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: 9
57
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 05:25 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Even if you could prove ID, evolution will still happen. Your misinterpitation of DNA in no way proves any designer and further more sequences and functions don't need an agent to their jobs, it's chemistry.




posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 05:36 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

It has everything to do with the content of this thread. These are experiments. It's the process of discovery: hypothesis, theory, more evidence, repetition and probable fact. That the results aren't conclusive doesn't mean that the entire effort of the scientist was wasted. Everyone is free to criticize a scientist's work. But that doesn't negate the work or disqualify it for the information it provides.

Your contention is that because you don't understand how a macromolecular structure can code itself, that it has to be some outside force that did it. You've provided zero evidence for this - only your own opinion based on the complexity of the topics our chose like TATA. Well let me give you a little inside information: NO ONE knows definitively how RNA assembled and coded, if it even was the first structure. But the content of these few papers and a wealth of other experimental data point to a self assembly process. This could have taken place on Earth, on Mars or in space as it was proposed just recently.

The next time you go into the lab in your white coat, why not design an experiment to prove your hypothesis? When you achieve some results and publish a paper, come back and tell us about it.


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

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

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



posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 05:57 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

So do you understand that similarities do not equate to evidence? Just curious? Evidence in a scientific sense (and we are talking science here) needs to fit some stringent criteria. THIS does not fit that criteria.



posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Please illustrate with evidence that "transcription is a product of intellegence". No seriously. You are implying decades of work in science is null and void, thus you need some mighty strong evidence their neighbour.



posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 06:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

Sadly, you have made several errors.

First, you quote a paper that has nothing to do with what's being said in the thread and the Author of the paper says this. You quoted it because you thought nobody would read it and this is why you made the snide remark that you doubt anyone would read it at the end of the post.

The jokes on you because I've already read many of these things or I will read what's being posted because that's what you do in a debate. The paper you posted has nothing to do with what's being said. It doesn't mean the work isn't important, it just means the work NEEDS TO BE PUT IN IT'S PROPER PLACE. It also shouldn't be used on a message board out of context when you're trying to say it has meaning that it obviously doesn't have based on the Author's own quote.

Secondly, you said:

Well let me give you a little inside information: NO ONE knows definitively how RNA assembled, if it even was the first structure.

The problem here goes to the subject of this thread. It goes to the Primary Axiom. You make this assumption because you are under the BELIEF that there must be an explanation of these things that can be explained "naturally" and "naturally" means without intelligent agency.

The fact is, evolution proves intelligent design. You keep looking for this mythical explanation of a complex code that has a sequence that gives instructions, regulates gene expression, transcribes, translates and add in error correction, that can arise "naturally."

All you're doing is kicking the can down the road based on a belief system. People come up with hypothesis after hypothesis after hypothesis and they all lead to the same conclusion. It either leads to a new structure or some other event but they all admit that they don't know.

I'm debating what we do know. What we know is, evolution is impossible without intelligent agency but people who want to believe this can occur will keep coming up with a new common ancestor or some new structure or magic molecule that did all this when intelligence is the only thing that makes sense and we know that intelligence exist.



posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 06:02 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

You say it is a big lie, but you have not proven it to be so. When one makes an extraordinary claim, one needs extraordinary evidence. Not random videos.



posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 06:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: neoholographic

You say it is a big lie, but you have not proven it to be so. When one makes an extraordinary claim, one needs extraordinary evidence. Not random videos.


I don't think you understand the conundrum that he is presenting.

Paradox: How could the genes that code for the proteins involved in replication, transcription and translation have evolved when there were no proteins to forego such processes? All of these processes would have had to come into effect simultaneously, incomplete machinery would not suffice. Without replication you have no offspring, without transcription you have no mRNA, without translation you have no proteins - all of these processes require proteins which require genes.
edit on 10-4-2016 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

I think it would be illogical wasting of brain capacity when a single self-assembling and self-coding bacteria with no brain knows more about DNA than all of us. The topic doesn't require this kind of knowledge. In my view it only derails it with details where logic fails. Common sense is enough. Chemistry is intelligent. Not.



posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 06:15 PM
link   
Sometimes the simplest answer, even if 'outside the box' is the best one.

I like both Intelligent Design [in the scientific sense that science continues to discover the universe is based upon logic and intelligence, but not necessarily a creator] and Evolution [in the sense you can see it and measure where and when it happened and is happening].

That leaves a lot of empty spaces - Evolution doesn't come even close to explaining all of nature and its variety and has a
large number of gaps even in what it tries to explain.

Now, outside the box - We are all part of an 'alien' 'genetic experiment' and many of the gaps you see, including the occurrence of modern Man, were caused by alien manipulation of genes. We are part of an experiment.

