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: 31
57
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs




Errors in copying. If DNA was created by a brilliant intelligence, why are there so many mutations? The average human has near 130 different mutations from the previous generation. Why do these errors occur so frequently if created by an all powerful god? It doesn't make sense.


Good one! There are plenty of things that don't add up with this designer. Why would a designer design 99% of all species to have ever existed to go extinct? And then start from scratch to recreate everything we see today and poof all these animals, as is from nothing? Where is the evidence in the strata that whole populations just magically appeared? And if this is true why would a designer create these populations in environments that constantly change? One would expect the environments to be perfectly created stable, if the environment is not perfectly stable a population that can't evolve would die out at the first sight of change.


edit on fSaturday164444f444704 by flyingfish because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: flyingfish

There you go, thinking like a human confined to a puny brain stuck in linear temporal reasoning.

Is your premise that the perfect system should be static?



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 04:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
a reply to: flyingfish

There you go, thinking like a human confined to a puny brain stuck in linear temporal reasoning.

Is your premise that the perfect system should be static?


No.. My premise is that creationism is false.



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 04:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: flyingfish

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
a reply to: flyingfish

There you go, thinking like a human confined to a puny brain stuck in linear temporal reasoning.

Is your premise that the perfect system should be static?


No.. My premise is that creationism is false.


Have fun with that.



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 05:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Please define a "perfect system". With that said, if a "perfect" intelligence designed all life on Earth as put forth by proponents of Creationism, why is the physical design for Homo Sapiens Sapiens lead to such a flawed organism? Why are our spines as inefficient as they are for bipedalism when earlier members of our Genus like H. Erectus were actually better suited to bipedal locomotion? Our spinal design leads to serious issues such as scoliosis, sciatica and other congenital spinal deformities.

Why am I near sighted in one eye and far sighted in the other? Why is the same oriface utilized for both ingestion of food and liquids as well as intake of air?

Our waste removal systems are infused with our reproductive organs. Why are women's reproductive organs designed in a way thst leads to ectopic pregnancies? Fetal development of testes leads to a weakened area in huge abdomen of males that leads to herniation. Why do we have an under developed Plantaris muscle that leads to Plantars Fasciitis?

Why are the nerves and blood vessels of our eyes(and all other vertebrates) on the surface of the retina instead of behind it. Why do we lack tetrachromacy today when it was actually normal for mammals to possess this trait in the past?

Why can almost every other organism on earth synthesize their own Vitamin C yet HSS, other primates and guinea pigs can not do so leading to scurvy and death if a source of Vitamin C can not be found or utilized?

I see all of these arguments citing "irreducible complexity" but the complexity isn't very complex if it was as indeed created by an omnipotent and omniscient being as put forth by mostly evangelical Christian groups.



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 05:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: flyingfish

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
a reply to: flyingfish

There you go, thinking like a human confined to a puny brain stuck in linear temporal reasoning.

Is your premise that the perfect system should be static?


No.. My premise is that creationism is false.


Have fun with that.


Not a problem.. Like shooting fish in a barrel!
If you have not noticed creationism is just empty assertions from religious apologetics. ID has no model, no valid hypothesis, no predictive power, no explanatory power, no evidence.
All creationism has is tons of tax free cash harvested from it's brain washed flock to perpetuate and legislate it's lie onto the rest of us..

Cause you know, the designer can design the universe but not a dollar bill. And we all know.. God needs tons of tax free cash.
edit on fSaturday165345f533405 by flyingfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 06:28 PM
link   
tldr

Evolution by design



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 06:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

A whole post full of nothing. You said:

Natural selection is not random. It is basically organisms following the environment. If a bunch of mice live in a brown field, wouldn't the mice with brown fur have a higher chance of survival from predators? That is not random in the least, it's logic 101. More brown mice survive, more brown fur genes get passed down, hence the brown mice take over that niche. Same thing with the peppered moths, funny how you yourself just provided evidence for evolution right there.

