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: 4
57
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 08:11 PM
link   
Like I said, Evolution is a BIG LIE.

Randomness can't create instructions. It's just nonsense. The mechanics of evolution didn't evolve. Things like gene regulation, gene expression, transcription, translation and error correction. These things are products of intelligence that's used when you're creating instructions.

If I find instructions to build an airplane, I know intelligence created it.

Just look at something like the lac operon.



This is intelligent design. Randomness has nothing to do with it. You can go into any factory and see the same thing play out as machines and people follow instructions.

Here's a video about transcription and translation.



FASCINATING STUFF!

How did transcription and translation evolve? How did the mechanic to make a Protein evolve through a random process? It just sounds silly to even say it.

Randomness occurs AFTER THE FACT. After the gene makes it to the environment then some of them thrive and and some of them don't and this is all subject to randomness. The process of a gene reaching the environment is HIGHLY DESIGNED by intelligence.

People ASSUME that these things need to be explained without intelligence. Without intelligence, you get a convoluted mess that makes no sense.

Where does it say intelligence has to be excluded from explaining these things. We don't need to know the origin of this intelligence. It could be God, Advanced Civilization or some quantum computer with machine intelligence.

We find one of the most complex and sophisticated instruction manuels and the Primary Axiom says, we have to explain this in a "natural" way and "natural" has to exclude intelligence.

WHY ISN'T INTELLIGENCT DESIGN A NATURAL EXPLANATION OF THE GENETIC CODE?

We know what intelligence looks like and we know intelligence can create things like translation, transcription and error correction when creating instructions. There's no evidence that randomness or some mythical common ancestor can do any of these things.
edit on 8-4-2016 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 08:15 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

And you still haven't answered a single question I posted on page one. Please do. I'd love to see your explanations to them.

I'll post them below so you can go over them again.


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 archaeology which find no humans on the same layer as dinosaurs? Or why there are no human remains inside dinosaurs?



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 08:17 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

Asked and answered. You're the one that hasn't debated or answered anything I have said. If you didn't see the response, find it. Then at least try to debate the issue and answer 1 question.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 08:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: TerryDon79

Asked and answered. You're the one that hasn't debated or answered anything I have said. If you didn't see the response, find it. Then at least try to debate the issue and answer 1 question.


You never answered a single question. All you've done is quote mine and post youtube videos. I want you to breakdown my questions and answer them. Or can't you?



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 08:27 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

Of course I answered them. You haven't answered one question as it pertains to the process and the mechanics of gene oproduction. You're asking questions that make no sense as it pertains to this thread.

These genes are subject to randomness and evolution after the intelligently designed genes reach the environment. Just like a car is subject to the environment after it leave the assembly line and is driven off of the lot.

So either you don't understand what I'm talking about or you keep asking questions without answering anything or debating any issue.

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?

Again, I'm talking about the process and the mechanics of gene expression and regulation and so far, you havn't debated anything as it pertains to this thread.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 08:32 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Of course you didn't answer them. If you did you would have posted your answer again instead of avoiding it an additional 3 times. (An analogy of mechanics is not anything close to evolution as machines don't reproduce)

So....

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 archaeology which find no humans on the same layer as dinosaurs? Or why there are no human remains inside dinosaurs?
edit on 842016 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 08:35 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

I'm just going to keep saying asked and answered. You must not understand anything that's being said or you think asking the same questions mean something.

You look silly and you havn't debated one issue or answered one question as it pertains to gene regulation and expression.

I have asked like 20 questions and you haven't attempted to answer or debate any of them. You do know what this thread is about?



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 08:42 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 08:47 PM
link   
To evolve a leg into a wing requires millions of adaptations, each one conferring an evolutionary advantage and then being passed on to progeny and eventually becoming prevalent in the population. Which means many, many more millions of adaptations must needs have occurred which caused a disadvantage, since mutations are usually devastating to the individual and so do not make their way into the population. What are the interim steps between a leg and a wing? How did each of these interim states confer an advantage? It would make a bad leg long before it made a good wing.
edit on 8-4-2016 by OuttaHere because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 10:12 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic




Randomness occurs AFTER THE FACT. After the gene makes it to the environment then some of them thrive and and some of them don't and this is all subject to randomness. The process of a gene reaching the environment is HIGHLY DESIGNED by intelligence.


