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 itsthetooth
reply to post by rhinoceros
then how do you not know its a different species?
It's based on empirical evidence, not gross imagination. How do you think parental testing happens? Yep, similarity in DNA. We know for a fact, that the degree of similarity in DNA correlates directly with relatedness.
Parental testing.
Care to rephrase your question? What are you referring to with "it" and different species from what? How is your question related to what I wrote?
Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Varemia
Well sure in terms of bacteria and viruses, but there is no grounding for the basis.
It's how a lot of modern medicine is performed. Look it up if you don't believe me. I know real life can be hard to accept sometimes for someone as delusional as you.
I digress once again to when I was talking about the fact that we honestly have no proof of knowing if a species is changing out of its species. How do we know or not know that 6 feet people are normal? We don't, we assume they are normal because most of us are that way, and that is a fact.
So this is how we determine the ground basis for things changing, its bases on an assumption.
No I'm not denying we have 70% overlap with rats, I'm just saying there is noting that proves we are related even though.
Really now. So you're claiming that we don't experiment on rats and mice due to their nearly identical organ system? It's a medical fact, and you should know it with all the animal rights folks that are up in arms over the issue
Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Varemia
No I'm not denying we have 70% overlap with rats, I'm just saying there is noting that proves we are related even though.
Really now. So you're claiming that we don't experiment on rats and mice due to their nearly identical organ system? It's a medical fact, and you should know it with all the animal rights folks that are up in arms over the issue
Originally posted by rhinoceros
reply to post by itsthetooth
I don't see your point. Let's start again.
Your genome is the most similar to that of your parents and your siblings. Your parents genomes are the most similar to that of their parents. Your grandparents genomes are the most similar to that of their parents and siblings. This is an unbroken chain. As we move further back in time, the more and more dissimilar the genomes get in comparison to yours.
Suppose your great-grandma had a brother,who had a son, who had a son, who also had a son - called Mark (approximately your age). Suppose your grandma also had a brother, who had a son, who had a son - called Lucas (also approximately your age). Genetically speaking, you're going to be more similar to Lucas than to Mark.
The same principle applies on much longer timescales just as well. Or perhaps you will be the first person ever, who puts forth a mechanism that could possibly stop this force of nature from happening?edit on 21-3-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)
You do realise you was asked where you got your education and not where you got a job as a cleaner in the local school science labs dont you?
Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by rhinoceros
I even went into college for a science background.
It's statements like this that make it absolute apparent to us that you never even bothered to try to understand evolution. How did you manage to pass your biology class, or maybe you're a high school dropout?
Not much about evolution was taught when I was in high school, neither was religion. I think they both have there flaws. No I tried, but when I got handed links telling me that evolution is a postulated hypothetical theory, it kind of summed things up for me.
You fit the description perfectly.
Pathological liars - or "mythomaniacs" - may be suffering from histrionic personality disorder or narcissistic personality disorder. The following comments basically reflect a pathological liar who has the characteristics of histrionic personality disorder.
Well its not so much an issue of what I think, as it is that I just don't assume like that.
So you think it's just a coincidence that we share so much DNA and physiology? Why would that be random?
Your saying when there are changes, its evolution. Now you have nothing to back up the theory, or anything the proves it, you just know.
I don't see your point. Let's start again.
Your genome is the most similar to that of your parents and your siblings. Your parents genomes are the most similar to that of their parents and their siblings. Your grandparents genomes are the most similar to that of their parents and their siblings. This is an unbroken chain. As we move further back in time, the more and more dissimilar the genomes get in comparison to yours.
First off I don't rely on the inaccuracies of others to teach me what to believe in. I look at everything myself and make my own decision. Intervention was never taught to me if that's whats your eluding to, I simply read the evidence and easily came to that decision.
You do realise you was asked where you got your education and not where you got a job as a cleaner in the local school science labs dont you?
Is this the same school that taught you how to set up home inside a whale?
Is this the same school where you were taught everything humans do is un natural and everything animals do is natural?