This is just nonsense. It's funny, because most people I debate will admit Natural Selection is random. It's a blind, random process. People who have a BELIEF in evolution can't accept the fact that it's random because they know how illogical it looks.

Look at your example.

The mice with the brown fur have a higher chance of survival because IT'S RANDOM that they find themselves in an environment that's a brown field. That doesn't create any new information or function. It only says that after the fact, the trait that can survive better in the environment will grow via reproduction.

It's a BLIND, RANDOM PROCESS.

The fact they have brown fur HAS NOTHING TO DO with the fact their in a brown field. You said:

The meaning of the sequences was already there prior to the mutation.

Yep, this is what the evidence shows. Mutations give you variations of these gene sequences, they don't create them. This is exactly why you and others have to keep pushing some mythical simple something that can magically become complex gene regulatory networks.

Tell me, what mutation created the sequence TATAAA and gave this sequence the ability to direct the transcription factors to the site of the genes to be read and the direction of these gene sequences.

Finally, you ask the question that goes to the heart of the reason why those who accept evolution are just ILLOGICAL. You said:

Do you have proof that DNA could not have started very simple in function and then evolved over 3 billion years to the complexity it is now?

THINK OF HOW SILLY THIS SOUNDS!

Why should I have to prove a negative when you're the one making the claim that DNA could have started very simple. THERE'S NO EVIDENCE at all that DNA started very simple. Even a simple organism is like a mini supercomputer.

So, you're the one making the claim that DNA could have started very simple. I don't need to provide you any evidence that it couldn't just like I don't need to provide you any evidence that the Easter Bunny exists.

It's an EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM with no evidence to support it. Those who blindly believe in evolution dream about some magical simple something coming out of the prebiotic goo but again, NOTHING.

There's no evidence that some simple something can give us genetic material that regulates the expression of sequences of DNA. It's an absurd notion. At least people who are Religious say they have faith, Darwinist try to act like science is on their side when there isn't a SHRED OF EVIDENCE of some simple magical non life evolving into a regulatory network that can express sequences of DNA.

What I'm saying is supported by the evidence. Intelligence can create sequences that give us complexity that regulate expression. Again, you're the one believing in magic.



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 07:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: flyingfish

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: flyingfish

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
a reply to: flyingfish

There you go, thinking like a human confined to a puny brain stuck in linear temporal reasoning.

Is your premise that the perfect system should be static?


No.. My premise is that creationism is false.


Have fun with that.


Not a problem.. Like shooting fish in a barrel!


Where did the gun, bullet and barrel come from?


Anyways, which creationism are you going after? The 6000 years 'poof'! (low hanging fruit, there), the theistic evolution, the quantum strings creator, the physical laws programming, the irreducuble complexity, the deific explosion...? I've read a bunch of different approaches and theories to creationism/ID.



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 07:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Please define a "perfect system". With that said, if a "perfect" intelligence designed all life on Earth as put forth by proponents of Creationism, why is the physical design for Homo Sapiens Sapiens lead to such a flawed organism? Why are our spines as inefficient as they are for bipedalism when earlier members of our Genus like H. Erectus were actually better suited to bipedal locomotion? Our spinal design leads to serious issues such as scoliosis, sciatica and other congenital spinal deformities.


My idea of a perfect system is one where the designer can set it in motion and it runs with clockwork precision and consistency, is self-repairing, maintains a balance, etc. You get the idea.

For such a flawed organism we've done pretty good for ourselves. Is you idea of a perfect species the one with the best spine?

I'm not a "6000 years POOF" person so I'm not really concerned about mutations that occur along a predictable bell curve based on universal natural laws. I'm a biologist and amateur statistician who thinks the universe we have right now is pretty well designed.



posted on Apr, 17 2016 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

Ahh so moving onto posting songs, rather than actually engaging in discussion? Typical. What is also typical is you don't understand what evolution is about, as proven by your comments about the peppered moth.

