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: 37
57
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 22 2016 @ 04:07 AM
link   
Having this discussion in the context of Christianity is meaningless, because it distorts the conversation. I cannot imagine the worldview of one for whom creation and evolution are mutually exclusive. Fact: life was created. Fact: life evolved. And your precious little Jesus Christ had nothing to do with it.

edit on 22-4-2016 by 22theworld because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 22 2016 @ 04:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: 22theworld
Fact: life was created. Fact...

Male bovine excrement!

"New study of the brain shows that facts and beliefs are processed in exactly the same way."

www.newsweek.com...




edit on 22-4-2016 by namelesss because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2016 @ 04:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: 22theworld
Fact: life was created. Fact...

Male bovine excrement!

"New study of the brain shows that facts and beliefs are processed in exactly the same way."

www.newsweek.com...


Non sequitur alert.
edit on 22-4-2016 by 22theworld because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2016 @ 05:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
Again, saying evolution without intelligence can encode multiple meanings on sequences of DNA and then make the machinary to read and decode this information is ABSURD.

Remember when Phantom423 said:

Nature...dit it.

He's still suggesting it but often no longer spelling it out as boldly and honestly like that. See if you can notice this way of thinking in his comment just before yours and which parts of what he quoted is not supported by any logical reasonable evidence. Therefore more telling regarding the reliability and trustworthiness of the source that he has linked to than providing us with logical reasonable evidence for the hidden claim and belief/thought/idea/philosophy/view that 'nature did it' (hidden as in not spelled out in his link or his comment, but certainly present in his quotation and his mind by his usage of it).
Also more telling regarding people's willful blind behaviour in their continued use of such sources without admitting to the problems with it and thinking about that subject instead for a while.

Mythology is not science. Published in reputable magazines or on reputable websites or not (and regardless how plausible the story appears to a biased hearer, something that is however played on by the storyteller, that includes testimonies from the Emperor Napoleon or Stephen Hawking himself).

And facts are not mythology. Published in magazines that someone hates/disdains ("not put up with"*) or on websites that someone hates/disdains or not.

* = a quotation from 2 Timothy 4:3,4

Quoting from his article with a slight adjustment to demonstrate the illogical nature of the 'similarity' argument and accompanying mythology:

For more than 30 years, researchers have known that most [cars] came from a common ancestor because their [wheels] are so similar.

Yeah, that makes sense.....not.
edit on 22-4-2016 by whereislogic because: addition



posted on Apr, 22 2016 @ 07:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

Chauvinistic? I don't see any injection of national superiority and glory in this discussion from myself. I've not waved the silver fern here? Nor talked about Gallipoli, the All Blacks, or any such thing.

I have stated the theory of evolution. I've stated that YOUR supposition is wrong. Which led you to having this little tantrum. quod erat demonstrandum..

As for the rest. No thanks, I gave at the office, and my wife would prefer you stop making a pass at me
We pagans are moral beings.




At this point it is clear you don't know what IS of substance in a discussion based on evolution, creation, or anything outside of a sector of Abrahamic faith. Get back to me when you've experienced a bit more of life


Still no substance. According to the phylogenetic tree of life, your greatest grandparent was a unicellular organism. If you're having trouble, show the statement to your colleagues.


originally posted by: Phantom423
But we certainly know enough about genetics and molecular biology to understand that a statement like I WAS ONCE A UNICELLULAR ORGANISM, or I WAS ONCE A GORILLA or A CHIMPANZEE is highly inaccurate. YOU are a human. I am a human.


Of course not. But, some primate-like creature was theoretically your ancestor, just like at one point in your ancestry your grandparents were fish. It is your ancestry, as in your parent's parent's parent's etc... until you arrive at your oldest ancestor down the tree of life... which will be a unicellular prokaryotic organisms (theoretically)



The next phase of evolution which is occurring as we speak will produce another life form of common ancestry BUT WILL NOT BE HUMAN.


