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: 8
57
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 09:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

Your response to the Meyer video without any substance (the first sentence doesn't even make any sense to me, no idea what point you're making there) reminds me of the type of responses to Meyer displayed and explained at 5:25 - 7:45 in this video:


edit on 10-4-2016 by whereislogic because: time change




posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 09:59 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

It makes no sense to you because you don't know chemistry.



posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 10:54 AM
link   
Good job providing nothing to prove your argument. I literally wasted 90 seconds of my life that I can never get back. Shame on you.



posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 11:42 AM
link   
"You ever noticed how people who believe in Creationism look really un-evolved? You ever noticed that? Eyes real close together, eyebrow ridges, big furry hands and feet. "I believe God created me in one day". Yeah, looks like He rushed it" - Bill Hicks



posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 12:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gh0stwalker
a reply to: Foundryman

Unless we were made to be imperfect... Can't surpass our creators now, can we?


does a Son not develop into his Father's inheritance? I think the Truth is more amazing than we can currently fathom. I become overjoyed when I start to see the developing Gift of the Heavenly Father.


originally posted by: burgerbuddy

Some think mother earth is alive.

Gaia ring a bell?

Seriously tho, if ya ain't gots no universe, ya ain't gots no planets.



All life is about 2/3 water... The earth is about 2/3 water... This is not 100% proof, but it insists that the earth is living.



posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 01:17 PM
link   
This debate would be no longer if 2 things.

1 - intelligent creator showed itself, but why would it? That would ruin any experiment or proud product of said creators. Like organisms in a petri dish, are clueless to their observer and the one that brought them together to cultivate and expand.
Over vast amounts of time, the organisms will adapt to the petri dish (environment/planet), and genetically alter to thrive in said environment.

2 - TPTB stop hiding so much from public view (Smithsonian for example). People are truely ignorant if they think the establishment doesn't have an agenda in molding our species perception of the world around them and even beyond.
Why hide anything. ... surely, there are things well hidden from public view.

For all we know Darwin and Co. Had an agenda, and it has been fulfilled for decades past. Perception of life is molded in the masses. Not by experience, but by reading and absorbing information they are told is undisputed truth...

How many times has such conventional wisdom been put in place, only to be bent again based on new discoveries.

In my honest opinion, it's people's choice to believe what they want. You, me, we all die regardless, so what you presently believe to be "fact" or "truth" is ultimately redundant as death will pursue you.

As a being birthed in a paradoxical universe, I think it's most wise to forget who is right, and more what's happening to conscious beings when their "evolved/designed" bodies degrade into the very soil they walk on...
It's more wise to understand your capabilities within the vessel your in, mentally, physically and spiritually.

Death is waiting for all, what happens next, if anything, people should care more about then how their body came to be...
edit on 10-4-2016 by Elementalist because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Elementalist

Or option 3, that people stop being retarded


Why don't people know that evolution has been shown to the most viable theory through quantitative and qualitative data time after time after time after time after time after time etc etc etc etc etc etc etc. It's been so solidified using actual observations of the world around us accompanied by an incredibly vast volume of data that any other theories have an almost impossibly steep mountain to climb to prove otherwise. There is absolutely zero evidence to support intelligent design and we are still having these conversations. I'm all for having a debate about theories of how we came to be, but these theories actually have to be competing. Give me at least some quantitative data to support opposing theories. Give me anything.



posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 02:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: maria_stardust
a reply to: neoholographic

Umm... No.

Keep ID in Sunday school where is belongs.



That is seriously the most close minded (can't be right, looks ridiculous) thing I have heard in a while. Why does ID have to be exclusive to Christianity, or any religion for that matter? You aren't even willing to consider that something other than what you believe is even possible?



posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: BrokedownChevy

I only have life experience to offer man.



posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 03:38 PM
link   
I'm glad this thread keeps growing because the lie of evolution needs to be exposed. Without intelligent agency, evolution reads like a fantasy novel.