And what are the objectives of the experiment? - We can only speculate - But based upon the controversial accounts of
so called 'abductees' who have been taken aboard alien craft and who have passed both lie-detector tests and whose evidence has been varified by 'hypnotic regression' the aliens appear to be not too friendly and not too eager to tell
Humans what they are up to.

“Another of Mack’s patients says that the aliens have been taking eggs from her since she was sexually mature, and that her reproductive system baffles her gynecologist. Is it baffling enough to write the case up and submit a research paper to The New England Journal of Medicine? Apparently it’s not that baffling.”
― Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark

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



posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 06:17 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic




I'm debating what we do know. What we know is, evolution is impossible without intelligent agency but people who want to believe this can occur will keep coming up with a new common ancestor or some new structure or magic molecule that did all this when intelligence is the only thing that makes sense and we know that intelligence exist.


A lot of bs. You're debating your own opinion with absolutely no evidence.

You can't produce a single research paper that says that evolution is impossible without intelligent agency. As I said, the amount of data that has been published is sufficient to assume that self assembly of functional macromolecules is a possibility. The amount of data you have presented for your opinion is net ZERO.



posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 06:24 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

No I am fully aware of what he THINKS he is presenting. Given the science of DNA sequencing is young, there is no surprise that we do not have a complete picture. WE have what is called a "Swiss cheese model". We are filling in holes one or two at a time, but so far NONE of the evidence has implied that the model is grossly wrong. IF there was ID invovled, we would have found some evidence for it beyond this.

So yes I understand what is being implied, I do not agree that it is a conundrum that automatically means we were designed. For one, who designed the designers?



posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 06:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: neoholographic

You say it is a big lie, but you have not proven it to be so. When one makes an extraordinary claim, one needs extraordinary evidence. Not random videos.


I don't think you understand the conundrum that he is presenting.

Paradox: How could the genes that code for the proteins involved in replication, transcription and translation have evolved when there were no proteins to forego such processes? All of these processes would have had to come into effect simultaneously, incomplete machinery would not suffice. Without replication you have no offspring, without transcription you have no mRNA, without translation you have no proteins - all of these processes require proteins which require genes.


You're making assumptions which may seem logical to you, but isn't supported by the science.

Life As We Know It Nearly Created in Lab
by Robert Roy Britt | January 11, 2009 10:49am ET

The researchers, at the Scripps Research Institute, created molecules that self-replicate and even evolve and compete to win or lose. If that sounds exactly like life, read on to learn the controversial and thin distinction.

Know your RNA

To understand the remarkable breakthrough, detailed Jan. 8 in the early online edition of the journal Science, you have to know a little about molecules called RNA and DNA.

DNA is the software of life, the molecules that pack all the genetic information of a cell. DNA and the genes within it are where mutations occur, enabling changes that create new species.

RNA is the close cousin to DNA. More accurately, RNA is thought to be a primitive ancestor of DNA. RNA can't run a life form on its own, but 4 billion years ago it might have been on the verge of creating life, just needing some chemical fix to make the leap. In today's world, RNA is dependent on DNA for performing its roles, which include coding for proteins.

If RNA is in fact the ancestor to DNA, then scientists have figured they could get RNA to replicate itself in a lab without the help of any proteins or other cellular machinery. Easy to say, hard to do.

But that's exactly what the Scripps researchers did. Then things went surprisingly further.

www.livescience.com...

There's no paradox. It's just ongoing research. When you have definitive data that proves your assumption, come back and discuss it. In the meantime, you have none. Science has suggested possibilities backed up by experimental data. That's a hell of a lot more than you folks have.



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



posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 06:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: neoholographic

You say it is a big lie, but you have not proven it to be so. When one makes an extraordinary claim, one needs extraordinary evidence. Not random videos.


I don't think you understand the conundrum that he is presenting.

Paradox: How could the genes that code for the proteins involved in replication, transcription and translation have evolved when there were no proteins to forego such processes? All of these processes would have had to come into effect simultaneously, incomplete machinery would not suffice. Without replication you have no offspring, without transcription you have no mRNA, without translation you have no proteins - all of these processes require proteins which require genes.


Good post.

These basic components need to be in place in order for evolution to occur. Here's a recent study.

Researchers find surprising similarities between genetic and computer codes


Maslov and Pang set out to determine not only why some specialized genes or computer programs are very common while others are fairly rare, but to see how many components in any system are so important that they can't be eliminated. "If a bacteria genome doesn't have a particular gene, it will be dead on arrival," Maslov said. "How many of those genes are there? The same goes for large software systems. They have multiple components that work together and the systems require just the right components working together to thrive.'"

