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: 52
57
<< 49  50  51    53  54  55 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 1 2016 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: PhotonEffect

And back from the weekend....

So the most common critique of his work, by Molecular biologists (biochemists, Geneticists etc) is that he has over simplified his analogy, and made some gross generalizations. Part of the problem is information means something different in various disiplines. SO you get people trying to apply Information theory to something which is not that sort of information.

Like I said, DNA (and RNA) are more about chemical potential than the "information". Indeed rnaa made a better analogy. Your genome is DATA. SO keeping with the information theory analogy (not great but someone injected it here).

Computers need data. Humans need information.
Data is a building block. Information gives meaning and context.


While you have never heard DNA described as an alphabet, it is often. Just because you never hear something, does not make it not so.

Chemical reactions are in general potential (be it thermodynamic or kinetic, or more likely a combination of both).




posted on May, 1 2016 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

You miss the point. an adaption is part of evolution. Stop playing the semantics game. An adaptation is a feature that is common in a population because it provides some improved function. This is the very basis of what evolution is about.



posted on May, 1 2016 @ 06:29 PM
link   
a reply to: rnaa

originally posted by: rnaa
Sorry my reply was to Phantom423 apparently. That stuff up is mine and mine alone, no one else to blame. I apologize.

Apology accepted.


originally posted by: rnaa
And I already told you. NO.

I am NOT going to engage in your childish games.


Wait, huh? I’m playing childish games? How so, when you're the one taking the ball and going home...

All I did was ask you define what a gene is. Sheesh, tough crowd


originally posted by: rnaa
This is not a biology class, and if you don't know what a gene is, then go find a biology class and learn. While you are at it find an organic chemistry class and learn what a chemical reaction is.

This is ridiculous. You are trying to argue about stuff that is so far over your head that you are going to end up in traction from looking up so much.


I don't understand why you are getting so defensive. Is it possible you're confusing me with another poster you’ve been arguing with?

I'm not here to play games. I'm here to ask questions and engage in discussion. It's strange, you've been very willing to "teach" biology throughout this thread, yet now all of the sudden it's not a "biology class" when I ask for your interpretation of what a gene is. You gotta love it.

Oh, and nothing is above my head here so perhaps you can do away with the ad hominems. I’m well read on the subject and am happy to discuss/debate with anyone. I honestly don't see where I've said something that would have warranted that type of response from you. So please point me to it.


originally posted by: rnaa
When you find out what a gene is and what it does and how it works, then come back and discuss how the chemistry involved performs tasks that could be described using metaphor that resembles that of a computer system. You will still lose your argument, but at least you might have a grounding that helps you avoid insulting peoples intelligence while you are at it.

I’m not sure who it is you think you're talking to. Whose intelligence have I insulted here, and in what way? It's not been my intent to do that, so please point me to the exact post that's causing you to make these accusations. And I don't think DNA or genes resemble computers either. I never said or suggested such a thing. So that's moot

I'm asking certain questions because you have taken an active role as one of the 'educators' in this thread. You seem some what knowledgeable, but you made some questionable statements in your posts, so I'm inclined to probe further to flush out the fact of the matter. What's wrong with that? I'm sorry if I've offended you somehow, but you've put yourself out there to be questioned. Why is that okay for you to do but not anyone else?

At this point I can only be left to assume you're not sure how to answer the question. You referred to a gene as ‘DATA’. Data is information where I’m from. Right, you’ve made clear that's a super stretched analogy. So what then is genetic information if it's not information? Simply biochemical reactions? - Is that it? A bit reductionist if you ask me. Fundamentally, everything is chemical reactions – but we don't always define everything chemically.


Over the past three and a half billion years, living organisms have evolved to acquire, process, store, and transmit information. Yet, for all the attention that is directed toward the information revolution in human society, remarkably little is known about the broad role of information in biological systems. To date, information is little more than a metaphor in evolutionary biology. How can we take information beyond the level of metaphor?
By exploring evolution in an information-theoretic framework, we highlight the way natural selection generates correlation between the sequence properties of the world and the sequence properties of life. In this way, we can formalize ideas about the role of information in evolutionary biology and take information in biology beyond the level of metaphor.

