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.

 

Man didn't evolve from fish or monkeys

page: 51
13
<< 48  49  50    52  53  54 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Tzar is right. This will be my last post in this thread:

Until you address the actual evidence, you have diddly poo. I won't respond to any more fallacious attacks. If you decide to one day look at the evidence and show that the science is wrong, then I'll give you another chance, but as it stands now you are just a walking talking fallacy machine.
edit on 4 6 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 12:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: lSkrewloosel
a reply to: Cypress




Its not opinionated and speculation when there is evidence to make an objective conclusion.




its opinionated - thats why there are still debates -if it was a flawless argument i assume there is nothing to debate.

we don't debate whether we need air to survive- because its fact.



I don't think anyone is saying evolution is "flawless" we are learning new things about the nature daily. The reason there are still debates is because of the contrived, opinionated, misrepresentations of
evolution, creationist have made up in their head.
In effect they are arguing against their own flawed arguments.



You can't debate a science that is made up by clowns who are trying to scare you into a religion.
edit on fWednesday160041f004301 by flyingfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 01:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cypress

The problem is there is no debate regarding whether evolution occurs or not. We know it happens.


Not necessarily. We know adaptation happens. How adaptation mechanisms could've evolved in the first place is beyond anyone, and seems logically impossible - because this implies that traits evolved that weren't even used yet! Evolution cannot work like this, yet this is what we see - pocketed adaptation mechanisms that can adjust to hitherto unseen conditions.



We know we share a close common anscestor with primates. Thats a fact and is proven with evidence.


Similar genetic code does not prove common ancestry. Similar genetic coding (key word is code - code is created by intelligent creators, not randomness) would be intuitive for phenotypically similar organisms in a model of intelligent design. The evidence of genetic similarities "proves" neither argument.



The counter argument representing creation does not equal a debate. It has zero evidence to support the position; therefore, there is no debate...


So you're saying you have no idea how intelligent design was proposed to have occurred? How/why are you even arguing against it then? Here's some help:

Plato's Timaeus
Corpus Hermeticum
John's Logos



posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 01:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton
Not necessarily. We know adaptation happens. How adaptation mechanisms could've evolved in the first place is beyond anyone, and seems logically impossible - because this implies that traits evolved that weren't even used yet! Evolution cannot work like this, yet this is what we see - pocketed adaptation mechanisms that can adjust to hitherto unseen conditions.


No it isn't. What actually happens is that a great many adaptations arise and only the best ones end up winning out. As a result you only hear about the success stories, but don't hear about the mutations that weren't beneficial or inhibited the species' ability to survive.


Similar genetic code does not prove common ancestry. Similar genetic coding (key word is code - code is created by intelligent creators, not randomness) would be intuitive for phenotypically similar organisms in a model of intelligent design. The evidence of genetic similarities "proves" neither argument.


DNA code is not the same thing as computer code, thus being that just because the word used to describe it is the same (code) the origins of the two things aren't necessarily the same. And why doesn't similar genetic code no prove common ancestry? Because you said so?


So you're saying you have no idea how intelligent design was proposed to have occurred? How/why are you even arguing against it then? Here's some help:

Plato's Timaeus
Corpus Hermeticum
John's Logos


We all know how ID was supposed to have occurred. We've all read the Bible. Though the series of events involved with said ID could be wildly different depending on how literally the reader takes the events in the Bible. This makes the account inconsistent and unreliable. But on top of that, there really is no evidence of any of it being true.



posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Your post perfectly outlines what I'm talking about.
Adaptation is a small part of evolution, it's not a mechanism, an individual can survive by adapting, passing on It's genes. There are mechanism that may or may not help it to survive, these are called mutations and they are random. If the mutation helps, it will pass on to help out the next generation, if not it will be naturaly selected out of the population.



posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

No it isn't. What actually happens is that a great many adaptations arise and only the best ones end up winning out.


For example, the first humanoids to venture into high elevations already had adaptation mechanisms (coding and proper signaling for 2,3-BPG to be expressed to attenuate high elevation stresses) that allowed them to survive the varying degrees of oxygen at higher altitudes. The long suffering they would've had to go through without this adaptive mechanism pre-assembled, wouldve amounted to an exorbitant amount of time waiting for randomness to generate a relevant code, and also a relevant code that was wired properly and could turn on and off. Not to mention they'd still have to be able to adapt to lower altitude climates. Do you see the impossibility of such a scenario?




DNA code is not the same thing as computer code


Of course not, but it is still intelligible code. Do you think facebook could've coded itself from randomness? Its a rediculous notion.


And why doesn't similar genetic code no prove common ancestry? Because you said so?