I guess this sis where I post a music video?

www.youtube.com...



posted on Apr, 17 2016 @ 10:11 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic




This is just nonsense. It's funny, because most people I debate will admit Natural Selection is random.


Not if they know anything at all about biology they don't.

You have TWO different processes:

1) Mutation is random. Random mutation provides possibilities; that is all it does. Period.
2) Natural Selection is not random. Natural Selection filters possibilities; ruling the 'bad' mutations out and supporting the 'good' mutations.

Mutations happen at random between generations. If some the children of white insects carry a mutation that turn them black, that is a totally random occurrence. Maybe it was a cosmic ray strike or a replication error. But it was unpredictable and could have struck a gene 'next door' that somehow gave it 4 wings instead. Pure chance.

There is absolutely nothing random about natural selection - never has been; never will be. The fact that a bird can see a white insect on a black tree trunk better than a black insect on a black tree trunk is NOT random.

I know you have a great amount of difficulty keeping the concept of two different ideas in mind at the same time, but this is really a very trivial pair of ideas.



posted on Apr, 17 2016 @ 10:27 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic




The mice with the brown fur have a higher chance of survival because IT'S RANDOM that they find themselves in an environment that's a brown field.


That is incorrect. The field is brown now, but it was green in spring wasn't it? Where are the green mice?

Lets suppose that the mice were created in all colors of the rainbow then. Where are all the other colors? Well look at the life cycle of the mice. Where do they go when they are giving birth - somewhere to hide from predators. So the rainbow kids all get born in safety while the field is green. But when they leave the safety of the family home, the field has browned off. It isn't random that the field has browned off, it happens regularly every season. So the rainbow kids all strike off on their own and the reds, the greens, the blues, the yellows all stand out like a sore thumb and get eaten by coyotes at a much faster rate than the browns. Next year there are a lot less colored mice and a lot more brown mice. By the third or fourth year all you have are brown mice. Not because they are randomly in a brown field, but because they don't get eaten as fast and consequently have more children.

There is NOTHING random about the process except the initial chance of being born brown or one of the other colors.




That doesn't create any new information or function.


Random mutation DOES create new information and function (i.e. a new trait). The new information and function can be good, bad, or indifferent.



It only says that after the fact, the trait that can survive better in the environment will grow via reproduction.


Yes. That is the only thing you got right. Natural selection does indeed act after the fact of random mutation.

After the fact of the mutation random selection determines if the new trait helps the population survive better in the environment and if it does it will spread via reproduction; if it is detrimental it will get 'washed out' of the population via non-reproduction; if it is indifferent then it can hang around in the gene pool until it proves good or bad sometime in the future.



posted on Apr, 18 2016 @ 12:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
This is just nonsense. It's funny, because most people I debate will admit Natural Selection is random. It's a blind, random process. People who have a BELIEF in evolution can't accept the fact that it's random because they know how illogical it looks.


LMAO at your condescending rhetoric in this post. Capitalizing catch phrases and repeating your original argument doesn't help you.

Nobody claims natural selection is random except people that don't understand the science in the least. The mutations are random. There is nothing random about better suited organisms having a higher survival rate in a given environment.


IT'S RANDOM that they find themselves in an environment that's a brown field.


No, it's not random. That's the point. The brown mouse population dominates that environment because it's brown. That isn't random, that's direct cause and effect.


That doesn't create any new information or function.


No kidding. Genetic mutation is where the new information comes from. Natural selection weeds out negative traits in the environment and leads to others becoming dominant.


The fact they have brown fur HAS NOTHING TO DO with the fact their in a brown field.


Did you really just say that? I guess when you have no argument, just flat out deny it, right?


Yep, this is what the evidence shows. Mutations give you variations of these gene sequences, they don't create them. This is exactly why you and others have to keep pushing some mythical simple something that can magically become complex gene regulatory networks.


