It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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.
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.
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 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?
Gene regulation and expression needs proteins in order to regulate the expression of genes.
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.
originally posted by: neoholographic
The Primary Axiom or Evolution is just a lie and should be replaced by Intelligent Design
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...
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.
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!
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.
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.