No, because correlation does not mean causation. I know you know this.



We all know how ID was supposed to have occurred. We've all read the Bible.


Speak for yourself, because many have not, especially in their recent years. I would bet 95% of people do not even know what John's Logos is.



Though the series of events involved with said ID could be wildly different depending on how literally the reader takes the events in the Bible. This makes the account inconsistent and unreliable. But on top of that, there really is no evidence of any of it being true.


I see more similarities than inconsistencies. The general gist is that a conscious Being, the Father, that always was existent, manifested matter (from "mater" - the Mother) in an intelligible fashion. We are the children.
edit on 6-4-2016 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 01:46 PM
link   


“For those scientists who take it seriously, Darwinian evolution has functioned more as a philosophical belief system than as a testable scientific hypothesis. This quasi-religious function of the theory is, I think, what lies behind many of the extreme statements that you have doubtless encountered from some scientists opposing any critical analysis of neo-Darwinism in the classroom. It is also why many scientists make public statements about the theory that they would not defend privately to other scientists like me.”

― Professor James A. Shapiro, bacteriologist


from wiki on his page:


...American biologist, an expert in bacterial genetics and a professor in the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at the University of Chicago.
...
Research

While working with Beckwith at Harvard, Shapiro was part of the first team to isolate a single gene from an organism.[6][11][12] The gene they isolated was lacZ,...
...
Awards and honors

...He won the Darwin Prize Visiting Professorship of the University of Edinburgh in 1993.[2] In 1994, he was elected as a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science for "innovative and creative interpretations of bacterial genetics and growth, ...In 2014 he was chosen to give the 3rd annual "Nobel Prize Laureate - Robert G. Edwards" lecture


Who says evolutionary philosophers and philosophical naturalists can't be honest once in a blue moon when they feel confident enough that nobody cares anymore? They'll continue their charade anyway: 'It's science, it's a fact, ID isn't science', repeat the mantra after me everybody. On 2nd thought, don't do that, things are bad enough as they are right now. Pardon the sarcasm.
edit on 6-4-2016 by whereislogic because: addition



posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton
For example, the first humanoids to venture into high elevations already had adaptation mechanisms (coding and proper signaling for 2,3-BPG to be expressed to attenuate high elevation stresses) that allowed them to survive the varying degrees of oxygen at higher altitudes. The long suffering they would've had to go through without this adaptive mechanism pre-assembled, wouldve amounted to an exorbitant amount of time waiting for randomness to generate a relevant code, and also a relevant code that was wired properly and could turn on and off. Not to mention they'd still have to be able to adapt to lower altitude climates. Do you see the impossibility of such a scenario?


High altitude isn't an immediate death threat to humans though. It's possible to live at those altitudes and have bodily problems at the same time. Problems which would go away as adaptations arose in the populace over generations that make such living easier. Plus it is also conceivable that the adaptation arose and was used for something else previously then was repurposed to be used for that.


Of course not, but it is still intelligible code. Do you think facebook could've coded itself from randomness? Its a rediculous notion.


Facebook is written by humans using computer code. DNA has developed over billions of years by taking its previous iteration and improving on it. There IS a process in computer coding that simulates such a thing and it is called recursion. However, recursion is implemented in computer programs to implement a looping algorithm without having human interaction to help build it. In other words, it creates complex structures independently and without an intelligent designer.


No, because correlation does not mean causation. I know you know this.


So explain this discovered correlation without using causation so that it makes sense logically and naturally. What possible set of circumstances could occur where humans and apes share 99% genetic material and NOT have a common ancestor?


Speak for yourself, because many have not, especially in their recent years. I would bet 95% of people do not even know what John's Logos is.


Well, seeing how many Christians attempt to debate evolution without knowing how that works, I think you don't have room to talk.


I see more similarities than inconsistencies. The general gist is that a conscious Being, the Father, that always was existent, manifested matter (from "mater" - the Mother) in an intelligible fashion. We are the children.


More happened in the creation of the universe than JUST those 3 paragraphs. Even in the Bible, which devotes something like a page to the creation of the universe.
edit on 6-4-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 02:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

High altitude isn't an immediate death threat to humans though. It's possible to live at those altitudes and have bodily problems at the same time. Problems which would go away as adaptations arose in the populace over generations that make such living easier. Plus it is also conceivable that the adaptation arose and was used for something else previously then was repurposed to be used for that.


Here's the thing though - this 2,3-BPG is a binary option: you either have it or you don't. There's no gradual evolution of this gene, its either all or none. Even if randomness were to, against all odds, generate this relevant gene, what are the odds that the organism even is venturing into high altitudes?



