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.

 

Genetics, Evolution and the Creationist Conspiracy

page: 7
16
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 06:31 PM
link   
Hi folks,

I don't understand....

Why is it possible to assume that the universe started with single celled animals and "evolved" to something more complex..... What is the need for such a misguided notion in a system that just "existed"?

Aren't we talking about going from near nothing to something "greater"? Does that preclude the idea that a single celled animal evolved from nothing?

Intelligence, how is it possible that if we propose that something intelligent "evolved" from nothing, that there is no intelligence in the atoms that then form the intelligent organism?

Even now, cells all over a multi-cellular organism, co-ordinate in "time", to produce intelligence - unless intelligence doesn't exist - in which case we cannot distinguish regular matter from life.




posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 06:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: sensibleSenseless
Hi folks,

I don't understand....

Why is it possible to assume that the universe started with single celled animals and "evolved" to something more complex..... What is the need for such a misguided notion in a system that just "existed"?

Aren't we talking about going from near nothing to something "greater"? Does that preclude the idea that a single celled animal evolved from nothing?

Intelligence, how is it possible that if we propose that something intelligent "evolved" from nothing, that there is no intelligence in the atoms that then form the intelligent organism?

Even now, cells all over a multi-cellular organism, co-ordinate in "time", to produce intelligence - unless intelligence doesn't exist - in which case we cannot distinguish regular matter from life.


the crux of the matter - from where does consciousness originate, and what exactly is its nature?

we have no definitive answer to that question as of yet. but thats no reason to settle for the "next best solution". FIND the right answer. TEST that hypothesis. EARN the data. and we have people hard at work on doing that every day.

patience is a virtue.



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 06:46 PM
link   
I agree with the notion of science - my notions of religion not thrown out.

Yet, I also feel that the infinith division of our curiousity as to origins may pan out to be beyond our understanding - the notion that nothing created something, or a rat trying to figure out the human who created his lab cage - by examining the limits of his cage.

Indeed some say that looking for the impossible is a madness not a virtue.... The "system", we live in seems to create science out of it's monetary goals too.

(Not saying throw out science... it serves it's purposes - we are certainly beyond the cave people start according to our theories and historical evidence, and even our changes in our daily lives' evidence).

There are Hindus, who say "we who embody the intelligence, can intuitively see the innermost workings of that intelligence - it's origins".... at least that is my reading of the understanding.
edit on 26-8-2015 by sensibleSenseless because: last line



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 06:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: sensibleSenseless
Hi folks,

I don't understand....

Why is it possible to assume that the universe started with single celled animals and "evolved" to something more complex..... What is the need for such a misguided notion in a system that just "existed"?

Aren't we talking about going from near nothing to something "greater"? Does that preclude the idea that a single celled animal evolved from nothing?

Intelligence, how is it possible that if we propose that something intelligent "evolved" from nothing, that there is no intelligence in the atoms that then form the intelligent organism?

Even now, cells all over a multi-cellular organism, co-ordinate in "time", to produce intelligence - unless intelligence doesn't exist - in which case we cannot distinguish regular matter from life.


First, everyone needs to stop using "nothing" as it just causes confusion. There was always something. Even if it's just quantum energy there was still something.

By the time single cell organisms happened there were many other events that happened first. They by no means came from nothing either. By the time life started happening, even single cell life, planets had formed and cooled, suns had been born, environments had formed, etc.

We don't know what intelligence even is really. It very well may be nothing more than the interacting systems of matter at a very complex level. Consciousness and intelligence is a very hard thing to pin down. Just look at something like bee or ant colonies. We don't consider them intelligent as they are guided by chemical reactions not thinking. However as an organism they do certainly display what could be considered intelligence to a degree.
edit on 26-8-2015 by mOjOm because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 06:50 PM
link   
But, here you are saying "By the time life started happening" - is that on purpose?

Yet, we also apparently, evolved from single cellular life as did the ants... is our intelligence a separate occurence in time?
edit on 26-8-2015 by sensibleSenseless because: last line



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 06:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: sensibleSenseless
But, here you are saying "By the time life started happening" - is that on purpose?


No, I'm talking about what we traditionally would call "life". Different people would label "life" happening at different stages I suppose. To some plants are alive. To others planets are alive or even galaxies. To some life is starting at some other point.

There wasn't any purpose behind saying that at all. Nor was I trying to say anything specific. At what point do you consider "life" to be present???



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 07:02 PM
link   
I find it difficult to say...