Hopefully this can help me drive my point home. Yes (theoretically), and this new species would have a homo sapien as its ancestor if you traced their lineage back far enough. So to with us, if you trace our (theoretical) lineage back, you would ultimately arrive, after billions of years, at the first unicellular organism - which is your greatest grandparent.
edit on 22-4-2016 by cooperton because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-4-2016 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2016 @ 07:50 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Look, you can call it whatever you want. But without some understanding of common ancestry, the words "grandma" and "grandpa" do not project the message that the evolution is a complex area of research. As I have said before, there are over 500 respected journals and thousands of research papers on various topics in evolution. You fail to acknowledge how this research impacts our knowledge of the evolutionary process. You simply say "it's designed", "someone had to design it", "you need an intelligent designer". None of that has any basis in actual research. It's merely speculative opinion.

So again, call it what you will and continue to ignore the thousands of research projects which have yielded hard evidence which points to the fact that the evolutionary trail of events is the most probable model for life on this planet.


edit on 22-4-2016 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-4-2016 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2016 @ 08:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

Look, you can call it whatever you want. But without some understanding of common ancestry, the words "grandma" and "grandpa" do not project the message that the evolution is a complex area of research.


No need to overcomplicate things.

According to the theory, your ancestry included some type of monkey, fish, and ultimately a unicellular organism. Yes or no.



posted on Apr, 22 2016 @ 08:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

evolutionary trail of events is the most probable model for life on this planet

now as an unbiased statement
some deductive questions

has the evolutionary trail of events been directly observed ?
recorded yes
but
have we observed directly physical evolution of an organism ?

when do we start calling mutations growth or evolution ?

how many traits do we lose in order too gain new ones ?

can we call (this process) these mutations evolution ?





edit on 22-4-2016 by kibric because: no reason



posted on Apr, 22 2016 @ 08:50 AM
link   
I agree wholeheartedly with David Berlinski at the start of this video (also in relation to what I said in my previous comment):

I'm not going to mention the caveats I have with this video anymore, I did that before. Just sharing it for what David Berlinski said.
P.S. Regarding the end of the video, how does a mythological organism with only 250 proteins reproduce and replicate DNA and RNA that it doesn't have? Or a cell membrane? And pass on genes that it doesn't have? I really don't like these kind of comparisons where interdepency is almost ignored and only 1 subject is looked at. Especially since Ben Stein says "ok, so the simplest form of life requires 250 proteins to function" (as if it's a fact, no way José, never gonna happen if we're talking about a reproducing organism capable or surviving more than a few generations in a natural prebiotic earth environment, i.e. not carefully controlled laboratory setup).
edit on 22-4-2016 by whereislogic because: addition



posted on Apr, 22 2016 @ 09:10 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton


originally posted by: cooperton
So to with us, if you trace our (theoretical) lineage back, you would ultimately arrive, after billions of years, at the first unicellular organism - which is your greatest grandparent.


So what though, right?

That every living thing to have ever existed potentially share one common ancestor is pretty amazing if you ask me. I'm not sure it's logical to think God created every species by hand individually, right? Plus there isn't any evidence (empirical or otherwise) for that, right? And when a new species has been discovered no one ever claimed to have witnessed God producing it, right? So where else would the new species have come from if it wasn't a "spin off" of some other closely related species (genetically speaking)?

Also, shouldn't you be more concerned with the origins of DNA (the code) and LUCA?

Evolution is really just a property of life, i.e. how it adapts to the environment. Speciation is simply a part of that adaptation process. I happen to disagree with some of our explanations of how it all works. But I find it difficult to deny it happens.

I just don't understand the conflict between your beliefs and evolution as a process of life.
edit on 22-4-2016 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2016 @ 09:28 AM
link   
a reply to: kibric

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes



posted on Apr, 22 2016 @ 11:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

is evolution defined as a series of mutations ?

if the perfect organism existed , and it had become this through a series of changes (mutations)
would it not keep all adaptations and benefits from these previous mutations
without sacrificing any other useful mutation in order too do so ??



posted on Apr, 22 2016 @ 12:25 PM
link   
a reply to: kibric

No. It's more complex than just mutations. Mutations occur every DAY. It's an ongoing process. Conserved mutations - good or bad - are relatively rare. You have to think of the DNA molecule as a 3 dimensional object - the stereochemistry, bonding angles, bonding energies, folding configurations, polyploidy, chromosomal rearrangements also have influence on the stored information.