Facebook is written by humans using computer code. DNA has developed over billions of years by taking its previous iteration and improving on it.


Or, DNA was created to code for living creatures.



There IS a process in computer coding that simulates such a thing and it is called recursion. However, recursion is implemented in computer programs to implement a looping algorithm without having human interaction to help build it. In other words, it creates complex structures independently and without an intelligent designer.


Do algorithms generate randomly or are they also coded by something intelligent?




So explain this discovered correlation without using causation so that it makes sense logically and naturally. What possible set of circumstances could occur where humans and apes share 99% genetic material and NOT have a common ancestor?


They were both created from an intelligent source, which did not need billions of years of randomness to generate its intelligible creatures. Because of their phenotypic similarities, their genetic code would intuitively be similar. obviously, humans and monkeys will share more coding sequences than say, a human and a seahorse.



Well, seeing how many Christians attempt to debate evolution without knowing how that works, I think you don't have room to talk.


Both sides obviously suffer, I was just pointing out that such ignorance is a two way street... You often see evolutionists saying "You don't know evolution", when they have no idea about the proposed mechanisms for intelligent design.



More happened in the creation of the universe than JUST those 3 paragraphs. Even in the Bible, which devotes something like a page to the creation of the universe.


The matrix of your dream world would be fairly easy to explain. Sure you over-complicate things and go into great depths about neuronal firing, acetylcholine and the pineal body... but quite simply, your mind is manifesting your reality in your dreams. Similarly, God created everything through speaking it into existence. Quantum physics is constantly demonstrating that consciousness is the foundation of our universe, you can't get behind it.
edit on 6-4-2016 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 02:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton
Here's the thing though - this 2,3-BPG is a binary option: you either have it or you don't. There's no gradual evolution of this gene, its either all or none. Even if randomness were to, against all odds, generate this relevant gene, what are the odds that the organism even is venturing into high altitudes?


Odds of the gene being used are irrelevant. The gene just mutates and the organism may or may not take use of it. If both of those things line up then the gene stays. That's how it works. Clearly said gene worked out for those humans.

Your problem is that you are looking at a sole success story and trying to calculate the odds of THAT gene occurring like it was intended to occur, but again genes arise like a shotgun blast. Only a few end up being used. Most are benign with some even being harmful. So yes, the odds of 2,3-BPG being there is low, but only if viewed through a vacuum.


So you see my point? Perhaps DNA was coded by an intelligent conscious designer.


No. I don't see your point, because again they aren't the same thing despite the same word being used. I JUST said this. This is the same as the scientifically ignorant saying "it's only a theory" as a means to dismiss a scientific theory.


Do algorithms generate randomly or are they also coded by something intelligent?


Computer algorithms are generated by humans, but that doesn't mean that ALL algorithms are generated by humans or even intelligence. Correlation doesn't equal causation remember?


They were both created from an intelligent source, which did not need billions of years of randomness to generate its intelligible creatures. Because of their phenotypic similarities, their genetic code would intuitively be similar. obviously, humans and monkeys will share more coding sequences than say, a human and a seahorse.


That doesn't explain why the two species have to be so similar to the point that we appear to be related in the past. It's just a generic explanation of how you think things happened without addressing said correlation that I specifically asked you to address.


Both sides obviously suffer, I was just pointing out that such ignorance is a two way street... You often see evolutionists saying "You don't know evolution", when they have no idea about the proposed mechanisms for intelligent design.


The problem between not knowing what evolution is and says and what ID is and says is that evolution has a largely consistent answers to the questions of what is it and how it works. ID varies by the person and how they are currently choosing to interpret the bible. Hell, SOME ID proponents don't even believe in the bible. ID is just a mishmash of ideas where some intelligent force, possibly the god of the bible, supposedly created everything. All the other details are up to whoever is currently pitching the idea.


The matrix of your dream world would be fairly easy to explain. Sure you over-complicate things and go into great depths about neuronal firing, acetylcholine and the pineal body... but quite simply, your mind is manifesting your reality in your dreams. Similarly, God created everything through speaking it into existence. Quantum physics is constantly demonstrating that consciousness is the foundation of our universe, you can't get behind it.


Saying that Quantum Physics demonstrates consciousness is a GROSS over simplification of what Quantum Physics shows.



posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 02:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton
Do you see the impossibility of such a scenario?


Those who keep their eyes shut on purpose cannot see anything but the inside of their eyelids.

Back to Krazyshot:

DNA code is not the same thing as computer code

Your answer:

Of course not, but it is still intelligible code.

