And despite this, you're still working from a flawed basis. No two people are exactly alike, physically or mentally,
The best thing about Finance Minister Bill English\'s latest Budget is that it does finally signal a much greater role for the private sector in the New Zealand economy. And another step along the way to extract this country from the political cul-de-sac in which Helen Clark\'s Labour Government parked us.
Which is a flaw of science. There is no reason at all under a scientific basis that two people couldn't be exactly alike. Science has proven through cloning that it's possible, therefore it should be able to occur in the wild.
But that doesn't cover it. For instance, identical twins tend to have the same thoughts and feelings, so why don't we all have the same thoughts and feelings? For instance, for any given situation human cogniscense should dictate that the same answer would be derived by every person on every occasion, but it's plainly not so.
Which means that environment plays a part - and that environment includes religion. You are therefore assuming that science has shaped religion, which means that in order for science to be right, religion must be right in which case most of you here are wrong.
no it doesn't.just because it can happen under lab conditions doesn't mean it will occur in nature - of the top of my head you have things like the rare earth metals of the periodic table that are synthetic and man-made.
I fail to see how "you could be wrong too" is proof of the absence of God.Sure, Christians could be wrong, and so could Muslims and Hindus and Flying Spaghetti Monsterettes and Scientologists, but so could Richard Dawkins. If we have covered one point more than any other point in this thread, its that it would be impossible to 100% be certain that anyone is right. Do I believe that God doesn't exist? No. But could it be a possibility? Yes (I know, that makes no sense, but in a way it does).
Edit: One thing I will say after browsing through a couple of other Dawkins related videos. Christians are a whiny bunch. They make me look bad - all I ever complain about are movies not coming to my town
no it isn't though, synthetic elements are exactly that, synthetic. They are products of nuclear reactors and huge particle colliders. They don't occur naturally on earth. what is cloned in nature? were not talking DNA replication or single cell bacteria here. what genetically complex individuals are cloned in nature from a adult cell?
But this is already occuring in nature AND in man-made conditions. Therefore it should be possible to introduce the same genetic material (from a man and a woman) and turn out an identical result. But it doesn't - why not?
what is cloned in nature? were not talking DNA replication or single cell bacteria here.
because tiwaking just posted that...
I never said cloned nub. People occur in nature and they occur in the testtube. So at some point, given that there are over 6 billion people in the world, you would expect that two of them would turn out the same. All up, there's probably been more than 10 billion people lived in the history of the Earth, so the odds of scientific validation is more than 10 billion to 1.
errr your way wrong aswell tiwakingjust because that is the total combination of DNA base pairs that doesn't mean that there are that many USEFUL combinations, alot of our DNA is redundant and doesn't code for anything. as you surely know it is the differences in the phenotype of the said individual due to the variations in the genotype that manifest as a particular trait. the total number of genes identified by the human genome project was 20, 000 - 25,000 - far less than all the possible combinations of your unused DNA
identify all the approximately 20,000-25,000 genes in human DNA, determine the sequences of the 3 billion chemical base pairs that make up human DNA, store this information in databases, improve tools for data analysis, transfer related technologies to the private sector, and address the ethical, legal, and social issues (ELSI) that may arise from the project.
Given the current population of 6,000,000,000 with approximate generational replication of 25,000(500,000 years /20 years per generation) = 150,000,000,000,000,000 humans have existed. This is totally false due to the fact that the baby boom and exponential growth of the human population for the past fifty years, but its a fair beginning reference point.The number of base pairs in human DNA is 3,000,000,000^4, or 3,000,000,000 x 3,000,000,000 x 3,000,000,000 x 3,000,000,000. This gives us the total number of possible combinations to be: 2.43x10^47. This compared to 1.5x10^14 leaves 2.43x10^47 UNUSED DNA combinations
all those possible base pairs don't necessarily code for something
Fuck Bell cracks me up lol.
Urr.....Yeah you are WAAAAY offGiven the current population of 6,000,000,000 with approximate generational replication of 25,000(500,000 years /20 years per generation) = 150,000,000,000,000,000 humans have existed.
Urr.....Yeah you are WAAAAY off