For both the bacteria and the computing systems, take the square root of the interdependent components and you can find the number of key components that are so important that not a single other piece can get by without them.


phys.org...

There's no evidence that these independent components evolved separately in some prebiotic goo. That makes no sense. There's also no evidence that the sequence of DNA letters that govern gene regulation, expression, transcription, error correction and translation evolved seperately in some RNA world or prebiotic goo. It's a fantasy.



posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 06:32 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

You keep posting the same "evidence" over and over, as if it is all that is needed to explain this. Its not. It is not even actual evidence. So I will ask what several have said already. Post the proof. Not the supposition.



posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 06:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

Of course it's actual evidence and you haven't posted one thing that refutes the evidence.

Saying things like this is meaningless:

You say it is a big lie, but you have not proven it to be so. When one makes an extraordinary claim, one needs extraordinary evidence. Not random videos.

You have offered nothing to refute anything that has been said and making comments like these are just silly and offers nothing to the debate.



posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic



So to give you a quick run down on how this works:

You (that would be YOU) make a claim. YOU (that again would be you) must back it up. If it is extraordinary (as this is, claiming evolution is a big lie), you must show the evidence that it is an actual lie. You can not do this with random videos, and a single paper, by a non specialist group.

I as a chemist and a biochemist (bioinformaticist) can make comments as an expert in those disciplines (though honestly only specific parts of them, but I still understand both disciplines enough). Similarly I might (due to minors in my education) be able to talk to statistics and genetics. I can't talk to Physics, Zoo-ology, computer science (outside of programming in R, and some Pearl) etc. In this case two code jockies made an interesting commentary, but did NOT talk to the biological facts of evolution. No they talked statistics. Speaking as a published Bioinformaticist, statistics are meaningless without a biological cause.

So to take this further. Lets look at the only actual scientific thing in your "evidence". The paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (April 9, 2013 vol. 110 no. 15). Have you read it? Just curious, or did you just look at the abstract and press release? I know I have read it.

I will give you a hint, something for the non educated. If someone makes a reference to Darwin, and modern evolutionary theory, it is akin to thinking that Babbage was where computers ended


I will give you another hint. IF you have read the paper, they say "It is rather surprising to see near-perfect overlap of distributionsin these two systems of very different origins: one is optimized by nature over billions of years of evolution, whereas the other isdesigned by a distributed population of human software engineers over the past several decades."

Thus, this paper is not supporting your premise as evidence for Evolution being a big lie.



posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 07:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

It's funny, you list all of these things you claim to understand but you haven't debated or refuted anything on this thread. This leads me to believe you either don't understand what's being debated or you can't refute it so you bring up the tried and true "Extraordinary claims..."

First off, there's nothing extraordinary about my claim. People usually throw out Extraordinary claims when they can't debate an issue and this is simply a childish debating tactic to try to nullify the subject you're debating because you have no argument.

I never denied evolution occurs. I said evolution is a lie that needs to be replaced by intelligent design.

If you would have taken the time to read the thread, you will see where I say over and over again that evolution without intelligent agency is a fantasy. I then laid out a MOUNTAIN OF EVIDENCE as it pertains to things like gene regulation, expression, transcription, translation, error correction and more.

So far, you haven't presented a shred of evidence to refute anything I have said. I doubt if you have actually read the posts in this thread.

If you want to debate and refute something that I said, please quote the revelant portion of what I said then present the evidence to refute. A debate isn't saying things like this in a vacuum:

You say it is a big lie, but you have not proven it to be so. When one makes an extraordinary claim, one needs extraordinary evidence. Not random videos.

This is meaningless and adds nothing to the debate. I'm not going to lay out all of the evidence that has been presented again for your benefit. Read the thread if you want to debate specific issues vs. vacuous statements.
edit on 10-4-2016 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 08:02 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

I've read the thread, and seen how it has evolved
You clearly did not read what I typed. I refuted that the paper, well news report of the paper, you linked, is evidence for evolution being a lie. OR for ID. Perhaps you do not understand that conservation of information, is not a flag for a group of grand designers in the Universe? Again, you need to show irrefutable proof (and not just of hobbits). OR just admit this is an idea that you have and can not back it up.

I am debating your premise. You have yet to prove anything.



posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 08:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

Have you read the actual paper? Seriously. HAVE. YOU. READ. IT?
Oh and I don't need to refute your "Evidence", because it is not bloody evidence. One can not disprove that which does not exist.
edit on 10-4-2016 by Noinden because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 08:16 PM
link   
Good thread OP! Read about half way through and decided to post (will finish reading the entire thread). A quick google search on the evolution of DNA is complicated and the basic theory is that RNA evolved naturally from Earth and then RNA evolved into DNA.



new topics

top topics



 
57
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join