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.

 

How close are you in believing ?

page: 18
45
<< 15  16  17    19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2016 @ 03:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

Please provide a citation for your explanation - a paper that has materials and methods.


originally posted by: TzarChasm

So how do you explain it? Do you have a hypothesis we can test?


It's literally Bio 101.

ACGTTACGAGCCAAA...TAG ----mutation----> ACGTGTACGAGCCAAA...TAG


if a new amino acid chain is formed from the mutation, the old amino acid chain is no longer coded for.



And your hypothetical solution is...? I'm assuming you have an alternative explanation that addresses Amino coding while being corroborated by all other related fields of scientific inquiry.




posted on Aug, 30 2016 @ 04:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

Relax, you only gave me one paper to read, the others I couldn't access. And not that I owe you an explanation, but since you felt the need to try to call me out for evasion - I happen to run my own company and have a 1 yr old at home; both of which command most of my time. Being able to jump on here is a bonus, but I do my best not to leave people hanging. Sorry if taking a day to read a scientific paper and respond is too long for your liking.. oh well I could care less really.

I did get the chance to read the paper you posted and wonder if you just googled self assembly and posted the first thing that came up. What exactly is the relevance of what you posted to the question I posed to you, which twice now you have evaded answering by questioning my understanding of evolutionary theory?

Your paper discusses one possible scenario for the origins of life, mainly revolving around the RNA world hypothesis. Well that's nice and all, except I was never talking about the origins of life. I asked you specifically if the theory of evolution addresses self assembly since you cited self assembly as the means by which the eye came together. You would be right, but it's a very broad statement that glosses over the finer details. Convenient I suppose

No matter - the key takeaways from your paper:

self-replicating systems of RNA molecules have not been found in nature, scientists are hopeful that they can be constructed in the laboratory.While this demonstration would not prove that self-replicating RNA molecules were essential in the origin of life on Earth, it would certainly suggest that such a scenario is possible


Although RNA seems well suited to form the basis for a self-replicating set of biochemical catalysts, it is unlikely that RNA was the first kind of molecule to do so. From a purely chemical standpoint, it is difficult to imagine how long RNA molecules could be formed initially by purely nonenzymatic means.


It is especially difficult to imagine how protein synthesis evolved because it is now performed by a complex interlocking system of protein and RNA molecules; obviously the proteins could not have existed until an early version of the translation apparatus was already in place. Although we can only speculate on the origins of protein synthesis and the genetic code, several experimental approaches have provided possible scenarios.

For now...

But this doesn't explain how the self assembly of organic compounds leads to a perfectly working eye ball or heart, or brain, or senses, and on and on. Nor does it address the origins of novel body plans and other biological structures. Or how the structure being developed also has a built in function that requires a conscious mind to operate and utilize.

I'd love to hear your thoughts and perhaps answer the questions I posed to you above, lest you are guilty of the same evasiveness you have accused me of.



posted on Aug, 30 2016 @ 06:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

And your hypothetical solution is...? I'm assuming you have an alternative explanation that addresses Amino coding while being corroborated by all other related fields of scientific inquiry.


My thoughts are that the code could not have been generated in a piecewise function over time as proposed by evolutionary theory. I would give my thoughts but you don't actually care to hear and consider them, you only wish to refute them - but my (and other's) alternate solutions are erroneous to the logical impossibility of evolution. The beautiful web of interdependence that is the human body could not have formed piece by piece through DNA mutation.

If there wasn't such a cattle mentality in the field of science that is enthralled with this perverse theory we wouldn't be detoured in the 19th century material reductionist trap...



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 01:43 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton



I said of course that has to (and does) happen. You completely missed my point. My point was that neither wild-type or mutant can possess both the old and new gene.


What is your point with all this?

A mutation occurs in an individual. That individual does NOT have both the unmutated and the mutated gene at the same time. The mutated individual passes his mutation on to his descendants. If (and only if) his descendants become the dominant members of the population (because the mutation gave them a benefit the others didn't have), it is said that the POPULATION has evolved.

During the 'transition' period (who knows how many generations are required before every individual in the population has the 'new' gene), there will be individuals with unmutated gene and individuals with the mutated gene existing in the population at the same time. The population maintains both genes for a period of time, but specific individuals do not.

