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 bottleslingguy
reply to post by syrinx high priest
the guiding hand would be the morphogenic field, no?
Originally posted by syrinx high priest
Originally posted by Tony4211
reply to post by syrinx high priest
Who brought the creature of divinity into fruition that you propose created everything?
gandalfedit on 24-9-2011 by syrinx high priest because: (no reason given)
one must first know the definitions of the words before you accuse others of not knowing things
ev·o·lu·tion [ev-uh-loo-shuhn or, especially Brit., ee-vuh-] noun
1. any process of formation or growth; development: the evolution of a language; the evolution of the airplane.
2. a product of such development; something evolved: The exploration of space is the evolution of decades of research.
3. Biology . change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.
4. a process of gradual, peaceful, progressive change or development, as in social or economic structure or institutions.
5. a motion incomplete in itself, but combining with coordinated motions to produce a single action, as in a machine.
therefore unrelated unless you are saying since every ones genes have slight variations that we are each our own species because after all if the frequency of an allele is 20% in a given population, then among population members, one in five chromosomes will carry that allele. Four out of five will be occupied by other variant(s) of the gene. meaning that the one in 5 carrying the allele is a new species.
Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by Immune
What does that have to do with observed changes in allele frequency within a population over time aka evolution?
Originally posted by boony
What a stupid question. The real question based on science is can Science prove evolution is true?
The answer is most definetly a NO.
Science cant even prove the Big Bang as logical and scientific, so how can they build a seriously flawed fundamentalist religion like evolution on no serious foundation.
I dont have to prove evolution wrong. Evolution has to be first proved. I cant prove something that doesnt exist is wrong, its absurd.
Urey-Miller? Again? Click Here.
Originally posted by vjr1113
reply to post by Not Authorized
The Urey-Miller experiment
look it up and its latter follow ups.
see this is why you should study up on a subject before you post.
All these facts point to one firm truth: Miller's experiment cannot claim to have proved that living things formed by chance under primordial earth-like conditions. The whole experiment is nothing more than a deliberate and controlled laboratory experiment to synthesize amino acids. The amount and types of the gases used in the experiment were ideally determined to allow amino acids to originate. The amount of energy supplied to the system was neither too much nor too little, but arranged precisely to enable the necessary reactions to occur. The experimental apparatus was isolated, so that it would not allow the leaking of any harmful, destructive, or any other kind of elements to hinder the formation of amino acids. No elements, minerals or compounds that were likely to have been present on the primordial earth, but which would have changed the course of the reactions, were included in the experiment. Oxygen, which would have prevented the formation of amino acids because of oxidation, is only one of these destructive elements. Even under such ideal laboratory conditions, it was impossible for the amino acids produced to survive and avoid destruction without the "cold trap" mechanism.