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.

 

The Primary Axiom or Evolution is just a lie and should be replaced by Intelligent Design

page: 1
57
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+29 more 
posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Evolution is truly the BIG LIE. We're a product of intelligence not any random process. DNA destroys any notion of evolution. I don't think Intelligent Design should be taught next to evolution, I think Intelligent Design should replace the Fantasy that is evolution.

The fact is, there's not a shred of evidence that the genetic code evolved. Instructions and the machinery to carry out these instructions don't evolve by chance.

Respected Cornell geneticist rejects Darwinism in his recent book


.....
Modern Darwinism is built on what I will be calling “The Primary Axiom”. The Primary Axiom is that man is merely the product of random mutations plus natural selection. Within our society’s academia, the Primary Axiom is universally taught, and almost universally accepted. It is the constantly mouthed mantra, repeated endlessly on every college campus. It is very difficult to find any professor on any college campus who would even consider (or should I say dare) to question the Primary Axiom.

Late in my career, I did something which for a Cornell professor would seem unthinkable. I began to question the Primary Axiom. I did this with great fear and trepidation. By doing this, I knew I would be at odds with the most “sacred cow” of modern academia. Among other things, it might even result in my expulsion from the academic world.

Although I had achieved considerable success and notoriety within my own particular specialty (applied genetics), it would mean I would have to be stepping out of the safety of my own little niche. I would have to begin to explore some very big things, including aspects of theoretical genetics which I had always accepted by faith alone. I felt compelled to do all this, but I must confess I fully expected to simply hit a brick wall. To my own amazement, I gradually realized that the seemingly “great and unassailable fortress” which has been built up around the primary axiom is really a house of cards. The Primary Axiom is actually an extremely vulnerable theory, in fact it is essentially indefensible. Its apparent invincibility derives mostly from bluster, smoke, and mirrors. A large part of what keeps the Axiom standing is an almost mystical faith, which the true-believers have in the omnipotence of natural selection. Furthermore, I began to see that this deep-seated faith in natural selection was typically coupled with a degree of ideological commitment which can only be described as religious. I started to realize (again with trepidation) that I might be offending a lot of people’s religion!


www.uncommondescent.com...

There's just a HUGE ASSUMPTION made that we have to describe these things in the language of materialism when materialism can't explain anything. We know what intelligence looks like and we know what it looks like when something is designed by intelligence especially instructions.

It's like a Cheerio factory. There's instruction to make a box of Cheerios but once that box of Cheerios makes it to the environment, then it's subject to randomness. Some people can put sugar on them or syrup. Some eat them with milk or without milk. This evolves randomly in the environment but the code or instructions and the machinary to make a box of Cheerios is a product of design by intelligence.

We know what intelligence looks like and we don't need to identify the source of intelligence. It could be God, advanced civilizations or a quantum computer equipped with machine intelligence.

There just NO WAY randomness can produce codes that carry out instructions and the machinary to carry out these instructions. It gets even more evident when you add in the crazy compression of information in DNA.

How can nature produce regulatory sequences that can be read and copied then checked for errors? Here's a video interview:



Here's another video that again, shows evolution is impossible and it's built on a house of cards that's based on a belief that you have to explain these things "naturally" and for some reason "naturally" doesn't include intelligence.



Again, instructions and the machinary to carry out these instructions don't evolve. The only thing that evolves is the product of these instructions when it reaches the environment. A car is built by instructions, when a car is bought and driven off of the lot, it's then subject to the randomness of the environment. Here's more from Sanford:


He then went on to discuss signal-to-noise ratios. We all know that noise can destroy the transfer of information (like trying to whisper to someone from a distance in a noisy room). He showed that natural selection acting on the phenome (which contains phenotypes) is precluded by “noise” from selecting a sufficient number of nucleotides in the genome. So even if there are beneficial mutations, they are drowned out for the most part by noise! Thus selection has the power to reach only a limited number of nucleotides in the genome.

He also pointed out important developments in information storage in biology, that there are layers of information in DNA. We have looked at DNA as storing information sequentially as we read the nucleotides sequentially, but there may indeed be information in the 3-D structure!