I didn't even notice you mentioning the term "computer code", do you think it's possible that Krazyshot brought up the term so he could present his straw man and mention that it's not exactly the same + the rest of his argument? Or is it more likely he wanted to hear you say a particular straw man so badly (or he's constantly thinking about his set of straw men and trying to fit your words into them) that he actually perceived what you said as such (and sneaking in the agnostic philosophy of vagueness where he pretends to not know that all words are meant for the purpose of describing things, including realities, and that somehow reminding you that the word "code" is used to describe it, is somehow relevant to mention regarding whether or not it IS a code, a fact/reality/truth/certainty. Allthough conveniently not spelling that out and hoping people will do that for themselves after him mentioning it)? I dunno, just wondering out loud here.

Krazyshot:

And why doesn't similar genetic code no prove common ancestry? Because you said so?

It seems here that there's an implied ad hominem going on here in the questions from Krazyshot, as if to say that you have no proper justification to point it out other than your word for it. Possibly indeed feigning ignorance regarding this justification, in this case being the modes of logic every human baby is born with and allows them to learn truths/facts as they grow up. But perhaps there's someone else who needs a little nudge in the right direction of thinking. Just try to think of 2 codes or programs using the same programming language having been programmed by 2 different programmers. What caused the 2 codes to come into existence? Does the conclusion 'nature did it' make sense? Common ancestry? Plenty of similarities when the same programming language is used.
edit on 6-4-2016 by whereislogic because: addition



posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 02:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t


Saying that Quantum Physics demonstrates consciousness is a GROSS over simplification of what Quantum Physics shows.


So, you are seeking to over-complicate things? Because humankind doesn't have time for that. Nor do I.

"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates cnsciousness" -Max Planck

"It was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness" -Eugene Wagner

"A fundamental conclusion of the new physics also acknowledges that the observer creates the reality. As observers, we are personally involved with the creation of our own reality. Physicists are being forced to admit that the universe is a "mental" construction." -R.C. Henry


Get over it. Material reductionist thinking is obsolete; With it goes all theories that suggest matter as the progenitor of consciousness.
edit on 6-4-2016 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Over-complicate things? Fun fact: Reality is complicated. VERY complicated. Far more complicated than we have even begun to scratch. This includes Quantum Mechanics as well. The fact that you are trying to distill its ideas into something LESS complicated just shows you are on the wrong path to the truth.



posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 03:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: cooperton

Over-complicate things? Fun fact: Reality is complicated. VERY complicated. Far more complicated than we have even begun to scratch. This includes Quantum Mechanics as well. The fact that you are trying to distill its ideas into something LESS complicated just shows you are on the wrong path to the truth.


Thanks for this quote. I hope it's okay I can borrow this, with a citation to you, the next time someone tries to simplify evolution to mutations and selection.



posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton




Here's the thing though - this 2,3-BPG is a binary option: you either have it or you don't. There's no gradual evolution of this gene, its either all or none. Even if randomness were to, against all odds, generate this relevant gene, what are the odds that the organism even is venturing into high altitudes?


First, 2,3-BPG is NOT a gene. The IUPAC chemical name is 2,3-Bisphosphoglyceric acid. Molecular formula: C3H8O10P2

The acid form is synthesized in the bone marrow by the enzyme Bisphosphoglycerate mutase (BPGM). It binds to hemoglobin subunits allosterically to DECREASE the affinity of the subunits to oxygen. The result is more oxygen RELEASED from hemoglobin into the blood stream.

Every mammal synthesizes the compound. It is NOT "either you have it or you don't". The concentration and regulation is controlled by the synthase, not the compound itself i.e it is not a feedback loop.

Get a biochemistry book.



posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 04:32 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton




Do algorithms generate randomly or are they also coded by something intelligent?


Self organized and self assembled molecular systems have been observed for a long time. An algorithm is simply a set of rules. The rules can be structured or random. Does someone have to write them? Not necessarily. To program a computer, someone must write the code. But self organizing biological systems don't need anyone to program them. Put the components of DNA in solution, it will self organize into a structure (depends on temperature, pressure, pH, etc).
Micromolecules form macromolecules to achieve the lowest energy state - the lowest Gibbs free energy state.

Structure-function: it's how biological systems work.