You can cause a mutation by exposure to too much UV radiation. Skin cancer could be the result. A gene was mutated to cause that cancer. Is that gene inheritable? No, you're not going to pass on that mutation to your children. However, if the mutation is present in a broad population and is persistent, then there's a possibility that it could become part of the germline and therefore a permanent mutation - new generations would carry the gene and have a higher probability of getting skin cancer. Inherited mutations, or germline mutations, are passed on to your children and are present in every cell of the child's body.

There's a lot of factors that go into the final result. That's why there are 500 scientific journals which have published thousands of articles on various aspects of evolution. We're still learning but we know enough to say that the evolutionary trail fits the model developed so far.



posted on Apr, 22 2016 @ 12:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic
I agree wholeheartedly with David Berlinski at the start of this video (also in relation to what I said in my previous comment):

I'm not going to mention the caveats I have with this video anymore, I did that before. Just sharing it for what David Berlinski said.
P.S. Regarding the end of the video, how does a mythological organism with only 250 proteins reproduce and replicate DNA and RNA that it doesn't have? Or a cell membrane? And pass on genes that it doesn't have? I really don't like these kind of comparisons where interdepency is almost ignored and only 1 subject is looked at. Especially since Ben Stein says "ok, so the simplest form of life requires 250 proteins to function" (as if it's a fact, no way José, never gonna happen if we're talking about a reproducing organism capable or surviving more than a few generations in a natural prebiotic earth environment, i.e. not carefully controlled laboratory setup).


Expelled was very good. I like how he calls evolution a room full of smoke at the beginning of the video. Here's more.

What Junk DNA? It’s an Operating System


In the August 1 issue of CELL, researchers from the Gene and Stem Cell Therapy Program at Sydney's Centenary Institute revealed another function of introns, or noncoding nucleotide sequences, in DNA. They reported that gene-sequencing techniques and computer analysis allowed them to demonstrate how granulocytes use noncoding DNA to regulate the activity of a group of genes that determines the cells’ shape and function.

Back in the old days, the general wisdom had it that introns loaded into the human genome were basically useless. While some noncoding DNA is transcribed in noncoding RNA, such as transfer RNA, ribosomal RNA, regulatory RNA, or endogenous retroviruses, others produce RNA with no known function or identified utility to the cell.

But over the past few years, as high-powered analytical tools and genomic information have become available, the function of introns, such as transcription factor recognition sequences, has become better understood. And, as John Stamatoyannopoulos, M.D., associate professor of genome sciences and medicine at the University of Washington, points out, while only about 2% of the human genome codes for proteins, “Hidden in the remaining 98 percent are instructions that basically tell the genes how to switch on and off." His laboratory focuses on disease-associated variants in regulatory regions of DNA.

“In essence, these instructions are organized into millions of DNA ‘switches.’ These switches consist of strings of genetic letters, maybe 100 to 200 letters long, that can be thought of as sentences made up of short DNA words. The DNA words function as docking sites for special regulatory proteins,” said Dr. Stamatoyannopoulos.


www.genengnews.com...

Evolution without intelligent agency is a FANTASY novel. It can't happen in the real world. There's a reason that littered throughout the Scientific literature, words we associate with information and intelligence are used as descriptions of DNA. You hear these words:

Operating System
Code
Redundancy
Translation
Transcriptian
Dual Coding
Error Correction
Editing
Proofreading
Words
Sentences
Regulation

All of these terms have meaning associated with information theory and a system set up by intelligence that encodes and decodes information. This is exactly what we see with DNA and this is why Scientist can't avoid saying things like Junk DNA is an operating system. This is what they see. They see sequences of DNA that are encoded with information and this information also makes the machinary to decode this information.

If we were looking at any other system, intelligence would be INSTANTLY recognized. The reason you have this debate at all is because people who are athiest, materialist and secularist use the FANTASY of evolution without intelligent agency as a holy sacrament to their belief system.
edit on 22-4-2016 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2016 @ 12:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
I'm not sure it's logical to think God created every species by hand individually, right?


I'm under the impression, from the ancient texts, that it was a mental creation of God - hence Creation by his Word alone.



Plus there isn't any evidence (empirical or otherwise) for that, right?


we're presented with an intuitive genetic code and intelligible mathematical laws exhibited in nature... You can conclude what you want from that.



And when a new species has been discovered no one ever claimed to have witnessed God producing it, right?