Usually, conditions don't completely stop the individuals with the old gene from reproducing, it just gives the new guys a better go. If say, the old gene lets females lay 5 eggs per mating, but the new gene lets females lay 50 eggs per mating, how long before the entire population is laying 50 eggs per mating? You should be able to model that in a spread sheet. You'll want to factor in such variables as egg survival, male to female ratios, when a 50 egg male breeds with a 5 egg female how many children are 50 eggs carriers and how many are 5 egg carriers, etc. There's a good experiment for your science project - and you can do it all on your computer with any spreadsheet you care to use.

The significant point that you always seem to lose track of is: Individuals mutate; Populations evolve.

This isn't rocket science - individuals don't have both the 'old' code and the 'new' code at the same time; populations do have both the 'old' code and the 'new' code at the same time. It is really interesting to study how DNA and all the 'support' molecules interact to maintain the 'stuff' that works while allowing for improvements all the time. It doesn't matter that there is a lot of 'self repair' going on - there are still a lot of errors that don't get 'repaired'. When these unrepaired errors occur in the gametes and affect the child, it is called a mutation. A mutation can be good, bad, or neutral. Good mutations spread relatively quickly, neutral ones spread more slowly, bad ones get filtered out rather quickly. Neutral mutations may (or may not) become very useful in the future.

Now, a 'species' may be made up of many populations that are isolated from each other - say on two sides of a newly formed lake. So one population may evolve while the other remains the same (in which case the 'old code', as you call it continues to be 'maintained' in the 2nd population), or evolves in another direction altogether (in which case you might have two different new 'codes' at the same mutation point in the two different populations).

I repeat, this isn't rocket science, and has been explained to you many times before. You keep confusing mutations in individuals with the evolution of a population. Every individual member of a population carries some sort of mutation that makes them different from their parents, and their grandparents, and their great grand parents, etc. If an individual's mutation 'set' makes them better at reproducing, then their mutation set will come to dominate the population (while mixing with the mutation sets of all the other individuals that provide them with advantages).

Every population changes with every generation. The changes from parent to child are (usually) quite small. The changes from parent to great(to the power of 10) grand child are going to be bigger. The changes from parent to great(to the power of 100) grand child are going to be bigger yet. At some point the changes may be so great that the newest generation cannot breed with its cousins on the other side of the lake. How long does that take? Dunno. Depends. How long is a piece of string.


edit on 31/8/2016 by rnaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 08:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: rnaa


I repeat, this isn't rocket science, and has been explained to you many times before. You keep confusing mutations in individuals with the evolution of a population.



I am well aware of this distinction. But how can a population evolve if its individuals can never gain a new gene without compromising an old one?


A mutation occurs in an individual. That individual does NOT have both the unmutated and the mutated gene at the same time. The mutated individual passes his mutation on to his descendants. If (and only if) his descendants become the dominant members of the population (because the mutation gave them a benefit the others didn't have), it is said that the POPULATION has evolved.



My point is - that new mutant group no longer has the wild-type gene/protein that was coded for by the DNA strand before its mutation. If the mutant codes for a new gene/protein, then the old gene/protein no longer serves its function, and therefore this type of "evolution" would be a constant adding and subtracting which sums to zero.


originally posted by: rnaa

During the 'transition' period (who knows how many generations are required before every individual in the population has the 'new' gene), there will be individuals with unmutated gene and individuals with the mutated gene existing in the population at the same time. The population maintains both genes for a period of time, but specific individuals do not.



Emphasis on the bolded portion. Survival relies on the individual, and these individuals either have the old gene and not the new, or vice versa. Hypothetically, once all the new individuals acquiesce the 'new' gene, then the old gene would be completely gone: this addition-subtraction sums to 0.


originally posted by: rnaa
If say, the old gene lets females lay 5 eggs per mating, but the new gene lets females lay 50 eggs per mating


Did you ever meditate on how a single DNA mutation would result in such an occurrence? People assume that a genetic mutation can result in these phenomenal morphological changes but this is preposterous. Even if this one DNA mutation were able to change the hormone levels in the chicken to push for 50 eggs per mating, where is the genetic re-wiring that would allow energy allocation to this egg-laying process - where would all this energy for the new 45 eggs come from? What sort of drastic effect would this have hormonally on the males??
edit on 31-8-2016 by cooperton because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-8-2016 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 01:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm

And your hypothetical solution is...? I'm assuming you have an alternative explanation that addresses Amino coding while being corroborated by all other related fields of scientific inquiry.


My thoughts are that the code could not have been generated in a piecewise function over time as proposed by evolutionary theory. I would give my thoughts but you don't actually care to hear and consider them, you only wish to refute them - but my (and other's) alternate solutions are erroneous to the logical impossibility of evolution. The beautiful web of interdependence that is the human body could not have formed piece by piece through DNA mutation.

