. None of their gametes passed into the next generation. Males that switched habitats received no penalty. After 25 generations of this mating tests showed reproductive isolation between the two strains. Habitat specialization was also produced. They next repeated the experiment without the penalty against habitat switching. The result was the same -- reproductive isolation was produced. They argued that a switching penalty is not necessary to produce reproductive isolation. Their results, they stated, show the possibility of sympatric speciation.
Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963. The culture was descended from a single inseminated female that was captured in the Llanos of Colombia. In 1958 this strain produced fertile hybrids when crossed with conspecifics of different strains from Orinocan. From 1963 onward crosses with Orinocan strains produced only sterile males. Initially no assortative mating or behavioral isolation was seen between the Llanos strain and the Orinocan strains. Later on Dobzhansky produced assortative mating (Dobzhansky 1972).
Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of male offspring between 1958 and 1963. Artificial selection induced strong intra-strain mating preferences. (Test for speciation: sterile offspring and lack of interbreeding affinity.) Dobzhansky, Th., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila", Nature 23:289-292.
Evidence that a species of fireweed formed by doubling of the chromosome count, from the original stock. (Note that polyploids are generally considered to be a separate "race" of the same species as the original stock, but they do meet the criteria which you suggested.) (Test for speciation: cannot produce offspring with the original stock.) Mosquin, T., 1967. "Evidence for autopolyploidy in Epilobium angustifolium (Onaagraceae)", Evolution 21:713-719
Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island. (Test for speciation in this case is based on morphology. It is unlikely that forced breeding experiments have been performed with the parent stock.) Stanley, S., 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco, W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41
Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago. (Test for speciation in this case is by morphology and lack of natural interbreeding. These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration. While it might be possible that different species are inter-fertile, they cannot be convinced to mate.) Mayr, E., 1970. Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348
In biology, a species is one of the basic units of biological classification and a taxonomic rank. A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. While in many cases this definition is adequate, more precise or differing measures are often used, such as based on similarity of DNA or morphology.
Originally posted by evil incarnate
Originally posted by consigliere
reply to post by evil incarnate
Perhaps you should google it because I have no idea how you come to the conclusion existence is proven reliant on observation from this. The experiment shows that observation alters interaction, not existence.
[edit on 19-7-2010 by consigliere]
Originally posted by Deuteronomy 23:13
I am laughing so hard I am doubled over.
Originally posted by Deuteronomy 23:13
reply to post by evil incarnate
I am not religious and your conclusion about what my stances might be were wrong. I expect such thinking from dogmatists such as yourself.
Originally posted by vinrock
reply to post by edmc^2
"Evolutionist I can prove to you that what you believe (evolution) is based on illogical reasoning, illogical science and most of all based on DESIRE."
The only thing that nonsensical rant you posted proves to anyone is that your simple mind operates on flawed logic.
"Hey, we make complex stuff - stuff that requires intelligence to make! Humans are super-complex, so that means a super-intelligent mega being created us!"