Results 121 to 160 of 160
-
05-11-2009, 12:09 PM #121
Two problems here, you don't understand what the word, Theory, actually means. In the scientific sense. It does not mean a guess or an idea.
The chicken-egg dilemma is an old one. The answer is Egg. In evolutionary theory it is the egg laid by an ancestor of the chicken.
Understanding is power!!
-
05-11-2009, 12:11 PM #122
I tried. Then I asked you to site your source because I can not find an example of slight differences in genetic makeup being used to inplicate one twin and exonerate another in a rape case.
Site your source and prove that you are not talking out of your ass, or else it is perfectly correct to assume that you might be.
-
05-11-2009, 12:15 PM #123
http://www.twinsrealm.com/twinsfaq.htm
http://www.eyeondna.com/2008/02/20/g...entical-twins/
Above are two links. The first declares that twins are identical down to the DNA level, yet the second one states they are not when an unusual case of twin brothers sleeping with the same woman were locked in a court battle to determin who was the father. According to the second link, Twins are NOT identical but are very, very close.
-
05-11-2009, 12:23 PM #124
Here is one of many, As I said do the Research. Why would I talk out my ass? I dont know you nor you know me. Play is Play but please dont insult me.
Flagg this also may help. They have cetain identical traits not exact DNA though. Most DNA done for paternity does not test all DNA.
http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/10993
-
05-11-2009, 12:24 PM #125
What your asking is nearly impossible. If you have a source from which you have obtained your knowlege it is perfectly easy to site. If you are making claims that have no source, then it is not wrong to call it BS even if it turns out to be accurate. If you ever ask me to site a source, I will do so or else admit that I can't.
In fact I looked up what you were talking about. Found a study that could be sited in about 10 seconds. Satisfied myself that you are in fact correct that there are slight differences in the genetic make up of identical twins, but are way off when you say that discovering otherwise would turn the scientific community upside down, because until carl brunder's results were released in feburary of 2008 the common belief of the scientific community was that identical twins begin life with the same dna and slight differences were the result of environmentally influenced genetic mutations.
Or you could just get offended and say you should take me at my word because you should somehow know from my internet persona that I am not full of crap.
-
05-11-2009, 12:25 PM #126
-
05-11-2009, 12:29 PM #127
Its they way you made the comment Mr Falco. Claiming I am making this up! That was an insult rather than taking a moment to Google yourelf Or create a dialogue you simply detered me to being foolish.
I thought the Big Lebowski was a stupid Movei, Do I say JFalco your a dummy for having that avvy?
Get my Point? No harm done I just thought the comment was inappropriate due to the fact that we have never crossed paths in any thread.
-
05-11-2009, 12:30 PM #128
Listen, a lot of people talk out of their ass all the time. I have not insulted you. I don't see what your problem is.
How hard was it to find a source? This make your argument much stronger than saying, because I said so. I have no idea who you are and what might possible motivate you to talk out of your ass.
I'm still waiting for your source on the rape case that you refered to earlier.
-
05-11-2009, 12:31 PM #129
And for that study, There are two types of DNA. Twins can have one that is perfect match. but there is the 0.001 % that is different in everyone. As I said, My bad for getting mad, I just dont like being called a Fool because someone doesnt agree.
-
05-11-2009, 12:33 PM #130
-
05-11-2009, 12:35 PM #131
I see why these Threads go to crap. I got pissed and took that comment personal. I will humble and bow out now. Thanx for the Good times!
Pardon if I offeneded anyone!
-
05-11-2009, 12:35 PM #132
http://www.eyeondna.com/2008/02/20/g...entical-twins/
yet the second one states they are not when an unusual case of twin brothers sleeping with the same woman were locked in a court battle to determin who was the father. According to the second link, Twins are NOT identical but are very, very close.
-
05-11-2009, 12:36 PM #133
I did not call you stupid. I use phrases like talking out of your ass in just. I do not mean any insult and I appologise if I have in fact insulted.
But I still think you are making up what I said you were making up and until you can site a source I will continue to think you made it up or heard it from an unreliable source. I am not calling you a liar. I just don't believe that. I can't find a source for it and since you made the satement you should be able to.
I do get my point that the way I say thing can be insulting. A lot is lost in online communtication and I'm from Boston, and we kind of talk like a-holes here. We don;t mean anything by it.
-
05-11-2009, 12:39 PM #134
-
05-11-2009, 12:45 PM #135
There is No Direct source on a Rape case. I was making a point that if that was the case, they could be identified using DNA.
Yet it would have to be a total DNA test, Not the usual one that crime labs use. If that is what you meant then yes you were correct.
Ive never heard of twins raping anyone. Was an example.
But, to clarify NO ONE has the same DNA. 0.001% difference in everyone.
Ill leave it at that my friends.
-
05-11-2009, 12:45 PM #136
I'm not well read on genetics, but i thought twins occured when 2 eggs are fertilised by 2 different sperm (same paternal dna with minor deviation) - non-identical;
and 1 egg is fertilised by 1 sperm cell, which then divides and seperates fully - (same maternal/paternal dna with NO deviation) - Identical twins.
Right?... wrong!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23276953/
Effectively the dna IS exactly the same, however the pre and post natal enviorment may cause genes to 'switch off'. So in a labsome twins may be close matches.
