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.

 

One of the many questions Darwinist cannot answer

page: 4
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 12:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
Darwinian evolution is based solely on natural selection and the addition of new morphological features over extended periods of time thru genetic mutations.



Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" 1859
DNA published in Nature 1953 by Watson and Crick
Modern Evolutionary Synthesis has been 'evolving' with new data since 1948ish

To base your entire "premise" on what Darwin postulated based solely on observational studies in the early half of the 19th century and then attempt to infuse genetics into the conversation is either willfully disingenuous or completely ignorant of evolutionary sciences in general.


I don't think anyone can disagree that in order to get from single celled organism to any an animal is going to take the addition of new base pairs to the genome. Now from the research I have done there is no type of mutation that adds new genetic information into the genome. All mutations take the existing genome and sift it around. This means that a mutation always loses the information that it sifts.


No, mutations do not only "lose" information. You in fact, are making the defining factors of information, rather vague by claiming no new information can be added. Any information that did not previously exist, is new information no matter how you want to cut it by adding in qualifiers such as "All mutations take the existing genome and sift it around". It's just not a true statement. Let's look at the gene for lactose persistence, what information is lost by this mutation taking hold? Everyone is born with the ability to process lactose as it is the only form of sustenance for newborns and toddlers in many cultures even today. All this mutation does is allow for the ability to digest and process lactose into adulthood. No information is lost at all.


The Human genome is 3 billion characters long. Lets equate that to a computer program that is 3 billion lines of code. If I give you that code and tell you that you can't type anything new all you can do is take whats there and move it around in anyway you like. You could never create a new piece of the program without destroying what was there. You could take one piece of the program and copy is somewhere else, but that would not be a new combination of base pairs either.


Here, you create a false analogy. You're attempting to equate a natural process with a multitude of variables with a human created construct within which you personally are in charge of all parameters. That's not how genetics works. Your program is a completely closed system, genetics on a planetary scale is not even close to a closed system.


So the question is there a type of mutations, Substitution, insertion, duplication, ect.. that actually adds new genetic information into the genome? If not Darwinist got some splainin' to do


Nobody has any 'splainin to do except your science teachers for doing a terrible job of teaching you about biology and chemistry. substitution, insertion and duplication can all add new information.




posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 12:31 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Bearing in mind that Darwin's theories, which were merely the basis for evolutionary biology, in much the same way alchemy was the basis for modern chemistry, and that the title of his book in full was "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life". Darwinists do not need to explain that. His work, which by the way was mostly ripped off from his uncredited partner, was more of an explanation of the process of natural selection which is one of the many bases for modern evolutionary theory. Therefore, no explanation can ever be given from the work of Charles Darwin. You must first ask the right questions to get your desired answer.



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 01:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Jekka
You have obviously read some of his partners work. he did expand and that wasn't credited either.



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 01:07 PM
link   
ServantOfTheLamb, I am a molecular biologist and can answer your questions. Please be specific in what you would like me to answer.



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Yes, sequences can be added, lengthening the genome.

We can insert genes into living organisms, in the laboratory, conferring new traits.

The processes we use to do this all exist in nature. We have evidence of this occurring in nature and we can also replicate it ourselves.

There are other problems with evolutionary theory, because it is reductionist and incomplete, but most evolutionists refuse to comprehend complexity and insist that their simplistic mantra explains all.



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 04:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: weirdguy

You can see here how many different species start of as squiggle things in the early embryo stage.
It seams that there would be a common ancestor to all of these creatures perhaps?


