Mr. Somebody
Friend Of A Friend
You tell me, you're the one who believes in that rubbish friend.
Fish DNA Makes Limbs Sprout in Mice
- Thread starter Mr Uncle Leroy
- Start date
You tell me, you're the one who believes in that rubbish friend.
Mr. Somebody
Friend Of A Friend
you killin'em
they so mad
Yea, i mean scientists themselves do not believe in Evolution. They dont think things are moving fast enough so they are standing in the way of evolution to move humanity in a direction they see fit. They're playing God but dont believe he exists?
Brown_Pride
All Star
can't flip a switch to launch a nuke if you're a zombie bruh.
IMO
It's actually sad... A person can be interested in science then lose interest because of bs like this. You can't do an experiment with the results and goals already in mind. That outcome isn't natural, pure, or unbiased - and never leads to a conclusive theory or result...
If you want to do an experiment to show the fish that first crawled onto land you look at African lung fish - but I guess you can't because they (scientist) can't control and manipulate the genome the way they can with the coelacanth fish. So if you are going to show how fish evolved... you still can't do that by inserting the enhanced gene into mice. Take that sh1t from any animal and you will grow limbs. All this proves is something we already knew.. human share most of the same dna as other organisms, which doesn't necessarily = common decent -- especially if we're talking about body parts. The animals that look more closely related don't always share the closest DNA similarities. Also, if animals all shared less than 5% of their DNA and there were multiple different types DNA that wouldn't prove there was no common ancestor - so the reverse is also not true. imo.
There has to be better experiments to show evolution above the species level. We call everything without that institutionalized stamp of approval "pseudo-science". We love saying that sh1t about things that we have actually felt or observed. however, we know there hasn't been any experiment that proves- biological similarity =common descent.
N1ggas getting fired n sh1t at Scientific America for talking about how we may have multiple trees of life and more than one common descent.
"is far more complicated than was believed and may not have had a single root at all."
lol at dudes name being Dr. Doolittle and then talking about animals. Not lol, at how hard it is to find these articles now..
"that there was a period in life's early history when genes swapped so frequently that it is impossible to trace those lineages back cleanly to a single ancestor. "
They say all that stuff but then are sure to note "life has some common ancestor, but they do seek to clarify how we talk about that ancestor."
Scientific dogma has them shook to really speak about what they show.
I actually blame religion for this.. because when cac gained control of major religions was the first time institutions controlled what was acceptable in science.
It's actually sad... A person can be interested in science then lose interest because of bs like this. You can't do an experiment with the results and goals already in mind. That outcome isn't natural, pure, or unbiased - and never leads to a conclusive theory or result...
If you want to do an experiment to show the fish that first crawled onto land you look at African lung fish - but I guess you can't because they (scientist) can't control and manipulate the genome the way they can with the coelacanth fish. So if you are going to show how fish evolved... you still can't do that by inserting the enhanced gene into mice. Take that sh1t from any animal and you will grow limbs. All this proves is something we already knew.. human share most of the same dna as other organisms, which doesn't necessarily = common decent -- especially if we're talking about body parts. The animals that look more closely related don't always share the closest DNA similarities. Also, if animals all shared less than 5% of their DNA and there were multiple different types DNA that wouldn't prove there was no common ancestor - so the reverse is also not true. imo.
There has to be better experiments to show evolution above the species level. We call everything without that institutionalized stamp of approval "pseudo-science". We love saying that sh1t about things that we have actually felt or observed. however, we know there hasn't been any experiment that proves- biological similarity =common descent.
N1ggas getting fired n sh1t at Scientific America for talking about how we may have multiple trees of life and more than one common descent.
"is far more complicated than was believed and may not have had a single root at all."
lol at dudes name being Dr. Doolittle and then talking about animals. Not lol, at how hard it is to find these articles now..
"that there was a period in life's early history when genes swapped so frequently that it is impossible to trace those lineages back cleanly to a single ancestor. "
They say all that stuff but then are sure to note "life has some common ancestor, but they do seek to clarify how we talk about that ancestor."
Scientific dogma has them shook to really speak about what they show.
I actually blame religion for this.. because when cac gained control of major religions was the first time institutions controlled what was acceptable in science.
Bondye Vodou
Proud practitioner of the "High Science"
evolution is real bruhs
Last edited by a moderator:
Not sure if you know this or not, but magic isn't real, and magic spells aren't real, also, Harry Potter is a work of fiction, just like the bible.
not so fast
*in b4 page long rapbeats rant*
FlyGuy
pimp of the year
see they are fuking with these genes on a level that's starting to make me uncomfortable. Not from a religious standpoint, from a "giant poisonous mouse with arms, cat like reflexes and human intelligence" hunting humans.
What happens when they flip the switch that allows that mold to turn ants into zombies and then BAMB we got mouse overlords?
Last edited by a moderator:
no page long rant unless you come with lies about the good book and i have to check you on it. hey i just posted the definition of it. you dont have to agree. i never said i agreed in that or not.
I didn't need you to post the definition the word itself is self-explanatory and it sounds like a word that would be used in the middle ages, which is essentially the time period where someone like Mowgli belongs.
