It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 03:15 PM
DNA is actually the largest evidence to Evolution from the point of Darwin's theory itself. His theory had been completed in 1859.

DNA was discovered in 1869, however it wasn't until 1961 transcription was hypothesized, and discovered in 1970.

Transcrition and information tells us about the micro applications of Evolution and are as relevant as the macro ones today. Your body is actively splitting it's own cells constantly, and the DNA and RNA information reproduces. Similar to when we produce, this is not a perfect process and errors in the copying sequences are made. This is what causes Cancer, and is also hypothetically responsible for any 'improvements' you may pick up in your genetic code along the way, before attempting a macro reproduction. In short, it's active evolution no matter how you look at it, and the micro applications can be spread down to your kids.
edit on 8-4-2016 by imjack because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 03:21 PM
How does Transcription and Translation evolve?

Transcription is a product of intelligence. I can transcribe an article to another medium and check that medium for errors. Again, this is a product of intelligence not of random mutations and natural selection.

This makes no sense. I can write a program that transcribes information and then checks for errors based on a sequencial order of letters but to say this is a product of evolution is just ABSURD!

posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 03:25 PM
a reply to: neoholographic

Again, they are not biological and do not reproduce. Therefore it is a flawed analogy.

posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 03:26 PM
Look at the TATA box:

A TATA box is a DNA sequence that indicates where a genetic sequence can be read and decoded. It is a type of promoter sequence, which specifies to other molecules where transcription begins. Transcription is a process that produces an RNA molecule from a DNA sequence. The TATA box is named for its conserved DNA sequence, which is most commonly TATAAA. Many eukaryotic genes have a conserved TATA box located 25-35 base pairs before the transcription start site of a gene. The TATA box is able to define the direction of transcription and also indicates the DNA strand to be read. Proteins called transcription factors can bind to the TATA box and recruit an enzyme called RNA polymerase, which synthesizes RNA from DNA.

The promoter sequence doesn't evolve. How can a sequence of letters evolve that instructs other molecules where transcription begins? It's really a silly notion. Intelligent Design puts letters, numbers and symbols into a sequence that instructs not the convoluted theory of evolution that's was put together by Darwin before we knew about the instructions.

posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 03:28 PM
a reply to: neoholographic

Can you please address my first post on page 1?

Or are out purposely ignoring comments?

posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 03:31 PM
a reply to: neoholographic

Type 'transcription DNA' into Google.

I agree it's poor word choice by the scientists. It's still very true.

Your body also actively fights against it, and it's not always certain if you may keep an 'advantage' you pick up.
edit on 8-4-2016 by imjack because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 03:33 PM
a reply to: TerryDon79

I did, you haven't responded to any information presented because you can't. I already stipulated that on a phenotype level, randomness can occur. Nothing you asked addresses anything I have posted that occurs in the genome.

There's no evidence of randomness on the level of gene expression, transcription, translation or putting DNA letters in sequencial order to carry out these instructions.

Again, you're talking about things that occur after the genes reach the environment which makes no sense as it pertains to this debate unless you can show that this randomness can produce translation and transcription which just sounds ABSURD.

posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 03:35 PM
a reply to: neoholographic

You haven't addressed a single thing I said in my first post.

posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 03:36 PM
The genes that regulate expression didn't evolve. These genes didn't try to find their way. They were encoded for a specific purpose and function. To regulate gene expression. Also, these genes were encoded for a specific purpose and function.

Let's look at the operon in E.Coli that expresses a protein that breaks down lactose. The operon has a promoter region of DNA, an operator and the DNA sequence that expresses the protein. There's a repressor that turns on and off the expression of the gene based on the presence of lactose. When lactose isn't present, the repressor attaches itself to the operator and the protein that breaks down lactose isn't produced. When you drink some milk, lactose is present and it attaches itself to the repressor and gene expression is turned on. Now the RNA Polymerase can attach itself to the Promoter region of DNA and express the genes that produce the proteins to breakdown lactose.

This is the mechanics of the genetic program. It didn't evolve. It didn't try to find it's way. These repressors are encoded for a specific purpose and function and that is to regulate gene expression and these genes have a specific purpose and function like the genes that breakdown lactose or the genes that regulate the design of the eye or of teeth.

Here's some questions:

How did the mechanics of the lac operon evolve?

Why does the repressor attach itself to the operator and how did the mechanics evolve?

Why does the repressor attach to the operator when lactose isn't present and how did the mechanics evolve?

Why do you have promoter, operator then genes and how did this sequence evolve?

What stops the RNA Polymerase when the repressor is attached to the operator? Why can't it express the lac genes and how did this mechanism evolve?

How did Repressors, Enhancers and Activators evolve and how did the mechanics evolve for there role in gene regulation?

Which evolved first the enhancers, activators, promoter region or DNA coding sequence and how did the mechanics evolve?

How did the bending protein evolve and how did the mechanics evolve where the bending protein folds the DNA strand to the spot near the promoter which activates gene expression?

Why does the activators attach themselves to the enhancers and how did the mechanics evolve?