It seems your not aware that the photo you posted is a proven fraud. Source

Let's not result to lying in order to prove a point.
edit on 18-8-2015 by RealTruthSeeker because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

It's not a "proven fraud":


The exactness of Ernst Haeckel's drawings of embryos has caused much controversy among Intelligent Design proponents recently and Haeckel's intellectual opponents in the past. Although the early embryos of different species exhibit similarities, Haeckel apparently exaggerated these similarities in support of his Recapitulation theory, sometimes known as the Biogenetic Law or "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny". Furthermore, Haeckel even proposed theoretical life-forms to accommodate certain stages in embryogenesis. A recent review concluded that the "biogenetic law is supported by several recent studies - if applied to single characters only".[1]

Critics in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Karl von Baer and Wilhelm His, did not believe that living embryos reproduce the evolutionary process and produced embryo drawings of their own[2] which emphasized the differences in early embryological development. Late 20th and early 21st century critics Jonathan Wells[3] and Stephen Jay Gould[4] have objected to the continued use of Haeckel’s embryo drawings in textbooks.

On the other hand, Michael K. Richardson, Professor of Evolutionary Developmental Zoology, Leiden University, while recognizing that some criticisms of the drawings are legitimate (indeed, it was he and his co-workers who began the modern criticisms in 1998), has supported the drawings as teaching aids,[5] and has said that "on a fundamental level, Haeckel was correct"[6]


en.wikipedia.org...

But then again, misrepresentation of information is to be expected from someone using creationist propaganda as a source.



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

try this one on for size.


edit on 18-8-2015 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 05:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Do you have absolutely ANYTHING in your repertoire than an appeal to authority fallacy??? I'm sorry but your gods (scientists) are not the be all end all of knowledge, most of them are wrong as has been meted out throughout history..

The first step in acquiring real knowledge is acknowledging this fact, the modern paradigms are most certainly wrong. This is even more true now, (not less as likes to be portrayed) because of specialization within fields. No one wants to question anyone outside of their specialty, so instead they fudge (throw out outlier data) any numbers that don't fit establishment guidelines.

Jaden



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 05:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Do you have absolutely ANYTHING in your repertoire than an appeal to authority fallacy???


It's quite clear that you have no idea what an appeal to authority argument or a logical fallacy is.



I'm sorry but your gods (scientists) are not the be all end all of knowledge, most of them are wrong as has been meted out throughout history..


By "wrong" I assume you mean "improving answers as more accurate evidence comes in"? Probably not, seeing as you're ideologically tied to an unscientific position.


The first step in acquiring real knowledge is acknowledging this fact, the modern paradigms are most certainly wrong. This is even more true now, (not less as likes to be portrayed) because of specialization within fields. No one wants to question anyone outside of their specialty, so instead they fudge (throw out outlier data) any numbers that don't fit establishment guidelines.


So wrong that we've put humans on the moon, have access to near-unlimited information at our fingertips, can travel anywhere in the world in under 24 hours, can communicate with other humans across the globe in real time, have slashed infant mortality and extended and saved the lives of countless people and about a gazillion other things that the so-called "wrong" science keeps delivering to us.



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 05:10 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

What is a Darwinist?

Evolutionary Biology has moved on quite markedly since Darwin's day.

You can add genetic material to a single cell by way of attaching another cell. Excuse my poor iteration of this. Let me illustrate via this quote:


Multicellularity could have been achieved numerous times based on the premise that selection acts on phenotypes and how well certain combinations of traits work. In other words, even if cells adhere together using different mechanisms, or via different developmental pathways, if the results are cooperative aggregations of cells that function well and thus are able to survive better and, critically, produce more offspring than their unicellular counterparts, then these various evolutionary pathways could all be possible.

"The critical point," emphasizes Niklas, "is that the evolution of multicellular organisms occurred multiple times and involved different developmental 'motifs,' such as the chemistry of the 'glues' that allow cells to stick together."


...and...


However, there are certain sets of requirements that must be met in order for multicellularity to evolve. These include that cells must adhere to, communicate with, and cooperate with each other, and that cells must specialize in their functions (i.e., that not all cells do exactly the same thing, otherwise they would just be a group of cells or a colony). In order to make these things happen, cells must not reject each other. In other words, they must be genetically compatible to some extent--analogous to how our human bodies reject foreign items that are not recognized by our cells. This first step is termed "alignment-of-fitness."