Evolution is impossible and should be replaced by Intelligent design. You can't take things that randomly happen in the environment as creating instructions and machinary to carry out these instructions.


edit on 8-4-2016 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)

edit on Sat Apr 9 2016 by DontTreadOnMe because: trimmed overly long quote IMPORTANT: Using Content From Other Websites on ATS




posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic



Can't watch the video at this time BUT

I'm sure this thread is going to be a fun one
Looking forward to hearing what folks have to say


edit on 8-4-2016 by FamCore because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-4-2016 by intrepid because: Offensive pic removed.


+15 more 
posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 02:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic

The fact is, there's not a shred of evidence that the genetic code evolved. Instructions and the machinery to carry out these instructions don't evolve by chance.



How do you figure we know apes and man are related? There are many, fossils out there showing how animals evolved over time. Evolution happens- you can observe it in your own home with fruit flies if you were so inclined.

DNA is just chemistry- chemistry happens all around you, every day. This is one of those infinite monkeys with typewriter type deals.


+28 more 
posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

So there's no proof of evolution? Everything that is was created as it is now?

Could you please explain why chickens have DNA for teeth, even though they don't have teeth at this current time?

Or why humans have DNA for tails and have tail bones?

Can you explain why there are different layers of archeology which find no humans on the same layer as dinosaurs? Or why there are no human remains inside dinosaurs?

ETA: Using machines or code as an analogy is flawed in one simple way. Machinery doesn't reproduce.
edit on 842016 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic


Well, I'd consider it "design". The intelligence factor seems to be in question.....


+12 more 
posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Well if we are made by an "intelligent designer" then that designer needs to go back to engineering school because we are very poorly made. Give me the power to create organisms and I could do a vastly better job.

But no worries. Science is forever moving forward and soon will have the ability to fix all the intelligent designer's mistakes.


+2 more 
posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Oh dearie me. John Sanford? The Young Earth Creationist? No.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Foundryman
Well if we are made by an "intelligent designer" then that designer needs to go back to engineering school because we are very poorly made. Give me the power to create organisms and I could do a vastly better job.

But no worries. Science is forever moving forward and soon will have the ability to fix all the intelligent designer's mistakes.


I think this is a pretty close-minded perspective. If it were intelligent design, where did they go wrong? Biologically speaking the Human body is a miracle all in itself.

You can't blame creation for the problems of society we see today. From a purely biological standpoint, how exactly do you think you could improve on the various species of life we see today?

Design us so we don't have an appendix? Sorry, but other than a few nifty little improvements I highly doubt you could make "better" organisms



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic
This whole theory falls apart when faced with one simple fact: intelligent life had to start somewhere.

So, if we were created by aliens, who created them? And if another race created OUR creators, who created THEM?

Somewhere along the line, there had to be a beginning.


+1 more 
posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Umm... No.

Keep ID in Sunday school where is belongs.



+1 more 
posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 02:51 PM
link   
Why do evolution and intelligent design have to be mutually exclusive? The universe is pretty intelligent seeing as how it allows for human intelligence to exist and we are only an infinitesimally small part of it. Why can't the universe have parameters in place to allow for intelligent life to appear? I don't see why it's such a hard concept to grasp, the universe being an intelligent being that allows itself to reside within individual bodies, those bodies being all forms of life, and evolution is the way in which the universe learns and adapts to itself.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 02:51 PM
link   
Here's even more evidence:

Researchers find surprising similarities between genetic and computer codes


Computational biologist Sergei Maslov of Brookhaven National Laboratory worked with graduate student Tin Yau Pang from Stony Brook University to compare the frequency with which components "survive" in two complex systems: bacterial genomes and operating systems on Linux computers. Their work is published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Maslov and Pang set out to determine not only why some specialized genes or computer programs are very common while others are fairly rare, but to see how many components in any system are so important that they can't be eliminated. "If a bacteria genome doesn't have a particular gene, it will be dead on arrival," Maslov said. "How many of those genes are there? The same goes for large software systems. They have multiple components that work together and the systems require just the right components working together to thrive.'"

Using data from the massive sequencing of bacterial genomes, now a part of the DOE Systems Biology Knowledgebase (KBase), Maslov and Pang examined the frequency of usage of crucial bits of genetic code in the metabolic processes of 500 bacterial species and found a surprising similarity with the frequency of installation of 200,000 Linux packages on more than 2 million individual computers. Linux is an open source software collaboration that allows designers to modify source code to create programs for public use.


phys.org...