Darwin said:

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

The theory hasn't just broken down, it has been obliterated by the insane amount of information storage and compression and the fact the sequence of DNA letters has meaning that gives function and instructions. There's just NO WAY this can occur without intelligent agency.

Here's a video about the information storage capacity of DNA.



Here's an article about Microsoft developing a storage system to store digital data in DNA.

Scientists encode, retrieve 10,000 gigabytes stored on DNA molecules


Researchers at the University of Washington and Microsoft are developing one of the first complete storage systems to house digital data in DNA. The news comes as the digital universe is expected to hit 44 trillion gigabytes by 2020.

“Life has produced this fantastic molecule called DNA that efficiently stores all kinds of information about your genes and how a living system works. It’s very, very compact and very durable,” said co-author Luis Ceze, UW associate professor of computer science and engineering, in a press release.

“We’re essentially repurposing it to store digital data, pictures, videos, documents, in a manageable way for hundreds or thousands of years.”

Researchers said DNA molecules can store information many millions of times more densely than existing technology for digital storage, such as flash drives and hard drives, as well as magnetic and optical media. Those systems also degrade after a few years, while DNA can preserve information for centuries.


www.rt.com...

Again, DNA blows evolution out of the water when there's no intelligent agency. The data doesn't evolve. The sequence of the data already has meaning which takes DNA to Proteins.

Transcription factors recognize the double meaning of these sequences. How do these sequences evolve the correct order that gives rise to function? How does the correct sequence RANDOMLY know where the start of a gene sequence begins?

It's like if I had the random letters gsnaoptd intelligence can put these letters into a sequence that has meaning and therefore conveys functionality.

I can arrange gsnaoptd into go and stop. These random letters now have sequence and functionality. THIS DOESN'T EVOLVE. For this to have meaning and functionality, I have to also create the machinary that can read and understand these sequences.


Without intelligent agency evolution is a fantasy. It's the Primary Axiom that people blindly accept because they feel it supports their belief system.
edit on 10-4-2016 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 03:49 PM
link   
I feel stupider trying to read the shenanigans of paid philosophers, lawyers, theologians and charlatan trying pull off a their tax-free scam of ID. They see themselves performing a form of Word Magick as if their new definitions actually change reality.
Never have I seen a rise of such pure hypocrisy. Not even the courtroom would allow this gross dishonesty practiced by creationists and IDists in their formal debates.

Neither ID nor creationism are science and both are religious in nature. This thread is all Apologetics, a religious endeavor. If ID and creationism are truly science as this thread claims them to be, then why not simply produce the evidence that they are? Let the body of IDist and creationist research and extensive peer-reviewed literature produced demonstrate ID. . . oh yeah, that's right, there is none!

Here's a hint creationist, you can't prove ID by disproving evolution. You need to prove ID!




posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 03:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
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.


Okay, in some ways you are right, none of us have answered any of the laid out here in this quote.
As an evolutionist the is

Thousand of million of years ago the first bunch of bacteria formed inn a bubbling pot of goo. their code may have been one tiny rna strings. Millions of them died but a few that were different survived. the environment and their own instability caused variation and rapid growth. after a few million years a few responded to sun light better than other yet again other liked to absorb other bacteria for energy. After a few million......

The point is the our world has had a long time (thousands of millions years) to forment the basics of life. The successful bits life carried on.

We can demonstrate the process of evolution in your own garden by cross breeding plants. the successes thrive and the weak falter.



posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 04:03 PM
link   
a reply to: flyingfish

This quote makes no sense as it pertains to this thread. You said:

Here's a hint creationist, you can't prove ID by disproving evolution. You need to prove ID!

Again, if you read the thread, you shoud know that it's not about disproving evolution. It's saying evolution can't occur without intelligent agency. Evolution proves Intelligent Design.

How can random mutations and natural selection create a sequence of DNA letters that have functionality and meaning while also creating the machinary to read and understand these sequences? This is impossible without intelligent agency. Just look at gene regulation.



When you look at something like the TATA box it simply blows away any notion of evolution without intelligent agency.