The Flow of Information in Biological Systems.


“If you want to understand life, don't think about vibrant, throbbing gels and
oozes, think about information technology.”

Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker (1986 112)
edit on 1-5-2016 by PhotonEffect because: to add another point



posted on May, 1 2016 @ 06:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
I just wish people would NOT try to over simplify what DNA is. It is a fecking complex molecule (Sugar, Nucleic acid, and all the fun that that entails), which does something we'd not seen before. Imagine if your asprin could self replicate.

I feel the same way when people try to over simplify evolution as mutations of DNA (and that's it).



posted on May, 1 2016 @ 06:46 PM
link   
a reply to: PhotonEffect

Yet many people dismiss that as the driving force behind evolution. This thread demonstrates that as we have people saying "it is just an adaption" as if adaption is not part of evolution at its core.



posted on May, 1 2016 @ 06:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

Is it the driving force though?

And yeah, I for one consider adaption to be part of evolution, regardless if it's an organism or a population doing the adapting. But why do people confuse things by saying one is evolution and one is not, like what rnaa keeps saying.

From one of the founding fathers of the MES:

The following definitions are mainly due to Theodosius Dobzhansky.

1. Adaptation is the evolutionary process whereby an organism becomes better able to live in its habitat or habitats.
2. Adaptedness is the state of being adapted: the degree to which an organism is able to live and reproduce in a given set of habitats.
3. An adaptive trait (also an adaptation*) is an aspect of the developmental pattern of the organism which enables or enhances the probability of that organism surviving and reproducing.

en.wikipedia.org...
* my edit



posted on May, 1 2016 @ 07:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: peter vlar

When you climb a mountain to an altitude where the air is thinner and slowly acclimate to it is not adaptation.


It is adaptation. Changes in my biochemistry occur which allow me to adapt to a varying climate 2,3-BPG. I have no idea how you would argue that this is not adaptation.


originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

NO try again: In biology, an adaptation, also called an adaptive trait, is a trait with a current functional role in the life of an organism that is maintained and evolved by means of natural selection. (1)

(1) Huxley, Julian (1942). Evolution: The Modern Synthesis. p. 449


Regardless of where/how you think it spawned from unintelligence, it is present... and it intelligently responds to changes in altitude: 2,3-BPG again


Adaptation has two components – character traits related to behavior, a biological process and/or structure – the structure-function relationship as defined by biology. Adaptation is also a phenotypic process where a population moves towards a more suitable environment. Adaptation and the resulting trait(s) are the result of natural selection. Natural selection resulting in adaptations are relative, not absolute. What works for one organism doesn't necessarily work for another.

Evolution is a change in GENOTYPIC frequencies in a population from generation to generation. It does not have to be adaptive in nature. It is descent with modification.

Your example of high altitude adaptation is an example of convergent evolution - most organisms exposed to high altitude conditions will experience similar physiological changes including a genotypic change.

The difference is that adaptation doesn't necessarily lead to an evolutionary change. An evolutionary change doesn't necessarily have a "goal" i.e. it may occur for obscure reasons not well understood. However, organisms on this planet generally acquire genotypic changes due to varying environmental stresses and the natural selection process.



posted on May, 1 2016 @ 07:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

Thanks for the general breakdown.

I wonder, if you think we are direct/absolute manifestations of our genes? Or in other words, is there anything that about an organism that is not a derivative of its genome?



posted on May, 1 2016 @ 07:35 PM
link   
a reply to: PhotonEffect

As I remind many of the posters here, I am not just a scientist. I'm religious (though not abrahamic), I am not of the opinion that everything of us is an absolute manifestation of our genes. Hell even on a purely physical level, epigenetics will shape things differently than just our pure DNA.