Basically you are both right.
-
05-11-2009, 12:46 PM #137
Vpchill, I tried to respond to your PM but you are not recieving pms. Anyway, I appreciate what you said and I wanted to say the same to you. You're a straight up dude.
-
05-11-2009, 12:49 PM #138
^^ No doubt my Friend. We cool as a Fan
-
05-11-2009, 12:51 PM #139
-
05-11-2009, 12:53 PM #140
Back to my Original Post on this (Before I got all scientific)
I was Created from the Ooze out my fathers Penis!!
My source is dead, but I have his DNA (I will ooze on you if needed).. LOL
-
05-11-2009, 12:58 PM #141
Right then, lets get back to bodybuilding lol!
Good debate btw
-
05-11-2009, 01:00 PM #142
-
05-11-2009, 01:10 PM #143
-
05-11-2009, 01:13 PM #144
touché lol
-
You are wrong. They have identical DNA. Just took genetics last semester
Although identical twins have the same genotype, or DNA, they have different phenotypes, meaning that the same DNA is expressed in different ways.
Fraternal twins, on the other hand, are formed when two different eggs are fertilized. Genetically speaking, fraternal twins are no closer than normal siblings, sharing only about 50% of their genes.
-
05-11-2009, 03:53 PM #146
-
05-11-2009, 04:04 PM #147
Science has proof without any certainty.
Creationists have certainty without any proof.
-C.E. Montague
Take your pick
-
05-11-2009, 04:21 PM #148
-
05-11-2009, 04:30 PM #149
Hahaha, im I think he was making a point with that statement. That there are people that simply refuse to research things beyond their own religious dogma and ideology and with that kind of thinking would assume that a whale is a fish simply because it lives in the sea, completely being unaware that mammals can also live in the oceans..
-
05-11-2009, 04:36 PM #150Banned
- Join Date
- Jun 2008
- Location
- R.I.P. T-MOS
- Posts
- 4,944
i think you should read up on spanoza bro.. he'll answer your questions a bit better then all of us will.. even though he's a pantheist, his way of life and logic makes more sense then any other philosophers i'v ever read
-
05-11-2009, 07:58 PM #151
Anyone ever have a near-death-experience? I did 6 months ago, changed me forever..
-
05-13-2009, 07:50 AM #152
-
05-13-2009, 08:31 AM #153
Yep and apperently I say angels.Then again I was 3 years old and full of painkillers after a major operation, so I don't know how reliable a source I am.I am surprised this thread has lasted this long.I also don't understand why it has to be God OR evalution, why not evalution BECAUSE that's what God wants?Personally I believe in evolution but that doesn't interfear with me believing in God.
-
05-13-2009, 09:03 AM #154
could be somewhere in between.. If god did create the universe and all in it and seeded the earth with the basic building blocks for life then just let time run it's course till now..
That makes more sense than saying the earth was created in 7 days
-
05-13-2009, 09:45 AM #155
I could almost be down with the idea of some Grand Architect being responsible for the Universe and setting into motion events on Earth that has likely happened elsewhere throughout the Cosmos. The idea of some guy sitting on a cloud telling people they must do this or there'll be sorry is frankly absurd.
-
05-13-2009, 09:45 AM #156
-
05-13-2009, 09:51 AM #157
-
05-14-2009, 07:03 PM #158Anabolic Member
- Join Date
- Apr 2008
- Posts
- 2,571
Even tought that subject has been touched many times its always intersting to see people views on it, for sure some will joke about it but some will have some pertty good comments.
I actually lost my faith in God back in 2006 when i saw my father die of cancer. Then after a while i went to see a psycholgist that explained to me the laws of life, without touching religion, science.
But has you say we are complexed machines, either it be physical or mental, all the emotions we go true and all the learning in life.
If a human works on himself for a while to change for the better its amazing how much the people around him will change has well for the better.
All in all i guess i sort of gained back my faith, and i dont beleive that we come from evolution, i mean if evolution would have been we would have changed a lot in the past thousands of years.
Great post Gappa.
-
05-14-2009, 07:11 PM #159Anabolic Member
- Join Date
- Apr 2008
- Posts
- 2,571
I saw a documentary on NDE and it was very good, there was this scientist who invented a machine that send specific eletronic waves to the brain to recreate an NDE.
4 people who had a real NDE where put to the test first describing there real NDE then they where put in the test with the machine.
3 of them said that the machine was able to recreate the exact same or pertty much real close to what there real NDE felt like.
Meaning that the brain has a defense mechanic when it feels death is close.
On the other side, people who do have NDE are changed for life.
Now they tested many people that had NDE with an MRI scan of the brain and found that different region of the brain where different.
Which means that the person who had an NDE came back different.
Right now i am getting some prolotherapy treatments for my back pain and my medical doctor spent a lot of time in Germany, he told me that he did many studies and does say that there is life after death and that even if the body dies the spirit will live on.
Chakra of the body where proven with special lightning, and the human body also was poven to be a source of energy by itself.
Interesting to see what science and studies will come up next.
-
05-14-2009, 07:49 PM #160
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Zebol 50 - deca?
12-10-2024, 07:18 PM in ANABOLIC STEROIDS - QUESTIONS & ANSWERS