If there wasn't such a cattle mentality in the field of science that is enthralled with this perverse theory we wouldn't be detoured in the 19th century material reductionist trap...


In other words you don't want to offer an alternative explanation because you don't wish to expose it to the same constructive criticism you are applying to the theory of modern evolutionary synthesis. I fail to see how evolution is a perverse theory, simply because it does not Pander to human ego or reinforce the conventional cannibalistic sun god worship.
edit on 31-8-2016 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 04:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

In other words you don't want to offer an alternative explanation because you don't wish to expose it to the same constructive criticism you are applying to the theory of modern evolutionary synthesis.


No, you don't even understand the theory which you believe to be true. I yield in discussing spirit when someone is still reduced to material thinking.



I fail to see how evolution is a perverse theory


According to the theory, your greatest grandparent was a microbe and your distant cousins are whales and cows - Does this not disturb you?



simply because it does not Pander to human ego


Just because spirituality concludes that there is more to the human experience than material reductionism does not mean it is an egotistical illusion. It's getting to the point where I can no longer debate the ignorant pessimism of the atheist materialists, it is an unnecessary expenditure of mental fortitude.



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 04:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm

In other words you don't want to offer an alternative explanation because you don't wish to expose it to the same constructive criticism you are applying to the theory of modern evolutionary synthesis.


No, you don't even understand the theory which you believe to be true. I yield in discussing spirit when someone is still reduced to material thinking.



I fail to see how evolution is a perverse theory


According to the theory, your greatest grandparent was a microbe and your distant cousins are whales and cows - Does this not disturb you?



simply because it does not Pander to human ego


Just because spirituality concludes that there is more to the human experience than material reductionism does not mean it is an egotistical illusion. It's getting to the point where I can no longer debate the ignorant pessimism of the atheist materialists, it is an unnecessary expenditure of mental fortitude.


No it doesn't disturb me. Does it bother you that you share a very distant lineage with whales and cows? There's that human ego again...



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 05:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

No it doesn't disturb me. Does it bother you that you share a very distant lineage with whales and cows? There's that human ego again...


"Meaning of life? Nothing to see here, your life is meaningless and you're the offspring of mutated amphibians."

Preach bro.



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 06:00 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

One doesn't need to adhere to your specific spiritual leaning to find meaning in their life. Your particular flavor of faith isn't required to have morals or to be a good person. Nor does one need to be an Atheist to choose a different path than yours, spiritual or otherwise. It's cute though watching you claim that others don't understand MES while you offer up statements such as your vague and veiled pretentiousness in quotes above. If there is a god, for you to claim to know his/ hers/ its intentions for the universe at large is the pinnacle of egocentric but you're so caught up in it all you can't see the fittest for the trees.



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 06:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: cooperton

One doesn't need to adhere to your specific spiritual leaning to find meaning in their life.


No, but atheism inherently means there is no higher purpose and therefore this life is like the temporary lighting of a candle, until one day, woop - darkness. Would you tell your kids such a horror story?


It's cute though watching you claim that others don't understand MES while you offer up statements such as your vague and veiled pretentiousness in quotes above.


So you did know that a mutation ruins the integrity of the old gene and an individual cannot contain both the new and old gene? Because one page ago you were blindly claiming otherwise.



If there is a god, for you to claim to know his/ hers/ its intentions for the universe at large is the pinnacle of egocentric but you're so caught up in it all you can't see the fittest for the trees.



My only goal is to expose the ignorance of atheism and the theory of evolution. We are not the product of billions of years of mutated offspring - such backward doctrine blinds people from the reality that we have a higher purpose in life.
edit on 31-8-2016 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 06:55 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Hey Cooperton,

I'm agnostic on first cause, and while I'm not religious I would consider myself moderately spiritual. But I wonder if you're comfortable and secure with your own faith? This is not meant to be a charge against you, only to learn something as someone who is ignorant to having a deep religious belief system such as yourself. I would think that one who is true to their faith would not worry themselves about the finer details of how life is considered to have evolved on this planet. Do you not find wonder in the idea that we evolved from a single celled organism, or that all of life could likely have descended from one common ancestor? Does your faith prevent you from seeing this as the potential work of your god?