I would say, that as far as I (and science) can tell, our individual personalities are not genome dependent.



posted on May, 1 2016 @ 07:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: PhotonEffect

As I remind many of the posters here, I am not just a scientist. I'm religious (though not abrahamic), I am not of the opinion that everything of us is an absolute manifestation of our genes. Hell even on a purely physical level, epigenetics will shape things differently than just our pure DNA.

I would say, that as far as I (and science) can tell, our individual personalities are not genome dependent.

I would tend to agree with you on this. Although there are many who think it's all in the genes. Now the question moves on to what extent do other organisms have a "personality"? And how much is behavior a direct manifestation of the genes? Does a personality or behavior influence the impact on sexual selection.

You mentioned epigenetics. We know this mechanism plays a significant role in the evolutionary process. i.e. changes in phenotype that do not involve or rely on mutations to the underlying genotype, yet can be transmitted to subsequent generations. This barely gets mentioned despite the amount of data coming from the research. Not in the MES either....

And, I think we may soon realize the influence it has on important traits like instinct, for instance.



posted on May, 1 2016 @ 07:56 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

You clearly don't see and accept the evidence. There is more evidence for evolution than god. Not believing in something doesn't change the truth. You are just one of the people hardwired to believe in mythical sky beings.



posted on May, 2 2016 @ 02:24 AM
link   
a reply to: PhotonEffect



You mentioned epigenetics. We know this mechanism plays a significant role in the evolutionary process.


No, actually 'we' know no such thing. There is absolutely no evidence for that. Period. Zero. Nada. Zip.



i.e. changes in phenotype that do not involve or rely on mutations to the underlying genotype, yet can be transmitted to subsequent generations.


There is simply no such accepted evidence, none, zip, nada that there is any such thing as a permanent (i.e. evolutionary) epigenetic change. Somebody keeps mentioning 'methylization' or 'methylated gene'. That process is well understood and is in fact, 'reset' before every generation, not passed on. Apparently there are some methylizations that can cross several generations, but that is rare.

And since that process, methylization/demethylization, is 'encoded' in the DNA, it is subject 100% to the standard genetic inheritance model. Methylated DNA is not a mutation, it is just a 'state' that DNA can take to suppress certain genes.

There is simply nothing 'new' or controversial about the process. While not all epigenetic processes are as well understood, there is absolutely no reason to expect any shocking destruction of the MES.



This barely gets mentioned despite the amount of data coming from the research.


There are plenty of reports about it. You have heard about it haven't you? Clearly you haven't been reading mainstream science blogs or you would know just what the state of play in the field is. Reading New Age psuedoscience or anti-science reactionary religions blogs certainly aren't going to keep you well informed on the subject. And since the science does not actually support their positions, they aren't going to be talking about it much.

I score this complaint as meaningless, as always. The fact that you don't read or study beyond your own narrow echo-chamber is not a problem of the world in general, but your own world view.



Not in the MES either....


People are hard at work trying to find out how it might fit into the MES; some are lobbying for an EMES, Enhanced MES, but since there is no real Evolutionary process involved here, I don't find it very difficult to discuss it within the MES.

Epigenetics is very interesting, but it is never going to 'replace' the already well understood genetic DNA inheritance model.

Frankly, I can't for the life of me figure out why ID'ers, or Creationists, or New Agers or who ever think that epigenetics is going to burn down the MES or cancel Evolution and the rest of Biology along with it. If they understood it on an even rudimentary level, they wouldn't dare. It just doesn't make sense.



posted on May, 2 2016 @ 06:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Agree. Very well said.

The OP is guilty of deductive fallacy. Some of his statements may be true, but the conclusion is always false. The rules of logic, which in this case would include known facts, simply do not apply.

I think we've seen this type of behavior enough times to conclude that the mind-set of Creationists and ID believers follows no TRUE logic. This isn't a failure due to lack of information. It's intentional.




I couldn't believe how many times he repeated the "he had to go to his geneticist friend to answer a simple question". For his next 20 replies he repeated that statement over and over as if it was a bad thing. Then with the 47 pages claim, he said that literally 5-6 times in every post for the next 5 pages. Then the cosmic fingerprints "source". He must have posted that like 10 times. Then his quote about the TATA box he posted at least 30 times, probably more.