This is just like irreducible complexity. There's multiple components that work together and these components are preserved by the system. SIMPLY FASCINATING!


It may seem logical, but the surprising part of this finding is how universal it is. "It is almost expected that the frequency of usage of any component is correlated with how many other components depend on it," said Maslov. "But we found that we can determine the number of crucial components – those without which other components couldn't function – by a simple calculation that holds true both in biological systems and computer systems."

For both the bacteria and the computing systems, take the square root of the interdependent components and you can find the number of key components that are so important that not a single other piece can get by without them.

Maslov's finding applies equally to these complex networks because they are both examples of open access systems with components that are independently installed. "Bacteria are the ultimate BitTorrents of biology," he said, referring to a popular file-sharing protocol. "They have this enormous common pool of genes that they are freely sharing with each other. Bacterial systems can easily add or remove genes from their genomes through what's called horizontal gene transfer, a kind of file sharing between bacteria," Maslov said.


Again, there's NO WAY random mutations and natural selection can produce a code like this with compression of information that's just astounding. This is intelligence and the Primary Axiom from the RELIGIOUS ADHERENTS of evolution makes ZERO SENSE.


+5 more 
posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Computer code is used BY US to understand and explain things.

Correlation=/=Causation



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

'Religious'????
You don't really understand evolution, do you? Or the amount of time involved? Don't worry about it, neither does Sanford, as he's a YEC.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 02:58 PM
link   
I get really annoyed that the beings who designed us made damn sure we would have so many things to go wrong we would curse them with the darkest expletives man can think of, from hair to toe nails, and everything in between, viruses, germs, fungus, wear and tear, with bodies so complicated, it really makes we wonder, what was the damn point?



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 02:59 PM
link   
As the scientist himself said, he realised that he had spent so much of his life arguing about things that doesn't matter and in the long run, they don't.

Whether it's evolution or creation, evidence exists for both and yet still both un-proven.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 03:01 PM
link   
Thats just "You guys..." But I think the idea of evolution is very intelligent in it's design..

The main character, John Stanford, relayed to Me in the very first sentence and I quote "In retrospect, I John Stanford)realize I have wasted so much of my life arguing about things that don't really matter. It is my sincere
hope that this book can actually address something that really does..

So BUY the book...

namaste


+5 more 
posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 03:02 PM
link   
The interesting thing about paleontology is that for a couple hundred years all we had were the bones. And at first we only had a few of them and data was sparse, but we put together a picture of human evolution that showed clear advances over time. There never was a "missing link." That was just your MSM in action. And as we dug more and found more that picture of human evolution began to fill in. The gaps were fewer and we also found that it was a lot more complicated than we first figured. We've got it pretty well down to Homo erectus. After that it gets sparse again, but the overall picture is clear. Lucy, or one of her cousins, is our ancestor.

Then along DNA, a COMPLETELY different science, and guess what? DNA says, "You were right!" DNA complements paleontology; it does not contradict it in the least. Indeed, we can now find neanderthal and Denisovan genes in ourselves. We are part Neanderthal, which was an offshoot, not a predecessor species. And as our techniques get better and more refined, we'll find even more similarities.

So, yes, we did evolve from an ape. We didn't evolve from modern apes, of course. That should go without saying in any educated group, but so many of us do not make the distinction. Apes are as evolved as we are. They evolved in parallel to us from the same distant ancestor. And somewhat over 99% of our genes are the same. The DNA proves it.

There's no reason any of this has to contradict Intelligent Design. You can easily have both with no contradictions. You can say and justify that "Yes, Evolution is true and yes, Intelligent Design is true." What you CANNOT do is claim the world was made in 4004 BC and God placed humans on the Earth fully formed. That has no credibility AT ALL and should be relegated to children's myths along with Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny.

And if you profess such nonsense, you belong to the Ignorant Class. NOBODY needs to take you seriously.
edit on 4/8/2016 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Foundryman


Well if we are made by an "intelligent designer" then that designer needs to go back to engineering school because we are very poorly made.


I want the knees redesigned. Oh, and a faster self-replicating liver.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 03:05 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Actually, that's not supporting evidence for your premise.

Please accept the fact that intelligent design is nothing more than a belief system with no scientific basis.



new topics

top topics



 
57
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join