You only say this because you don't get how it works. Sequences change, they don't just randomly poof into existence. You are the one that keeps mentioning magic and "mythical simple something". The majority of mutations are neutral, meaning they do not change any function of the organism. But if multiple mutations happen to the same sequence and accumulate, it can lead to something new. No magic necessary, the genetic code is just very susceptible to mutation and code changes.


Why should I have to prove a negative when you're the one making the claim that DNA could have started very simple. THERE'S NO EVIDENCE at all that DNA started very simple. Even a simple organism is like a mini supercomputer.


Watch the video I posted. There is evidence. We can observe hundreds of mutations in a single generation. It's absurd to think that the original lifeforms on the planet had DNA as complex as today. They were single celled. Why would you need billions of base pairs to regulate an organism so simple.

Your problem is that your mind is closed to any other possibility aside from intelligent design, something that has absolutely no objective evidence whatsoever in it's favor. I'm not asking you to prove a negative, I'm asking for objective evidence of intelligent design. Not rhetoric based on the complexity of something science does not yet fully understand.

You clearly said in your OP that evolution is impossible and should be replaced by intelligent design. That is your claim. You can't discard a scientific theory without conclusive evidence that goes against it, or conclusive evidence in favor of an alternative theory. You must have one of those 2 things, otherwise you have nothing. Unfortunately your post is pretty much pure rhetoric and no substance, much like the rest in this thread. You have not shown evidence that evolution is impossible or that ID is even remotely possible.



edit on 4 18 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2016 @ 12:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Apparently people have a belief in evolution and science but we ignore the hard facts and evidence of the bible. Can't debate with theists because they don't want to give up their belief that they have a special relationship with a supreme being.



posted on Apr, 18 2016 @ 01:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Joecanada11




... they don't want to give up their belief that they have a special relationship with a supreme being.


Which is, of course, a completely unwarranted fear.

For example, the former head of the Human Genome Project, Dr. Francis Collins, is a 100% committed Christian who has no problem what-so-ever in reconciling his religion with his science.

There are many millions of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Zoroastrians, Buddhists, etc, etc, etc. who likewise have no qualms.



posted on Apr, 18 2016 @ 01:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: Joecanada11




... they don't want to give up their belief that they have a special relationship with a supreme being.


Which is, of course, a completely unwarranted fear.

For example, the former head of the Human Genome Project, Dr. Francis Collins, is a 100% committed Christian who has no problem what-so-ever in reconciling his religion with his science.

There are many millions of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Zoroastrians, Buddhists, etc, etc, etc. who likewise have no qualms.



Very true. I've seen a few people on here claim to still believe in the bibles complete inerrancy and also a 6,000 year old earth. Even scarier there are some that still believe the earth is flat and that because god wouldn't allow the tower of Babel to be built he would never allow man on the moon and thus all space flights are a lie cobcieved by the devil.



posted on Apr, 18 2016 @ 03:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

You said:

No, it's not random. That's the point. The brown mouse population dominates that environment because it's brown. That isn't random, that's direct cause and effect.

Again, you're talking apples and oranges. Natural selection is a blind, random process. It happens after the fact. It's not creating any new sequences or function which is the topic of this thread. As I said:

The fact they have brown fur HAS NOTHING TO DO with the fact their in a brown field.

Natural selection has nothing to do with the genetic regulatory network that regulates expression. It's a blind, random event that occurs after the trait has reached the environment. This is why you didn't respond to this:

Tell me, what mutation created the sequence TATAAA and gave this sequence the ability to direct the transcription factors to the site of the genes to be read and the direction of these gene sequences.

This is why evolution is impossible without intelligent agency. Here's an excellent video called Real Mathmatician : Type of information DNA is and probability ( Ignorance of atheist exposed)



In the video he talks about biological evolution but I say evolution without intelligent agency.

If DNA didn't directly affect people's belief system, everyone would say it was designed by an Intelligent mind. The only reason this isn't the case, is because the theory of evolution is like a Holy Sacrament for atheism, materialism and secularism. These ism's depend on evolution being without God which means without Intelligence.