No it's not subject to randomness. The only variable in the equation of evolution that could be considered random would be the rate at which the environment shifts and changes.
Although we know how most of these mechanisms work and how to calculate changes that control the environment,we know about cloud formations can affect droughts,UV radiations affect on organisms,tectonic plates,volcanic activity and etc. These are not the result of randomness in the traditional sense of the word.



People ASSUME that these things need to be explained without intelligence. Without intelligence, you get a convoluted mess that makes no sense.


Also genes don't "reach" the environment,they are quite literally born and tempered in the environment through generations of adaptation. I know your NOT scientifically illiterate by any means but this quote has me bring into question whether you understand basic evolutionary biology...

What you have still failed to answer is why does a holographic universe run by a quantum computer need a designer...?



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 10:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: OuttaHere
To evolve a leg into a wing requires millions upon millions of adaptations, each one conferring an evolutionary advantage and then being passed on to progeny and eventually becoming prevalent in the population. Which means many, many more millions of adaptations must needs have occurred which caused a disadvantage, since mutations are usually devastating to the individual and so do not make their way into the population. What are the interim steps between a leg and a wing? How did each of these interim states confer an advantage? It would make a bad leg long before it made a good wing.

Not realy bat wings are rather easy to see how they evolved. Look at sugar gliders. A critter is born with some extra webbed skin and can glide a bit further reach better food ect. Eventually as more and more webbing forms until they glide with ease. Eventually the ones with bigger chest mussels start turning better and get to better food. Those muscle bound guys eventually start giving a bit of a flap and make it a little farther than gliding. Continue on until you have a bat. Look at a chicken or wild turkey. No one is going to claim they are graceful in the air except they can muster a bit extra lift and reach some pretty good sized trees. I can see them continuing on until they could fly with enough time. This whole ID group just drives me crazy. Some of them even seem intellegent. Wish they would use all this negative Energy into actually looking for this biogenesis answer they so desire. Look the genesis of the universe may never be discern able it's a shame but at such high masses and time lost we just may never know. At the point of singularity nothing would make since to a human trying to conclude cause to something that is with out time will never work. Biogenesis in my opinion will be discovered at some point and most likely revolve around heat and solutions of water. I suspect current life is the outlier and more common and our first life lived in a very hot volitile place. Unless you are silly driven to prove a god nothing points to design period just not there. Dna isn't computer code. Those letters are actullay chemical compounds they use computer code as anology. Anyways this argument gets old if you want to live in a cave and search for God good for you. Just please don't poison the young minds around you and please don't try to put this in a class room.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 11:03 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

I know this isn't direct towards me but I l'll answer them.



How did the mechanics of the lac operon evolve?


It evolved through gene regulation by turning on or off certain genes when needed.
This is due to its highly adaptive nature.



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


To bind proteins to the operator.
Evolved due to Duplication and point mutation.



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


Because repressors and promoters lay out the foundation for the operator.
Evolved due to Mutation and various selection methods.



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?


The promoter stops its transcriptions.
I can't remember sorry.



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


Gene expression did most of the work from what I recall. As the repressors,enhancers and activators are dependent upon gene expression.




Gene regulation and expression needs proteins in order to regulate the expression of genes.


Skimmed through the rest of the questions and I'm not going to answer all them as some of them should be answered by someone more qualified than I... However your wrong here not all gene regulation require proteins.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 11:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: OuttaHere
To evolve a leg into a wing requires millions of adaptations, each one conferring an evolutionary advantage and then being passed on to progeny and eventually becoming prevalent in the population. Which means many, many more millions of adaptations must needs have occurred which caused a disadvantage, since mutations are usually devastating to the individual and so do not make their way into the population. What are the interim steps between a leg and a wing? How did each of these interim states confer an advantage? It would make a bad leg long before it made a good wing.