You don't have to be a psychiatrist to know that this is neurotic behavior. It's a ritualized pattern of behavior that compensates for a true discussion based on known facts. In short, it's an ego trip - he/she has to be right and will disregard any factual challenge to his premise.



posted on May, 2 2016 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: PhotonEffect

Well to be fair, we are only just beginning to understand what epigentics is, and even less so how it works. It is a rabbit hole. I remember the "when we map the genome, we shall understand it all, and have personalized medicine" ten years later "we will have personalized medicine honest". Recently "umm epigentics is messing that up".

Having worked on contract research and manufacturing (CRO and CMO) for Pharma big and small. They are NOT working on personalized medicine. Why? Well it would be a mint for them, but it is because we are not there yet.

Now as to the person. Genetics pays a part in personality I am sure, but we DO NOT understand the brain well enough to say more than a hand wiggle of "maybe".



posted on May, 3 2016 @ 12:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

It's not true to say they are not working on personalized medicine...
As many steps are being taken in this direction...
And maybe not so far off...
www.nature.com...



posted on May, 3 2016 @ 12:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Noinden

But why do people confuse things by saying one is evolution and one is not, like what rnaa keeps saying.


That question goes a lot deeper than you might have thought when you asked it. It has to do with the spreading of vagueness and confusion about these subjects, creating an environment in which it is more conducive for selling philosophies and myths/false stories as so-called "science" (or factual/true, etc.). When people don't really understand the problems with a particular philosophy/idea (agnosticism is involved as well and the way of thinking of Pontius Pilatus that I went into more detail about in the thread on the theology forum about the question: "What is truth?") it's much more easier for them to accept what's being sold to them, especially when it's tickling their ears (what they want to hear, entertaining or otherwise pleasing to them).

The last video in the set below has the biggest clues as to how this thinking pattern works (regarding James 3:14-16), but it's rather advanced knowledge that is perhaps not that easy to understand for those who have been filling their minds for years with erronuous philosophies, propaganda and a wrong way of thinking and conversing about this subject (conversing without progress in knowledge, keeping them ignorant and in figurative darkness). That's why I'm sharing the other videos first (and because I can now share a short version of a video I shared before that was too long with too many distractions before).
This selection is about 1 hour in total (it's over before you know it, I already watched it several times over).




The video below is a temporary version, I'm hoping to make it shorter and make it more clear what tactic Dawkins is using when he's using the phrase about a so-called "sophisticated physicist" vs a "naive person", as well as make it clear that he's pretending not to be a philosopher while he's selling philosophies (I'll probably include something from the song "The Great Pretender" but I'm having some copyright issues with the video editor so it's taking a bit longer. I possibly also want to make it clear how he switches between 'nothing = something very very simple = something pretty mysterious = literally nothing = not nothing' and another game that is being played by Krauss when he adds the phrase "in physics", allthough I already have a clue about that in the video below, but there are 2 aspects to that phrase and the 2nd one relates to the phrase "sophisticated physicist", which Krauss is pretending to be, and viewed by others as such).






Of course, the videos above are also available in an even more detailed context in the playlist:
Real science, knowledge about realities compared to philosophies and stories

Which is right now a little less than 4 hours in total. The first hour is mostly biology and a touch of mythology and psychology, the 2nd hour is approx. a 50/50 mix between biology and psychology+mythology, the 3rd hour has a lot more mythology, psychology, history, physics, informatica and some leftover biology, the last hour is filled mostly with history, mythology and psychology (it may still have a few reminders concerning biology, but most of that should be covered in the first 2 hours).
edit on 3-5-2016 by whereislogic because: addition



posted on May, 3 2016 @ 03:15 AM
link   

No human invention can compete with the technical brilliance evident in even the most basic of cells.

Question 2: Is Any Form of Life Really Simple?