There is no universal definition for species, it is quite ambiguous. Did Japheth create a new species when he migrated north through the Caucus mountains and gave rise to the caucasian race? Surely not. We should not confuse adaptation and genetic drift with evolution. Of course there is adaptation, it is part of the genetic code. Yet, when you try to consider how adaptive mechanisms could've evolved.... well, you gotta come to the conclusions on your own.



Also, shouldn't you be more concerned with the origins of DNA (the code) and LUCA?


I was only going into great detail about our theoretical greatest ancestor because noinden and phantom did not realize that the theory of evolution indicates that we all share a unicellular prokaryote as our oldest ancestor.



Evolution is really just a property of life, i.e. how it adapts to the environment. Speciation is simply a part of that adaptation process. I happen to disagree with some of our explanations of how it all works. But I find it difficult to deny it happens. I just don't understand the conflict between your beliefs and evolution as a process of life


Surely adaptation exists. Many have confused this for proof that evolution could have given rise to the diversity of life.



posted on Apr, 22 2016 @ 12:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: kibric

No. It's more complex than just mutations. Mutations occur every DAY. It's an ongoing process. Conserved mutations - good or bad - are relatively rare. You have to think of the DNA molecule as a 3 dimensional object - the stereochemistry, bonding angles, bonding energies, folding configurations, polyploidy, chromosomal rearrangements also have influence on the stored information.

You can cause a mutation by exposure to too much UV radiation. Skin cancer could be the result. A gene was mutated to cause that cancer. Is that gene inheritable? No, you're not going to pass on that mutation to your children. However, if the mutation is present in a broad population and is persistent, then there's a possibility that it could become part of the germline and therefore a permanent mutation - new generations would carry the gene and have a higher probability of getting skin cancer. Inherited mutations, or germline mutations, are passed on to your children and are present in every cell of the child's body.

There's a lot of factors that go into the final result. That's why there are 500 scientific journals which have published thousands of articles on various aspects of evolution. We're still learning but we know enough to say that the evolutionary trail fits the model developed so far.



Germline mutations are only applicable to unicellular organisms/budding organisms. For a mutation to be passed on to the children of multicellular organisms the mutation has to occur within the reproductive cells or the developing embryo. Historically, this is very unsuccessful: Birth Defects



posted on Apr, 22 2016 @ 12:56 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic




If we were looking at any other system, intelligence would be INSTANTLY recognized. The reason you have this debate at all is because people who are athiest, materialist and secularist use the FANTASY of evolution without intelligent agency as a holy sacrament to their belief system.


No doubt you would! A scientist would ask questions, develop hypotheses, collect data, analyze the evidence and then come to one or more probable conclusions.

You, however, have come to a conclusions based on nothing. This is not dissimilar to cavemen who thought that thunder and lightening was caused by angry gods. One caveman says to the other: "Mikey, this thunder and lightening HAS to be caused by some god who has magnificent powers". Mikey says to Jimbo: "Yeah, I think you're right. But you know, maybe we should consider some other possibilities". Jimbo goes to his grave convinced that the gods did it. Mikey is still questioning and seeking answers. Sound familiar???

Quite sure you will go to your grave with the same conclusion as Jimbo.





edit on 22-4-2016 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2016 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Not true. Favorable and unfavorable mutations are passed on exactly the same way.

Also, the birth defects can be caused by intrauterine abnormalities and disease. Might not be a mutation at all.





edit on 22-4-2016 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2016 @ 01:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

Not true. Favorable and unfavorable mutations are passed on exactly the same way.


There's a clear disconnect in our communication because you continually put words into my post that I do not think I am typing. I am not being sarcastic or anything, but can you please show me where I said such a statement? Surely all mutations, favorable and unfavorable, would be passed on in such a manner - I was merely pointing out the rarity that a favorable mutation occurs.



posted on Apr, 22 2016 @ 01:16 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Your link suggested that you were referring to birth defects. Birth defects can be caused by germline mutations - like Tay-Sachs and phenylketonuria. Other birth defects are caused by intrauterine abnormalities - like Zika virus.

You are correct: favorable and unfavorable mutations can be in the germline and passed on. But they are both passed on the same way - through a permanent mutation in the germline. They are active in reproductive cells. But the mutation exists in the DNA of all cells of the body.




edit on 22-4-2016 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-4-2016 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
57
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join