Interestingly, this "alignment-of-fitness" requires a "bottleneck" or unicellular stage when the organism consists of just one cell--a spore, zygote, or uninucleate asexual propagule. This is necessary so that all subsequent cells share similar genetic material.

The "export-of-fitness" stage is the second step necessary to the evolutionary process of multicellularity. This requires that cells work together for a common goal of reproducing more cohesive units, or individuals, like themselves and thereby work in a concerted way toward increasing their fitness. Once this is achieved, a distinct phenotype, or form, of organism exists.

How exactly steps such as cell-to-cell adhesion or communication were achieved in plants, animals, fungi, and algae differs among the major eukaryotic clades, yet an important aspect is that these multicellular organisms all went through a similar series of steps on their way to becoming multicellular, functional organisms.


Source

Alternate link: American Journal of Botany

Do you agree that this could be possible?



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

Come on bro, they're fake and everyone knows it and has known it for over a 100 years. I love how people only quote the section of something that might be in their favor but leave out the main piece of proof.

In a March 2000 issue of Natural History, Stephen Jay Gould argued that Haeckel “exaggerated the similarities by idealizations and omissions.” As well, Gould argued that Haeckel’s drawings are simply inaccurate and falsified. On the other hand, one of those who criticized Haeckel's drawings, Michael Richardson, has argued that "Haeckel's much-criticized drawings are important as phylogenetic hypotheses, teaching aids, and evidence for evolution". But even Richardson admitted in Science Magazine in 1997 that his team's investigation of Haeckel's drawings were showing them to be "one of the most famous fakes in biology."[citation needed]

Some version of Haeckel’s drawings can be found in many modern biology textbooks in discussions of the history of embryology, with clarification that these are no longer considered valid. Source


Seems like they have no problem publishing lies and fake's to try and prove a point. They really want our kids to believe this stuff don't they.




edit on 18-8-2015 by RealTruthSeeker because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-8-2015 by RealTruthSeeker because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-8-2015 by RealTruthSeeker because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 05:56 PM
link   
a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

...cool beans. now you prove a supernatural force (specifically the one you are advocating here) is/was responsible for the genesis and evolution of life on planet earth.



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

If jesus will allow you... try this little game.

www.pbs.org...


its fun

And true.



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 06:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

...cool beans. now you prove a supernatural force (specifically the one you are advocating here) is/was responsible for the genesis and evolution of life on planet earth.


You assume to much, did I say anything in this thread about the supernatural being responsible for anything? No I didn't so stop putting words in my mouth.
edit on 18-8-2015 by RealTruthSeeker because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-8-2015 by RealTruthSeeker because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 06:21 PM
link   
a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

So when you read an article that clearly states that the issue is controversial and opinion is divided (although "fundamentally correct", as one academic puts it), you conclude "its been proven that theyre frauds!". .

Motivated reasoning at its finest.

None of thid has anything to do with the mountain of evidence in favour of evolution or the deafening lack of evidence for creationism, though.



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 06:24 PM
link   
HA the minute you attack Darwinism you get called a creationist and believer in God.

Some of you are narrow minded.

Anyway, nice try. Threads like these don't lead to much. I'm with you though, on many levels. I personally don't believe evolution. In it's current... taught format anyway.



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 06:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

So when you read an article that clearly states that the issue is controversial and opinion is divided (although "fundamentally correct", as one academic puts it), you conclude "its been proven that theyre frauds!". .

Motivated reasoning at its finest.

None of thid has anything to do with the mountain of evidence in favour of evolution or the deafening lack of evidence for creationism, though.


Did you not read the part which said the guy who thinks these are still good teaching aids also said it was "one of the most famous fakes in biology"? He's clearly telling you that they are fake, but for some reason also thinks it's still proof of evolution, how in the world can something which is known to be fake still be considered as proof? How do you explain that?



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

Did you really not read the entire article? Evidently not.

Again, please explain how any of this has anything to do with the mountain of evidence in favour of evolution or the deafening lack of evidence for creationism.



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 06:39 PM
link   
a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

Well #, it must be the magic man in the sky then.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join