Regarding the 2nd video entitled "how to..." I probably should have added the shorter version of 2 videos I shared earlier in this thread. Then again, I consider it unlikely people want to watch them and even more so the more videos I add. Still, just in case I'm wrong about that cause people have indicated before that they watched some (perhaps not the whole playlist)...

and now I feel I need to finish that subject of interdependency and what it means to the subject of so-called "chemical evolution" (at least you'll get an alternative order to watch these videos, perhaps for some it works even better in terms of understanding the subjects in this thread):







And with that background information and keeping the word "interdependency" in mind in relation to the idea of a gradual evolution of certain biological systems of machinery and the machines themselves as well as the code that is processed to assemble these machines (both at the micro- and macro-scales), perhaps even rewatching the 1st video in this comment; then the 2 videos below can begin to make sense:


The breakdown of all these videos in my last 2 comments is already all throughout this thread, only this time, all twists corrected. What's not made entirely clear by Stephen Meyer is how preposterous it is to suggest you can even have an RNA based lifeform that reproduces and passes on 'something' like genes, I dunno, they don't even get into reproduction and what gets passed on cause they don't have a living reproducing organism. Just fantasies about mythological prokaryotic and before that RNA based lifeforms or so-called 'protocells'. You don't get to go from simple to complex (see video about the Pagan roots of evolutionary philosophies part 1 regarding 'simple>complex'; you also get people twisting that idea pretending 'evolution has no direction', but then they sneakily switched to another definition for evolution doing their usual wordgames), see my first video regarding the interdependent requirements for a unicellular yeast cell (and it doesn't get much better for prokaryotic single-celled organisms either). I need a good video that explains the interdepency problem much better for both the philosophies involving so-called "chemical evolution" as well as so-called "biological evolution" (which are both based on the same way of thinking, pretending the laws of nature can do things that no one has ever observed, talking about mythological mutation events, fusion events, and so on).

The problem with the video below is that the term "irreducible complexity" is a triggerword when it is not spelled out completely that this is in relation to a very specific function (and 100% of that function). Next to that it also doesn't mention anything about redundancy in engineering (which means something is still designed but parts can be reduced from it because there are backups). Other than that, it alludes to the interdepency problem (except that it only adresses 1 particular biomolecular machine which people have heard a lot of misleading arguments about, another hornet's nest).

No the problem has not been refuted. Talking about tie clips, mouse traps and snowflakes is not going to make it go away. Pointing to other proteins and claiming that it can evolve because there are some similarities (minor and trivial if you look at the details) from that protein is also not evidence that that's possible. And it's ridiculous to focus just on 1 machine. The whole point is interdepency vs gradual evolution (step by step over multiple generations, meaning you require a reproducing organism while the system is not finished yet and a whole bunch of other things to consider).

Just as a reminder again cause I'm sure people will continue to play that card:
Define Chemical evolution at Dictionary.com:

The formation of complex organic molecules from simpler inorganic molecules through chemical reactions in the oceans during the early history of the Earth; the first step in the development of life on this planet.

a.k.a. abiogenesis. Note the dictionary having no problems putting a blatant lie in there:

Note : Many of the steps in chemical evolution can now be reproduced in the laboratory.

Not even 1! Just pointing to something and calling it a step in chemical evolution/abiogenesis doesn't mean it is one. That's how much you can trust some dictionaries these days, so don't look up the word "evolution" cause I'll bet ye you'll find no mention of chemical evolution/abiogenesis (or anything that sounds like it, not in that dictionary).
edit on 3-5-2016 by whereislogic because: addition



posted on May, 3 2016 @ 11:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic
That question goes a lot deeper than you might have thought when you asked it. It has to do with the spreading of vagueness and confusion about these subjects, creating an environment in which it is more conducive for selling philosophies and myths/false stories as so-called "science" (or factual/true, etc.).