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...

Again, intelligence has to give this sequences meaning and functionality while also creating the machinary that can read and understand these sequences so the direction of transcription can be read as well as indicating what strand will be read.

THIS DOESN'T EVOLVE WITHOUT INTELLIGENT AGENCY



posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Just curious, can anyone lay out what the "primary axiom of evolution" is exactly?



posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 04:47 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

What may seem obvious to you is not reflected in the science:

Fast turnover of genome transcription across evolutionary time exposes entire non-coding DNA to de novo gene emergence

Rafik Neme Diethard Tautz
Max-Planck Institute for Evolutionary Biology, Germany
DOI: dx.doi.org...
Published February 2, 2016
Cite as eLife 2016;5:e09977
Abstract
Deep sequencing analyses have shown that a large fraction of genomes is transcribed, but the significance of this transcription is much debated. Here, we characterize the phylogenetic turnover of poly-adenylated transcripts in a comprehensive sampling of taxa of the mouse (genus Mus), spanning a phylogenetic distance of 10 Myr. Using deep RNA sequencing we find that at a given sequencing depth transcriptome coverage becomes saturated within a taxon, but keeps extending when compared between taxa, even at this very shallow phylogenetic level. Our data show a high turnover of transcriptional states between taxa and that no major transcript-free islands exist across evolutionary time. This suggests that the entire genome can be transcribed into poly-adenylated RNA when viewed at an evolutionary time scale. We conclude that any part of the non-coding genome can potentially become subject to evolutionary functionalization via de novo gene evolution within relatively short evolutionary time spans.

DOI: dx.doi.org...


elifesciences.org...

No "creator" is required for this process. The de novo gene is self assembled and self organized in the DNA molecule. No magic wand required.



posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 04:50 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Another research paper:

DNA Self-Assembly: From Chirality to Evolution
Youri Timsit
Author information ► Article notes ► Copyright and License information ►
Go to:
Abstract
Transient or long-term DNA self-assembly participates in essential genetic functions. The present review focuses on tight DNA-DNA interactions that have recently been found to play important roles in both controlling DNA higher-order structures and their topology. Due to their chirality, double helices are tightly packed into stable right-handed crossovers. Simple packing rules that are imposed by DNA geometry and sequence dictate the overall architecture of higher order DNA structures. Close DNA-DNA interactions also provide the missing link between local interactions and DNA topology, thus explaining how type II DNA topoisomerases may sense locally the global topology. Finally this paper proposes that through its influence on DNA self-assembled structures, DNA chirality played a critical role during the early steps of evolution.

Keywords: chromatin, topology, higher-order structures, topoisomerase, crossover, DNA packaging

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...



posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 05:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: neoholographic

What may seem obvious to you is not reflected in the science:

Fast turnover of genome transcription across evolutionary time exposes entire non-coding DNA to de novo gene emergence

Rafik Neme Diethard Tautz
Max-Planck Institute for Evolutionary Biology, Germany
DOI: dx.doi.org...
Published February 2, 2016
Cite as eLife 2016;5:e09977
Abstract
Deep sequencing analyses have shown that a large fraction of genomes is transcribed, but the significance of this transcription is much debated. Here, we characterize the phylogenetic turnover of poly-adenylated transcripts in a comprehensive sampling of taxa of the mouse (genus Mus), spanning a phylogenetic distance of 10 Myr. Using deep RNA sequencing we find that at a given sequencing depth transcriptome coverage becomes saturated within a taxon, but keeps extending when compared between taxa, even at this very shallow phylogenetic level. Our data show a high turnover of transcriptional states between taxa and that no major transcript-free islands exist across evolutionary time. This suggests that the entire genome can be transcribed into poly-adenylated RNA when viewed at an evolutionary time scale. We conclude that any part of the non-coding genome can potentially become subject to evolutionary functionalization via de novo gene evolution within relatively short evolutionary time spans.

DOI: dx.doi.org...


elifesciences.org...