It feels like splitting hairs, because there is a point at which a combination of atoms and molecules isn't a random occurence any more - and that combination works towards it's continued existence in the "environment", even adapting to retain some characteristics - the production of complex offspring, dependent on the environment, yet trying for independence to a degree - even against other "living" organisms' interference.

Yet, a human being can be dead, though not completely decomposed - yet re-animateable under special circumstances which was heretofore not possible.

Hindus would say that even the atom has a "need" to remain unchanged. It is certainly not easily destroyed - or is it?

Gotta go - have a lot to say though... time and effort.



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: sensibleSenseless

Something else that is strange to think about is the fact that each of us is made up of thousands of microbial colonies which live inside and outside our bodies and without them we would not be able to live. In fact we wouldn't even be what we think we are. Although we think of ourselves as a single entity because of our single consciousness, physically we are far from being an individual.




The human body contains about 100 trillion cells, but only maybe one in 10 of those cells is actually — human. The rest are from bacteria, viruses and other microorganisms. "The human we see in the mirror is made up of more microbes than human," said Lita Proctor of the National Institutes of Health, who's leading the Human Microbiome Project.

"The definition of a human microbiome is all the microbial microbes that live in and on our bodies but also all the genes — all the metabolic capabilities they bring to supporting human health," she said. These microbes aren't just along for the ride. They're there for a reason. We have a symbiotic relationship with them — we give them a place to live, and they help keep us alive.
Link



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 07:32 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

Indeed. Take into account that we are seventy percent water and that all mass is almost entirely empty space and that our biology is outweighed by foreign agents both organic and inorganic and you get this tiny infinitesimal thing that is you. Another interesting thought is that we technically have an exoskeleton because we are living in our brains which live inside our skulls.

Weird stuff huh?



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 01:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Titen-Sxull
a reply to: Peeple


People who look too hard for the reality of magic miss out on the magic of reality


That's very beautiful.
Even the pope is okay with evolution, just as a sidenote to consider.
Also it shouldn't make us feel less like gods, because after all no other animal has that much impact and changes it's environment as much as we do.

It just should maybe help us to feel more at home and responsible, like in: with great power comes great responsibility and all the other living beings are our cousins => even more responsibilty.

Like Nero, i'd give the well being of our animals a bigger voice. Not in the senat maybe, but i guess you know what i mean.



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 08:43 AM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

In the context of this thread we are talking about biological life, however small.



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm




Although we think of ourselves as a single entity because of our single consciousness, physically we are far from being an individual.


Building on this idea there seems to be a fear among most creationists that if they were to accept evolution human beings would no longer be "more than the sum of our parts" so-to-speak. As if what makes us special is the creation event itself and so if they lose that by acknowledging we evolved like everything else does they lose that feeling that human beings are special, unique or designed with a built in purpose to our lives.

In actuality there is nothing mundane or depressing about us being the sum of our parts because of how complex and astounding the processes that make us us actually are.

Whether there is a soul or a purpose or whatever extra supernatural element believers want to add we can all agree that the set of inter-working biological processes that make us us are amazing in and of themselves without any of that additional supernatural stuff. People act as if if they found out they were part of a natural "accident" they would be depressed rather than be impressed by the idea that natural processes could result in an organism such as themselves.

Also I think the opinions people have about animals have great effect on how they react to learning that they are animals themselves. Some creationists say if we teach people they are animals they will become unruly, immoral, evil, as if the animal kingdom is that way, as if nature doesn't reach its own balance and as if mass madness and immorality would somehow be instinctual to humans if we didn't teach ourselves that God gave us commands and constantly guard our hearts against our depraved nature.

But really we are a social species and its in our best interest to thrive as a group and, now that there's seven billion of us, the group is becoming more and more inclusive and the world is getting "smaller".

Unless you have an extremely low opinion of animals there's nothing to fear from finding out you're an animal and unless you treat animals abusively and have no respect for nature there is nothing to fear from the idea of removing a literal Biblical interpretation from your worldview and acknowledging that you are the result of evolution (even if guided by God). Nature is not lawless, natural selection has instilled instincts in many organisms that help them survive in groups and for human beings (and many other mammals) that includes a level of empathy and kinship, in fact so strong is our empathy that we feel sympathy and love for other animals, even sometimes plants. There's no reason evolution being a fact would lead to humans being less moral.



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 03:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Titen-Sxull
a reply to: Cuervo

Thank you Cuervo.