That is exactly it and that's why creationists and science deniers constantly equivocate origin of life and evolution. They are intentionally muddying the waters to confuse the issue and to take away their responsibility to do research on the topic themselves. If they can just straw man evolution and call it something it's not (or use it vaguely as some all encompassing term), it makes it way easier to debunk. The OP did this so many times that this thread spiraled out of control and ended up going absolutely nowhere. There is no vagueness whatsoever associated with evolutionary theory in science. In fact, it's very specific what it is. It's the folks that do not understand this that are guilty of pushing a belief system based on confirmation bias rather than evidence.


it's much more easier for them to accept what's being sold to them, especially when it's tickling their ears (what they want to hear, entertaining or otherwise pleasing to them).


Bingo. Couldn't agree more. You have defined the science deniers on ATS perfectly.


a.k.a. abiogenesis. Note the dictionary having no problems putting a blatant lie in there:

Note : Many of the steps in chemical evolution can now be reproduced in the laboratory.

Not even 1! Just pointing to something and calling it a step in chemical evolution/abiogenesis doesn't mean it is one. That's how much you can trust some dictionaries these days, so don't look up the word "evolution" cause I'll bet ye you'll find no mention of chemical evolution/abiogenesis (or anything that sounds like it, not in that dictionary).


That isn't a blatant lie. They have indeed done several experiments with abiogenesis that replicate various parts of the process. It's not about trusting the dictionary, it's about trusting peer reviewed scientific experiments.



I posted this before. Since you value youtube videos over scientific research papers, here is a short, but effective video about abiogenesis that goes over many of those experiments. To claim they don't exist is a blatant lie on your part.

Also, you are confused once again with your terminology. Look up the word evolution, then look up the word chemical. It basically means the evolution of organic chemicals. Evolution simply means change or increase in complexity/knowledge over time, and we all know what chemical means. That is abiogenesis and not related to modern synthesis (theory of evolution). You can't just look up words in the dictionary, you have to look up their definitions and application IN SCIENCE.

When somebody says, "Evolution is a lie", they need to explain what they mean by evolution. I posed this question several times to the OP and he refused to answer. We know the layman's term isn't a lie, because my skills at basketball can evolve. My knowledge of chess can evolve. BUT, the term evolution in biology is quite different and to call that a lie is borderline ridiculous because of all the evidence for genetic mutations / natural selection / etc. If you want to say chemical evolution is a lie, then at least you are being specific and talking about abiogenesis, but when folks just throw the term evolution around with no context, it doesn't do your viewpoint any justice. It may fool people that do not care to learn or understand the science involved, but to folks that know what it means, it sounds absurd.


edit on 5 3 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2016 @ 12:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
If they can just straw man evolution and call it something it's not (or use it vaguely as some all encompassing term), it makes it way easier to debunk.


But none of you could come up with a cohesive, universal definition for evolution. Therefore, debating against it is like shooting arrows at ghosts.

For example:


originally posted by: Phantom423

Evolution is a change in genotypic frequencies in a population from generation to generation.


Genotypic frequencies of a population change with every new birth of an organism - If this were the definition of evolution, then every population would be "evolving" every time a child is born in the population. This is obviously untrue.

If you all can agree on a definition of evolution, we will continue from there.
edit on 3-5-2016 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2016 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

It's been posted in here multiple times. The only folks disagreeing or changing the definition are dishonest creationists/deniers.

Biological evolution (aka theory of modern evolutionary synthesis) is about the change in frequency of alleles in a population, usually via genetic mutations and natural selection.


Genotypic frequencies of a population change with every new birth of an organism -


No they don't. Genetic mutations happen but they are mostly neutral. The increase of the frequency of a certain trait amongst a population, is what we are talking about and what science defines as biological evolution (or MS). Key phrase: frequency in a population. It's not just about changes in an individual.


If this were the definition of evolution, then every population would be "evolving" every time a child is born in the population. This is obviously untrue.


Every population IS evolving. You are obviously confusing a population with a single individual. Populations evolve. Individuals adapt to circumstance.


edit on 5 3 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
57
<< 49  50  51    53  54  55 >>

log in

join