Which evolved first gene regulation or gene expression? How did these things evolve and how did the mechanics evolve?

Gene regulation and expression needs proteins in order to regulate the expression of genes. Which evolved first, how did it evolve and how did the mechanics evolve? Did the expression come before the regulation or did they both just magically appear as a system that works beautifully together?

posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 03:39 PM
With ID how do you explain geopatric speciation (closely related, but yet different species on land masses that are now disjoint, or on different sides of a geological barrier, but were connected a few million years ago), endogenous retroviruses (virus embedded in DNA, that can only be due to having a common ancestry), parasites that are species-specific, and the list goes on and on.... Unique mammals in Australia, yet are closely related to those in South America, unique mammals in Madagascar, yet are closely related to those in Africa, things that onøy make sense if you take continental drift into account, and look at common ancestry. There are a lot more examples

posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 03:42 PM
You're turning into a keyboard warrior a little bit. Going to keep it short.

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: TerryDon79
There's no evidence of randomness on the level of gene transcription.

No. Cancer alone is evidence. Otherwise your cells would be perfect copies. You'd never get cancer, you'd also never Evolve. There is randomness, and evidence. Cell damage or "stress" causes this, and is in exact construct with macro evolution, you don't just Evolve if you're already the "fittest". You must be stressed.

posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 04:11 PM
a reply to: neoholographic

Why was I born without upper wisdom teeth? Why are others born without them as well?

Research that.
edit on 4 8 2016 by SgtHamsandwich because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 04:19 PM
He's a plant geneticist. Enough said.

And evolution doesn't deal with how we originated or where we are going.

This John Sandford is trying to make an impact in a field he has no place in.

posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 04:23 PM


originally posted by: nightbringr
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.

Then apply the same logic to the big bangers. Where did condensed mass come from? The dimension points that space consists of come from? The process, itself, of the 'bang' come from?

Simply put not the 'beginning' there either.....

Afterthought, Perhaps 'beginning' is 'created', intelligence created, time,... perhaps create, itself is all 'god' is...
edit on 8-4-2016 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 04:39 PM
Why throw the baby out with the bath water? Both concepts, evolution vs ID, have valid concepts when you get down to the essense of both theories, as they both have negatives.

My point, we have no definite clue. Might as well as give in and accept that we are the result of some ancient aliens experiment, where they are still trying to discover their own multi millennial question of 'how did we become intelligent?'

Personally, it all seems like a circular loop. We must keep looking forward in both areas and more. It is ingrained in our DNA to question so keep the queries going! Stalemate is not a productive option.

posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 04:51 PM

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
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.

That's the way I view it, as well. Why can't Christians entertain the idea that their gods created life, in general, and then that life evolved?

Instead, they paint themselves into a corner, knowing that one day their religion will seriously be hurt by ever growing mounds of evidence against their young Earth, non-evolution creation myth? Why don't they just save face now and work it into their religion?

posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 05:00 PM
a reply to: Abysha

I completely agree.

Evolution is not about creation and vice versa.

Who knows, maybe someone/something did create the beginning of life. All evolution is about is what happened AFTER the beginning of life being formed.

The only people who get angry or try (badly) to refute evolution are YEC.

posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 05:20 PM
a reply to: neoholographic

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.

I've read some of your other threads in the past and based on the above quote I'm positive I know where your going with this. However why would the Holographic universe hypothesis require a replacement for evolution as the mechanism to explain species diversity? Why would you need intelligent design to be the explanation for the origin of the Holographic universe?

To me evolution and the hypothesis do not cancel each other out here's why.

You keep using the software analogy that I think has been shown in a previous thread you made to be just an analogy to explain the mechanisms of DNA not as an actual representation of their being compatibility between the coded genomes and binary...

But I'll take it a step further using a similar analogy to show you that they are not mutually exclusive. If the programs(organisms)within this quantum computer have an intelligence level adept enough to allow them to learn new information and to adapt to that new information. Let's say this level of intelligence is on par with just about every organism currently known. It is highly feasible that these programs over generations could become so diverse in their functions and source code,that their would be no need for a intelligent designer to intervene and change certain inputs to create life.
It is possible that a programmer "seeded" the first instances of life within this hypothetical world,but it's unlikely as their is no proof or even a reason that a programmer would be required for a quantum computer to exist.

At least...None that I see as plausible or necessary...

I get that your attempting to go the route that the universe was created by a computer programmer,novel idea but it brings us back to the old arguments of a similar nature when it comes to theology.

edit on 4pm30America/Chicago3005America/Chicagopm423 by NateTheAnimator because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 05:31 PM
a reply to: neoholographic

There is a general rule in Physic's called Conservation of Energy, life evolving goes totally against conservation of energy, instead of reaching a calm state matter become's volatile, self replicates and get's ever more complicated until it reaches us?.

Water running up hill.

Adaptation yes, Evolution without intervention? it contradict's conservation of energy.

posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 05:34 PM
a reply to: LABTECH767

You do know that adaptation is evolution, right? Or at least a part of it.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in