It seems so much easier to accept evolution and just believe that there may be some unseen supernatural competent, perhaps one that functions entirely within the bounds of nature but exists beyond it. While such things can never be fully proven by science because of methodological naturalism at least you get the best of both worlds, a deity or supernatural force that intervenes and creates but does so in a way that agrees with current science.

But as I said in my post there's a lot of brainwashing afoot and a lot of paranoid conspiracy thinking where they have to keep the bad vibes of evolutionary theory out or else the "enemy" might gain a foothold in their mind. Someone in a thread on ATS said that Christianity vs. Evolution is a battle of two religions and I know a lot creationists like that idea but whereas the Bible and God were driven home for me on day 1 I can think of so few instances where anyone pushed evolution.

Even in 9th grade biology as a programmed robot for creationism I raised my hand and brought up biogenesis and creation to the teacher who calmly replied that, "the supernatural is not testable so it isn't science, would you want to test God?" Something to that effect. It was a subject handled delicately because teachers know that parents and other Christian sources are training kids to be disbelieving disruptive puppets of their anti-science views.

If people get something good out of their religion fine as long as they aren't hurting anyone - but denying science and teaching kids to completely blindly distrust and misunderstand it is also harmful.


Very interesting and well thought out post TIten. I share your feelings about the anti-science faction and childrens' education.

If you as an adult choose to believe in Creationism and the 6000 year old Earth, that's your choice. But teaching that to a young child as FACT and the only explaination is reprehensible. I personally know a family who was gone that route. I was stunned to hear the child of this family calmly tell me that the dinosaur bones are fake, and were put into the ground as a trick of the Devil.

Creationism and the rest of the anti science ignorance is taking our society back to the primitive ages where anything that wasn't understood was caused by gods or goddesses or spirits, not by a force that can be explained and understood by science.



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 03:58 PM
link   
That's the first I've heard that there was always something.. I agree God..

I see too much order and beauty in creation to leave it to chance.. The universe is filled with information. Where did all this information come from.. It had to exist before the bang or else how would the universe know to form,,same with life.. The information had to be there or else how would that first cell form and function, not to mention create an exact replica of itself ..

We know the boundaries of our creation. The size of the universe to the smallest of particles 10 to the minus 33cm, even time has a unit that cannot be divided 10 to the minus 43 seconds.. This system is a closed system, that screams design to me..

If scientists were allowed to delve into the supernatural for answers without fear of loosing their jobs.. I think a lot of these questions could be answered..

I can't help but think and feel CERN in onto something, they seen, found or created something that has them gung-ho to try and surpass the standard model.. If not, then why take the huge risks involved?



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 05:31 PM
link   
a reply to: HooHaa


If scientists were allowed to delve into the supernatural for answers without fear of loosing their jobs.. I think a lot of these questions could be answered..


this statement tells me you dont actually know what science is, or how it works. but thats not surprising.



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Hi folks,

Creationism as it is stated in the bible - it is a misnomer that everyone believes the same thing of creationism as it is documented in the bible.

I look at things from a different angle, personally:

The chapters on Genesis 1 and 2 both differ in chronological order of the "creation". I feel that the discourse (which is thought to be recorded by Moses), was written for his consumption and that it in no way was trying to indicate the chronological order of the "creation" by God - rather it was written to expose the author of the universe.

Additionally, I am given to understand that the translation of the word day - which to us would indicate that God created creation in 6 days - is not correct - in fact the word is translated from the word "yom" which indicates time period - so the 6 day creation is a misnomer IMHO.

As for the garden of Eden and being kicked out - this is a story of the growth of the homo-sapien - when forests where the original apes/monkeys that evolved into humans lived, dissappeared, the need to find new means of survival ensued - farming. This simultaneously causes the growth of our intellect and a greater emphasis on control - a need to distinguish between good and bad as opposed to living off of what was easily found in forests with fruits. It also coincides with settlement and the development of languages. This is potentially simultaneously responsible for the growth of the human brain and more pain at childbirth.

Farming is also a reason for humans to become enemies with snakes - whereas prior to this snakes are not so much an issue when simply running around or when swinging in trees. Adam and Eve were the first farmers...

None of this, however, interferes with my acceptance of evolution. I see no reason why it should.

I can't say how popular my personal understanding of what the first two chapters of Genesis is - but, I'm not too bothered about it.



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 07:58 PM
link   
a reply to: HooHaa



I see too much order and beauty in creation to leave it to chance..


Well who said anything about chance? Are those the only two options? Either God or total randomness? I don't see why those would be the only two available possibilities.

