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.

 

Evolution - defies accepted science

page: 13
23
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 09:51 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by sweetooth

Originally posted by john_bmth

Originally posted by sweetooth

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by sweetooth
 


So you don't believe in DNA parental tests, then?


you mean HUMAN DNA parental tests? there has never been a parental test that came out with someone having a monkey for a father has there? any confusion john?

DNA is DNA. Do you even know what DNA is? Explain to us why a paternity test only works on "human DNA" and not other lifeforms.
edit on 12-10-2012 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)


because they don't wanna appear on the ricki lake show fool!
and also because we are DIFFERENT. H-U-M-A-N


hey john i just realised that you answered why evolution is bunk. we are entirely different.
btw, i hate pasting wikipedia but heres something for you:
DNA contains the genetic information that allows all modern living things to function, grow and reproduce. However, it is unclear how long in the 4-billion-year history of life DNA has performed this function, as it has been proposed that the earliest forms of life may have used RNA as their genetic material.[101][113] RNA may have acted as the central part of early cell metabolism as it can both transmit genetic information and carry out catalysis as part of ribozymes.[114] This ancient RNA world where nucleic acid would have been used for both catalysis and genetics may have influenced the evolution of the current genetic code based on four nucleotide bases. This would occur, since the number of different bases in such an organism is a trade-off between a small number of bases increasing replication accuracy and a large number of bases increasing the catalytic efficiency of ribozymes.[115]

However, there is no direct evidence of ancient genetic systems, as recovery of DNA from most fossils is impossible. This is because DNA will survive in the environment for less than one million years and slowly degrades into short fragments in solution.[116] Claims for older DNA have been made, most notably a report of the isolation of a viable bacterium from a salt crystal 250 million years old,[117] but these claims are controversial



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 09:52 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by sweetooth
 


But we aren't entirely different.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 


Tell ya what when it becomes murder to hunt and kill these WILD ANIMALS instead of just poaching ? I may very well go along with that.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 09:53 AM
link   
and no john i am not an expert on DNA. bizarrely, not many people are...



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 09:54 AM
link   
I couldn't read every page so if this is mentioned sorry.
But has noone ever heard of the Miller–Urey experiment?




The Miller and Urey experiment[1] (or Urey–Miller experiment)[2] was an experiment that simulated the conditions thought at the time to be present on the early Earth, and tested for the occurrence of chemical origins of life.

Specifically, the experiment tested Alexander Oparin's and J. B. S. Haldane's hypothesis that conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized organic compounds from inorganic precursors.
Considered to be the classic experiment on the origin of life, it was conducted in 1952[3] and published in 1953 by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey at the University of Chicago.[4][5][6]

After Miller's death in 2007, scientists examining sealed vials preserved from the original experiments were able to show that there were actually well over 20 different amino acids produced in Miller's original experiments. That is considerably more than what Miller originally reported, and more than the 20 that naturally occur in life.[7]

Moreover, some evidence suggests that Earth's original atmosphere might have had a different composition from the gas used in the Miller–Urey experiment. There is abundant evidence of major volcanic eruptions 4 billion years ago, which would have released carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen (N2), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the atmosphere. Experiments using these gases in addition to the ones in the original Miller–Urey experiment have produced more diverse molecules.[8]


Put some chemicals in a bottle, shake, poof you got life. Thats my full understanding of it
so go read up on it for yourselves.

Also Its a shame that people need to insult and condescend to other people on the internet to make them feel better about themselves
Evolution isn't the definitive answer you should always be open to other possibilities, out understanding of how this universe works changes all the time. Being arrogant and putting down someones beliefs isn't going to solve anything any faster.
edit on 12-10-2012 by Bixxi3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 09:58 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 09:59 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpearMint
reply to post by sweetooth
 


But we aren't entirely different.


true. like every living species of mammal on the planet we share the same 'qualities'. eyes mouth nose toes legs 'hand/paws/claws' etc. that is why DNA is so similar across the board.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by sweetooth

Originally posted by SpearMint
reply to post by sweetooth
 


But we aren't entirely different.


true. like every living species of mammal on the planet we share the same 'qualities'. eyes mouth nose toes legs 'hand/paws/claws' etc. that is why DNA is so similar across the board.


All thanks to a common ancestor.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by sweetooth
 


...yet you state so emphatically that ancestral DNA tests can only be performed on human DNA? Would you care to retract you assertion, then?



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 10:02 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 10:03 AM
link   
good luck with that new thread deaf-alien. i'm completely uninterested in it. no doubt it will all just fly over my puny little brain anyway. i'm going to climb back into my tree and make sweet love to your momma the chimp.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by SpearMint
 




But their whole argument is based on a lack of understanding.


I was a christian at one time. I had to have interprter since i was deaf. I was there when "Dr" Hovind was there.

Just give them some time.

Let them understand the difference



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by sweetooth
 


Posting random exerpts from Wikipedia in the hope that they make you look informed and
r support your argument does nothing to strengthen your case. I can't copy and paste on this phone but I'm sure someone could copy and paste pertinent articles from Wikipedia that directly refute your claim.

So again, what specifically is it about human DNA that makes inter species ancestral DBA analyse null and void? Cut to the chase, please.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 10:07 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by milkyway12
 





All observations have shown that life comes only from life. There is no way, according to observations and this accepted law, that life can come from nonliving matter using a natural process. One either believes that life (mysteriously) came to and evolution began, or life was created and evolution began from that point.


Evolution addresses the changes from single cell organisms to the wide variety of life we see today, it does not deal with how it started, only how it got to what we see here.

but I just proved evolution has failed us all, I still took the time to respond to that knowing full well not only will you not read it, you will actively ignore any and all science to further your agenda.

Instead, what I should have done is just posted this video for the amusement of everyone else, as this is how you appear to most people, and when i say that, i mean you appear as Dr. Banjo




posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 10:08 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 10:11 AM
link   
Does it help if I was there with "Dr" Hovind and Jerry Falwell? I have pics to prove it.

But still?

This thread?

Science is not out to disprove the existence of God.

I don't get it




top topics



 
23
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join