Design and self-assembly of two-dimensional DNA crystals

Erik Winfree1, Furong Liu2, Lisa A. Wenzler2 & Nadrian C. Seeman2



Molecular self-assembly presents a 'bottom-up' approach to the fabrication of objects specified with nanometre precision. DNA molecular structures and intermolecular interactions are particularly amenable to the design and synthesis of complex molecular objects. We report the design and observation of two-dimensional crystalline forms of DNA that self-assemble from synthetic DNA double-crossover molecules. Intermolecular interactions between the structural units are programmed by the design of 'sticky ends' that associate according to Watson–Crick complementarity, enabling us to create specific periodic patterns on the nanometre scale. The patterned crystals have been visualized by atomic force microscopy.

www.nature.com...



posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 05:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

First, 2,3-BPG is NOT a gene. The IUPAC chemical name is 2,3-Bisphosphoglyceric acid. Molecular formula: C3H8O10P2


k? I never said 2,3-BPG was the gene. I said the evolution of the gene that codes for it wouldn't have been a gradual occurrence, because an incomplete coding for 2,3-BPG would be useless.



The acid form is synthesized in the bone marrow by the enzyme Bisphosphoglycerate mutase (BPGM). It binds to hemoglobin subunits allosterically to DECREASE the affinity of the subunits to oxygen. The result is more oxygen RELEASED from hemoglobin into the blood stream.


Not sure your purpose for this, but thanks for doing that googling? As I said, it helps organisms assimilate to varying altitudes (oxygen).



Every mammal synthesizes the compound. It is NOT "either you have it or you don't". The concentration and regulation is controlled by the synthase, not the compound itself i.e it is not a feedback loop.


Yes it is a feedback loop, otherwise the gene wouldn't have any sort of selective activation. You seem to take this for granted. Everything is so perfectly aligned in the equilibrium of organisms - this could not have been the product of random chance mutations; it was perfect to begin with.



Get a biochemistry book.


go outside.


originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: cooperton

Over-complicate things? Fun fact: Reality is complicated. VERY complicated. Far more complicated than we have even begun to scratch. This includes Quantum Mechanics as well. The fact that you are trying to distill its ideas into something LESS complicated just shows you are on the wrong path to the truth.


E = mc^2 is beauty.

“Any darn fool can make something complex; it takes a genius to make something simple.”



posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 06:51 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton




Here's the thing though - this 2,3-BPG is a binary option: you either have it or you don't. There's no gradual evolution of this gene, its either all or none.Even if randomness were to, against all odds, generate this relevant gene, what are the odds that the organism even is venturing into high altitudes?


Prove your point or mine? All or nothing? Research paper, reference, citation?



posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 07:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Didn't see any evidence offered

I saw nothing valid

I was just wondering how you believers of the star water and dust theory, life from nothing, magic could justify your beliefs

I guess dealing with that issue was so embarrassing you atheist had to turn it into another evolution thread

That is always the best course of action.

If you are shown to be stupid in your beliefs change the topic, if still feeling silly
Pack up and run

Star dirt and starwater, life, conscience feeling all from nothing

I can see who the clowns are

Yes Barcs, it is better you go

We can concentrate on what this thread was supposed to be about not what you want to change it into

The belief of people that think their great ancestors were star dirt and star water, nothing else



posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 09:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

Prove your point or mine? All or nothing? Research paper, reference, citation?


Weren't you the one touting biochemical knowledge? You know that an alteration in the genomic sequence for an enzyme would significantly alter its conformation and thus function - this requires no citation to reinforce, its common knowledge for biochemists.

Bisphosphoglycerate mutase is the enzyme coded for by the gene that is ultimately responsible for 2,3-BPG production. One alteration in the sequence and that enzyme no longer functions like bisphosphoglycerate mutase or perhaps no longer is expressed in erythrocytes; so it is all or nothing. This random mutation would've had to hit a very unprobable bullseye, not to mention the possibility that any chance mutation could upset the rest of the body's equilibirum. Also, the template gene that is hypothetically getting mutated, is now, well, mutated, and also not working the same. Then we go back to the initial unlikelihood - what are the odds that high altitudes are even relevant to this mutant organism? I could go on and on...


originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

Self organized and self assembled molecular systems have been observed for a long time. An algorithm is simply a set of rules. The rules can be structured or random. Does someone have to write them? Not necessarily. To program a computer, someone must write the code. But self organizing biological systems don't need anyone to program them. Put the components of DNA in solution, it will self organize into a structure (depends on temperature, pressure, pH, etc).
Micromolecules form macromolecules to achieve the lowest energy state - the lowest Gibbs free energy state.

Structure-function: it's how biological systems work.



Yes, this is not random, it is mathematically predictable. Do you realize this is a sign of intelligence? Plato called this the logos, which means Reason. Mathematics, he thought, were proof of universal truth. We take it for granted, and don't realize the implications of having mathematically predictable systems - but it strongly insists, and in my opinion guarantees, that there is an authoritative Mathematician as the Creator.




top topics



 
13
<< 48  49  50    52  53  54 >>

log in

join