Also I do sort of have a problem with the idea that the Universe has "too much" order and beauty. First of all beauty is subjective and, to a certain extent, so is ORDER. That is to say that a star imploding might be seemingly chaotic but the laws of physics are still operating the same for that event as they are for a flower growing from a seed (keeping in mind that the laws of physics are DESCRIPTIVE, not actual laws). So an event that seems orderly or chaotic may in fact just be playing out according to the way things happen to be, there doesn't necessarily have to be an intelligent agent involved. Secondly how can there be "too much", a quantity, attached to order, chaos, beauty or anything like that, seems arbitrary.




If scientists were allowed to delve into the supernatural for answers without fear of loosing their jobs..


Without dragging my own thread too far off topic there's a reason science can't do this and it has nothing to do with losing their jobs. See science works within the confines of methodological naturalism, meaning that it can only say things about the natural world and things which manifest within the natural world (ie things for which there is empirical "physical" evidence). So a science experiment to test the supernatural can only, in the end, measure an anomalous effect and call it unknown, to go a step further into the supernatural is to go beyond the bounds of science.

To explain this dilemma let me give an example, let's say you find one day that you can read people's thoughts, you go in for testing and it's demonstrated under controlled conditions that this is in fact the case... Can we say this is supernatural? While you might feel comfortable asserting that it the scientists cannot, they can only say it is unexplained and look for the natural mechanism that makes it work. Even if a natural explanation proves elusive or impossible the supernatural can't be a viable answer for scientists because it isn't falsifiable, testable, EVEN if it's effects are observed and confirmed. Because you could say "well a group of alien wizards gave me these powers, they're actually beyond space time and entirely supernatural" and the scientists could not test your idea, there's no way to link this thing you've claimed with the actual phenomenon directly because there's no naturalistic means to prove or disprove (falsify) such a supernatural explanation.



Now with that spiel out of the way here's a hypocritical reminder that this thread is about BIOLOGICAL evolution and not the origin of the Universe

edit on 27-8-2015 by Titen-Sxull because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-8-2015 by Titen-Sxull because: minor spelling error

edit on 27-8-2015 by Titen-Sxull because: added a video



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 09:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Titen-Sxull


First of all beauty is subjective and, to a certain extent, so is ORDER.


what is normal to the spider is chaos to the fly. it seems we have become mired in our own perspective, a symptom of believing our perspective is paramount, second only to that of the higher powers we have fashioned from concepts born of that same perspective. it just keeps circling right back 'round, doesnt it?



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 10:52 PM
link   
I love genetics and DNA I am the granddaughter of Edward Bishop of Salem witch trials. Related to SS officer Karl bischoff architect of Auschwitz. Related to Benjamin Rush signer of the decoration. Related to General Sherman of the civil war Sherman's march. And the amityville warlock John Ketchum. Ect... Our three witch's of Salem are Bridget Bishop. Edward Bishop Jr his wife Sarah Wilde's Bishop .much more information I have magical eugenics!



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 11:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Titen-Sxull

My personal opinion pick one topic and stick to it. There are to many broad topics to actually respond to everything. I'll go with the first one. Genetics.

Abstract:



...We describe a model of this relationship, which relates the degree of poly-functionality
and the degree of constraint on mutational improvement. We show that: a) the probability of
beneficial mutation is inversely related to the degree that a sequence is already optimized for a given
code; b) the probability of beneficial mutation drastically diminishes as the number of overlapping
codes increases.... The theoretical scarcity of beneficial mutations is compounded by the fact that most of the beneficial mutations that do arise should confer
extremely small increments of improvement in terms of total biological function. This makes such
mutations invisible to natural selection.


Source: www.worldscientific.com...

Conclusion:



Our analysis confirms mathematically what would seem intuitively obvious – multiple overlapping codes within the genome must radically change our expectations regarding the rate of beneficial mutations. As the number of overlapping codes increases, the rate of potential beneficial mutation decreases exponentially, quickly approaching zero. Therefore the new evidence for ubiquitous overlapping codes in higher genomes strongly indicates that beneficial mutations should be extremely rare. This evidence combined with increasing evidence that biological systems are highly optimized, and evidence that only relatively high-impact beneficial mutations can be effectively amplified by natural selection, lead us to conclude that mutations which are both selectable and unambiguously beneficial must be vanishingly rare. This conclusion raises serious questions. How might such vanishingly rare beneficial mutations ever be sufficient for genome building? How might genetic degeneration ever be averted, given the continuous accumulation of low impact deleterious mutations?




top topics



 
16
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join