No "creator" is required for this process. The de novo gene is self assembled and self organized in the DNA molecule. No magic wand required.




This entire posts has nothing to do with what's being said. This has nothing to do with coding regions of DNA when it comes to transcription, translation and error correction which are all apart of gene regulation and expression. De novo genese are also subject to this same regulation.


Abstract
Although considered an extremely unlikely event, many genes emerge from previously noncoding genomic regions. This review covers the entire life cycle of such de novo genes. Two competing hypotheses about the process of de novo gene birth are discussed as well as the high death rate of de novo genes. Despite the high death rate, some de novo genes are retained and remain functional, even in distantly related species, through their integration into gene networks. Further studies combining gene expression with ribosome profiling in multiple populations across different species will be instrumental for an improved understanding of the evolutionary processes operating on de novo genes.


Not only is their a high death rate of de novo genes but they're subject to the same regulation and expression that I have been talking about throughout the thread.

Another method for assessing whether or not a de novo gene is functional rests on the assumption that the modulation of gene expression patterns reflects functional requirements. To this end, several studies have shown that de novo genes are not constitutively expressed, but exhibit clear patterns of regulated gene expression (e.g., [9,21–24]). Liu et al. [25] not only studied differential regulation of de novo genes during the development of Drosophila melanogaster embryos, but also identified some developmental stages that were enriched for the expression of de novo genes, suggesting that de novo genes may preferentially acquire functional roles during some developmental stages.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

CLEAR PATTERNS OF REGULATED GENE EXPRESSION!

Did you even read up on de novo genes or did you just copy and paste something with no context as it pertains to the thread?



posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 05:05 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

So because the word "regulated" is used you assume that "someone did it"? A self assembled molecule can also be a functional molecule as is the case with DNA and its precursor RNA.

You're drawing a conclusion with no evidence. It might seem logical, but in science, only evidence counts - not one's opinion.




edit on 10-4-2016 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 05:11 PM
link   
Not that anyone is going to read it, but here's a recent review on how life begin (including self organizing functional molecules):

Biol Direct. 2015; 10: 67.
Published online 2015 Nov 26. doi: 10.1186/s13062-015-0096-z
PMCID: PMC4662029
The progene hypothesis: the nucleoprotein world and how life began
Anatoly D. Altsteincorresponding author
Author information ► Article notes ► Copyright and License information ►
Go to:
Abstract
Abstract

In this article, I review the results of studies on the origin of life distinct from the popular RNA world hypothesis. The alternate scenario postulates the origin of the first bimolecular genetic system (a polynucleotide gene and a polypeptide processive polymerase) with simultaneous replication and translation and includes the following key features:......

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Truly amazing that stuff like this is out there! All you have to do is look for it



posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 05:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

Again, the things you're saying have nothing to do with the thread and gene regulation and expression through DNA letters that are transcribed and translated in an order that conveys meaning and functionality as well as the machinary to understand these sequences.

Next, you quote papers that are hypothesis that are essentially meaningless. You just need to read the reviews of the paper.

While I thought the basic model was intriguing, I found the second half of the paper to be lacking, from the section, ‘Consequence 3. The molecular mechanism of genetic code arising’ through to the end. The discussion of the genetic code, and the two sections after that seemed to have been written with little consideration of the literature on the genetic code, prebiotic chemistry or the evolutionary transitions proposed leading to modern cells. There were few references, the explanations were a bit dense in places. For instance, the section on the genetic code ends with a statement claiming that the progene hypothesis can explain around 8 features of the code (note the list is misnumbered), but the preceding text is not really sufficient to allow the reader to assess such a bold statement.

Now here's the first line of response from the Author of the paper.

A detailed analysis of the genetic code problem was not of my paper task. I only showed that the postulated mechanism of progene formation allows to explain emergence of the prebiotic genetic code by an especial physicochemical way.

Did you even read the paper you quoted?

This has nothing to do with anything being said on this thread and if you would have actually read the paper you would know this.




top topics



 
57
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join