Your saying when there are changes, its evolution. Now you have nothing to back up the theory, or anything the proves it, you just know.
What I'm saying is when parents make children, there are changes, how do you not know that is evolution? Evolution is not based on anything grounded. As a result there is no way to prove it.
First off I don't rely on the inaccuracies of others to teach me what to believe in. I look at everything myself and make my own decision. Intervention was never taught to me if that's whats your eluding to, I simply read the evidence and easily came to that decision.
You have been brainwashed
I haven't lied anywhere here.
When the links I'm being sent to clearly state they are a hypothetical postulated theory
a group of people are still head strong in believing its real, I automatically know what type of people they are
Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by rhinoceros
Your saying when there are changes, its evolution. Now you have nothing to back up the theory, or anything the proves it, you just know.
I don't see your point. Let's start again.
Your genome is the most similar to that of your parents and your siblings. Your parents genomes are the most similar to that of their parents and their siblings. Your grandparents genomes are the most similar to that of their parents and their siblings. This is an unbroken chain. As we move further back in time, the more and more dissimilar the genomes get in comparison to yours.
What I'm saying is when parents make children, there are changes, how do you not know that is evolution? Evolution is not based on anything grounded. As a result there is no way to prove it.
Well I guess we go back to this again. Like I have said now probably a dozen times now, that just because they are able to find changes, doesn't mean its the hand of evolution. I'm not denying that things can change, but there is no grounded basis that proves its the hand of evolution at work.
For crying out loud, we are actively using the theory in modern medicine to accurately FORECAST changes. It's how we come up with medicine! If theory were wrong, we couldn't use it to predict the future
Thinking rationally and making bold assumptions are two different things.
Also, you saying "there is no proof" is laughable after all the proof people posted. All it shows is that your preconceived notions forbid you from thinking rationally and logically
Well sure there is, there is clear documentation of it happening, unlike evolutionism.
There is no objective evidence for intervention. You posting Pye's snake oil salesman claims isn't proof
Well just remember that your the one believing in a postulated hypothetical theory's, and I'm believing in documentation, who is really the liar here?
Well, you posted stuff that is demonstrably nonsense and not true...and technically that's lying
Sorry if you disagree with the lingo, I got it off a major evolution site.
Something is either a theory (aka fully backed up by objective evidence) or a hypothesis (something not backed up by evidence). A hypothesis only becomes a theory once it's been tested and fully error checked. So a theory isn't hypothetical
I believe the evolution link I have re posted a few times accurately described it.
At least learn about the things you criticize, because clearly you don't know what you're talking about...
Sure if you believe that postulated hypothetical theory's are real.
Rational people?
Logical people?
People who care about objective evidence?
But still there is no way to identify or isolate the different changes. We simply don't know, and we can't because the ground work for understanding our own biology is based on assumptions.
No. That's not what I am saying. Evolution and change are not synonymous. Evolution is natural selection acting on change. Children being different from their parents is not evolution. It's only evolution in the grander scale, when we look at populations, and we observe that some children manage to reproduce better than other children of other parents, and thus the gene pool of that entire population changes.
When a species is no longer able to breed with its original species, does not prove the hand of evolution. What it does prove is that they are no longer breeding.
You have nothing to back up your claim, that this would not lead to speciation in longer time scales, given that populations became isolated from one another.
Well I guess we go back to this again. Like I have said now probably a dozen times now, that just because they are able to find changes, doesn't mean its the hand of evolution. I'm not denying that things can change, but there is no grounded basis that proves its the hand of evolution at work.
Thinking rationally and making bold assumptions are two different things.
Evolution embraces several bold assumptions that have never been proven, and probably for a very good reason.
There is nothing that has ever been able to prove the hand of evolution.
Well sure there is, there is clear documentation of it happening, unlike evolutionism.
Well just remember that your the one believing in a postulated hypothetical theory's, and I'm believing in documentation, who is really the liar here?