Look at a bats wings, or how about a flying squirrel. Ostrches have terrible wings in regards to flight but they live long enough to reproduce. Also, mutations are usually benign and have zero impact initially.



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 02:06 AM
link   

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

Whatever your problem with 'evolution', 'intelligent design' is the most Faithless desperate pretend Xtian belief-addled irrational and illogical nonsense!
'Creation' is impossible, scientifically and philosophically.
But is seems to be a 'need' for 'believers' in a 'Creator God', a blind emotional justification of the 'belief'.
'Beliefs' are a pathologically symptomatic infection of the imagination, the 'ego'; 'caught' and 'spread', not logically, rationally accepted, but like any infection!

We can see 'evolution' right in front of our eyes!
Theories are always being 'dialed in', but the evidence is clear to those un-addled by 'beliefs'!
ID is absurd!



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 02:08 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic



Randomness can't create instructions. It's just nonsense.


Ever heard of the Infinite Monkey Theorem? en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 03:07 AM
link   
I find it rather puzzling that ID is always concentrating on humans, apes, pigs and a few other creatures.

Why doesn't it adress Gods apparent need to create creatures that only destroy or kill? Why the need to create virus and bacteria that eat away at an innocent child?
I can understand that God loves us all, but shouldn't she have refrained from creating stuff that harms humans as we are the most loved creatures on earth?

I don't think that points at intelligence.

ID also is involved in the creation of non-animals. Why create sulphuric acid? Mercury?

And the notion that ID and evolution can co-exist are OK with me. As long as we remember that ID is just a desperate attempt to make Genesis sound scientific. It's when ID is introduced into the educational system that intelligent people should take action.

It is funny that Christians are using words like "Intelligent" while panhandling the bible.

Knowledgeable people can believe in a God. People with the gift of the gab can believe in a God. Intelligent people do not believe in a God. That's part of what defines intelligence.

edit on 9-4-2016 by HolgerTheDane2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 03:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: neoholographic



Randomness can't create instructions. It's just nonsense.


Ever heard of the Infinite Monkey Theorem? en.wikipedia.org...



As it says, it would take longer than the universe has been around by a lot. lol.

Probabilities[edit]




Probabilities[edit]

However, for physically meaningful numbers of monkeys typing for physically meaningful lengths of time the results are reversed. If there were as many monkeys as there are atoms in the observable universe typing extremely fast for trillions of times the life of the universe, the probability of the monkeys replicating even a single page of Shakespeare is unfathomably minute.


So we can rule out randoming.



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 03:22 AM
link   
a reply to: burgerbuddy

Good. Now read this en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 07:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
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


In retrospect, I (John Sanford) realize that 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 matter. The issue of who we are, where we came from, and where we are going seem to me to be of enormous importance. This is the real subject of this 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!

Do you all remember the 56K modems where you could actually listen in on the modem signal. Did the modem sound like noise or specified information? Statistically it sounds like white noise (that is by design actually), but it is actually rich in specified complexity.

Suppose an Mp3 music file was being transmitted by this modem. If you listened to the modem signal, you might think it’s noise, but by demodulating the signal (changing perspective) what sounds like noise is revealed to be actually be music! That is what is beginning ot happen to our understanding of the information content of biological systems, we are changing our perspective to view biology as information rich rather being full of junk (typical Darwinist viewpoint). Sanford highligted developments in how our perspective is changing about the information richness in biology. He gave examples of ingenious data compression schemes where loads of information are now being discovered.

Sanford shows that this rich repository of information has been steadily getting eroded and will continue to erode even if a maximal amount of eugenic selection is applied. Because of the intense data compression, there is no way random mutation could create such compressed structures (try making an Mp3 music file with a noise generator and see what happens!).


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.






posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 07:46 AM
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.

Tell me about it who the hell puts a waste disposal system through the middle of an area of pleasure ! (well except Councils).




top topics



 
57
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join