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 jozuph
Originally posted by Helioform
Originally posted by jozuph
Originally posted by Helioform
Originally posted by jozuph
a buckyball is much smaller then a dna string, and when i say much i mean muchhhh, do u also have some serious litt about it ??
Fullerene molecules have a diameter similar to that of the DNA double helix.
before u claimed : 60 carbon atoms (the famous "buckyball] now go and count the amount of carbon atoms in dna, dna contains carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and phospor. The dna in a single cell may be composed of billions of atoms. These are arranged in a complex chain with four small nucleic acids (adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine) in carefully arranged ordered pairs. Does this look like a bucky ball like molecule ???
The deoxyribose sugar of the DNA backbone has 5 carbons and 3 oxygens per base, our chromosome consist of euhh coded around 45 million bases, while the whole geome is around 3 billion bases...wich is containt in 23 pairs of chromosomes..mmm size aint shyt right...
three billion times 5, ....... aint 60 right ?
[Edited on 19-11-2003 by jozuph]
[Edited on 19-11-2003 by jozuph]
DNA helix diameter is around 2 nanometers, a buckyball is around 1 nanometer. It's similar enough to be considered as a quantum object.
again, iam not talking nonsence here, how can 15 billion carbon atoms alone [not even concidering the other atoms] resemble the size of a 60 carbon buckyball ?? i mean it might be possible that uve mistaken something but even a 5 carbon and 3 oxygens atom is not much smaller then 60 carbons [not sure bout this :]..but still there is no cell that contains only one mol of dna..none..i aint even counting the attached bases wich size we also should not forget :]]..again i beg u, show me some serious data aka litterature bout this...not just what u think :]]
Originally posted by Satyr
Originally posted by Zzub
I'm sorry, but one fake skull and a made up story will not change the fact that evolution not only exists, but is the only logical explanation.
Evolution still makes more sense.
$0.02
I agree 100%. It still makes a hell of alot more sense than an old book full of fairy tales, and a "big man in the sky". Evolution is quite evident in many animal species. Why would we be any different?
[Edited on 11-19-2003 by Satyr]
Originally posted by jrod
This is stupid for lack of a better word to argue over religion and evolution. They have two different goals, evolution is based on the scientific method to discover why things are the way they are; religion is based on faith to help us deal with life.
They have seperate goals but God willing maybe they will both lead us to the same truth
[Edited on 19-11-2003 by jrod]
hihi faith, or facts..thats the question...i go for the facts, maybe yall religious go and read some of the postings in the gay topic....
Originally posted by kurtcobainuk
omg. i think it should all be left alone. scientists shouldnt go around proving this or that they should just find cures for diseases thats all they should do. i mean trying to find if we evolved or not is unfair to certain religions but now there is no link to us and monkeys they are #ED lol good i say. i agree with what someone else said. were related from aliens.
Originally posted by Ozzie
hihi faith, or facts..thats the question...i go for the facts, maybe yall religious go and read some of the postings in the gay topic....
very well put as a coherent arguement... unfortunately the facts are just not there or there would be no arguement. and if there was any relevance in finding the origin of species in the gay topic I would certainly go and look. seems its back to Im right , your wrong, I can see your theories wrong but cant see anything wrong with mine. but as it happens I am in neither camp. both theories have merits and both have a lot of flaws and neither has one iota of proof. so all you can do is read both version of events apply logic and make your own mind up
Originally posted by kurtcobainuk
omg. i think it should all be left alone. scientists shouldnt go around proving this or that they should just find cures for diseases thats all they should do. i mean trying to find if we evolved or not is unfair to certain religions but now there is no link to us and monkeys they are #ED lol good i say. i agree with what someone else said. were related from aliens.
Originally posted by kurtcobainuk
omg. i think it should all be left alone. scientists shouldnt go around proving this or that they should just find cures for diseases thats all they should do. i mean trying to find if we evolved or not is unfair to certain religions but now there is no link to us and monkeys they are frocked lol good i say. i agree with what someone else said. were related from aliens.
Originally posted by outsidethemilkglass
Originally posted by kurtcobainuk
omg. i think it should all be left alone. scientists shouldnt go around proving this or that they should just find cures for diseases thats all they should do. i mean trying to find if we evolved or not is unfair to certain religions but now there is no link to us and monkeys they are frocked lol good i say. i agree with what someone else said. were related from aliens.
very much so true. why go about trying to figuire out the creator, as i have decided for myself it doesn't matter for now and that will be for me to worry about in afterlife (oh the joys of procrastination)
Originally posted by Ozzie
its not a case of siding with one or the other, I just mentioned that I have read both books, used logic and came to the conclusion that neither are right. I believe still, if a theory is to present itself as viable it needs proof. Its all very well in the origin of species saying this evolved from that but where is the proof, it has never been found. which leaves one conclusion, if it aint those two options there must be another.
Originally posted by Ozzie
its not a case of siding with one or the other, I just mentioned that I have read both books, used logic and came to the conclusion that neither are right. I believe still, if a theory is to present itself as viable it needs proof. Its all very well in the origin of species saying this evolved from that but where is the proof, it has never been found. which leaves one conclusion, if it aint those two options there must be another.
Originally posted by outsidethemilkglass
Originally posted by Ozzie
its not a case of siding with one or the other, I just mentioned that I have read both books, used logic and came to the conclusion that neither are right. I believe still, if a theory is to present itself as viable it needs proof. Its all very well in the origin of species saying this evolved from that but where is the proof, it has never been found. which leaves one conclusion, if it aint those two options there must be another.
brilliant! exactly! thank you! somebody is speaking intelligently!!!!!!!! *raises hands and thanks aliens for somebody like this*