So, you have this HUGE BLIND SPOT or what's called the Primary Axiom where people just accept this nonsense. Evolution without intelligent agency is impossible. It can't occur. The only reason this is accepted is because of belief.

It takes an intelligent mind to give meaning and function to sequence. This is IMPOSSIBLE for the natural world. Nature can give you a snowflake, but this snowflake will not be encoded with the information to construct other snowflakes. It will not be encoded with the information to construct the machinary to build other snowflakes.

Again, this only occurs with an intelligent mind.

If you shuffle a deck of cards and put them back into the order they were in when you first opened them, they will be ordered but there's no meaning. Meaning and function comes from an intelligent mind.

Meaning and function is saying, if the first 4 cards are the four aces then x. Meaning and function is saying, if the last 4 cards are aces then x. It's an intelligent mind that gives meaning to sequence.

The sequence CAT has meaning. To different people it can mean different things and different experiences. The sequence TATAAA means this:

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.

www.nature.com...

Let me repeat:

A TATA box is a DNA sequence that indicates where a genetic sequence can be read and decoded.

Nature can not put DNA in a sequence that regulates gene expression. Like I said, if this were any other system it would be recognized as designed by Intelligence. Because it's connected to the ism of an atheist, secularist or a materialist there's a HUGE BLIND SPOT. TATAAA is one of thousands of sequences that make up a regulatory network that regulates expression.

The sequence TATAAA indicate's to the transcription factor in which direction the DNA sequence is to be read and indicates which sequence is to be read. This message then gets to the RNA Polymerase and it reads the sequence of DNA. How can nature give meaning and function to a sequence that regulates gene expression? That's just an ABSURD NOTION.
edit on 18-4-2016 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2016 @ 08:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

It seems to me that you and Neo have been arguing two different points.

What I gather the question is, one that I have even asked myself plenty of times, is where does all of the information contained in DNA come from? And how can it be so modular?

Within DNA information is segregated into genes; each of which contain "instructions" on how the gene itself will function – either by coding for proteins or regulating phenotypic expression. It also influences how the gene will interact with other genes to do these same things. In addition it contains information on how all the different cells will be produced and what their functions will be. Everything from the amounts of each cell, in what locations they'll be, and at what time during development they will arise. Otherwise known as spatiotemporal logistics. Then there is information on how the body plans or morphological characteristics of each organism will be produced (shape, size, colors, functionality, behavior, etc etc etc). Some of these body plans are extremely specific to the environment they exist too. It's almost as if the gene already has the information on how the organism should look and function to survive in that environment before the organism even exists. Or perhaps there is a feedback of information between environment and cells. There would then need to be information on how these mechanisms will work as well as all other mechanisms involved in the development and functionality of living things. I've only scratched the surface here but I think you get the idea.

All of this information about the design and functionality of all living things had to come from some where. It doesn't appear to be random information either, in the sense that it guides the production of viable living organisms – all from a passive non-living molecule (DNA). Somehow all living things come from a non-living chemical compound. We have not a clue how.

We could all have been just useless amorphous blobs but for some unknown reason we're symmetrical fully functioning biological machines.

I don't prefer the blueprint metaphor, but if that's what you want to call DNA, then where did the blueprint come from? Neo's point seems to be that this information can only arise from an intelligence since the information is not randomly generated white noise. That from DNA comes meaningful design & function seems to be why Neo thinks it can only come from an intelligent agent. I really don't know about this myself.

I'm not taking sides here, only to help end this merry go round of repeated arguments.. It was getting tough to read...
edit on 18-4-2016 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2016 @ 10:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: flyingfish
If you have not noticed creationism is just empty assertions from religious apologetics. ID has no model, no valid hypothesis, no predictive power, no explanatory power, no evidence.


When people don't know the theory of evolution, yet argue against it, you get mad. Here, I am upset that you do not even know the core concepts of creationism, yet are arguing against it.

Why are you even here if you don't know what you're arguing against?



new topics

top topics



 
57
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join