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 07:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: cooperton

Hey Cooperton,

I'm agnostic on first cause, and while I'm not religious I would consider myself moderately spiritual. But I wonder if you're comfortable and secure with your own faith? This is not meant to be a charge against you, only to learn something as someone who is ignorant to having a deep religious belief system such as yourself. I would think that one who is true to their faith would not worry themselves about the finer details of how life is considered to have evolved on this planet. Do you not find wonder in the idea that we evolved from a single celled organism, or that all of life could likely have descended from one common ancestor? Does your faith prevent you from seeing this as the potential work of your god?



Hey Photon, good questions. I used to combine evolution with the Christian Philosophy. Essentially, I threw out the Old Testament for the science I was taught from 9th grade through college. Eventually, as my quest for knowledge continued, I realized that matter is subordinate to consciousness - as demonstrated in the double slit experiment, along with other experiments analyzing the workings of matter. I also began to realize that the random interaction of matter could not have given rise to the superior nature of spirit/consciousness, as is theorized by evolution.

At first I compromised and thought that evolution was the manner by which spirit/consciousness developed its favored vehicle of expression (the human body). But after a while this seemed silly - why would spirit go through such a drawn-out process if it actually is as powerful as I experienced it to be? Then I read the testimony of John the apostle, who summed up creation rather simply. He claimed, from what he was shown by Jesus, that it was the conscious Word of God that created matter and then the human body as a vessel for consciousness to inhabit and explore the material creation.

And so, "The Word became Flesh"
edit on 31-8-2016 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 07:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: cooperton

One doesn't need to adhere to your specific spiritual leaning to find meaning in their life.


No, but atheism inherently means there is no higher purpose and therefore this life is like the temporary lighting of a candle, until one day, woop - darkness. Would you tell your kids such a horror story?



How is it a horror story to teach others that treating your fellow man with kindness because it's the right thing to do as opposed to teaching them they have to act a certain way because bronze age scripture sold you an outdated narrative based on fear? I think I'll teach my children to think for themselves and while I'm at it, I'll teach them what Atheism actually is, nothing more than a lack of believe in a god or gods. It's unfortunate that you don't seem to feel any self worth without the comfort of a supernatural deity.



So you did know that a mutation ruins the integrity of the old gene and an individual cannot contain both the new and old gene? Because one page ago you were blindly claiming otherwise.


No, what I did a page back was show an example of how the original version of a gene and the mutation can coexist in the same organism through replication errors. When a gene replicates itself, the original copy doesn't simply cease to exist. It is still there. This is why we have recessive traits and genes. This is why once the mutation for blue eyes occurred, people still have brown eyes. It's why parents can carry more than one gene for more than one eye color. But please, continue to deny that this occurs if it makes you feel better about the false atheist evolutionary conspiracy you seem to believe in.



If there is a god, for you to claim to know his/ hers/ its intentions for the universe at large is the pinnacle of egocentric but you're so caught up in it all you can't see the fittest for the trees.



My only goal is to expose the ignorance of atheism and the theory of evolution. We are not the product of billions of years of mutated offspring - such backward doctrine blinds people from the reality that we have a higher purpose in life.

Oh sweet irony... I'm not sure if anyone has ever mentioned it to you or not but a person can not be religious and also not be an Atheist. They are called Agnostics. You see the world as a very black and white paradigm and refuse to acknowledge the vast array of colors surrounding you at any given moment.

If MES is such an ignorant Theory, please, as others have asked for, give an alternative hypothesis and explain the scientific evidence for it. All you have done thus far is demonstrate your contempt for science and your willful ignorance towards anything that might support MES.



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 07:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton
Then I read the testimony of John the apostle, who summed up creation rather simply. He claimed, from what he was shown by Jesus, that it was the conscious Word of God that created matter and then the human body as a vessel for consciousness to inhabit and explore the material creation.

Hmm, I guess this is where I lose you unfortunately, because I don't understand what that means or how this fits into the reality we are able to experience. In other words, can this Word of God be represented scientifically? How does his word actually create matter? Is it possible that it was just meant to be a symbolic representation of how the material world came into existence, and not how it actually came into existence?



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 10:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: cooperton

Hey Cooperton,

I'm agnostic on first cause, and while I'm not religious I would consider myself moderately spiritual. But I wonder if you're comfortable and secure with your own faith? This is not meant to be a charge against you, only to learn something as someone who is ignorant to having a deep religious belief system such as yourself. I would think that one who is true to their faith would not worry themselves about the finer details of how life is considered to have evolved on this planet. Do you not find wonder in the idea that we evolved from a single celled organism, or that all of life could likely have descended from one common ancestor? Does your faith prevent you from seeing this as the potential work of your god?



Hey Photon, good questions. I used to combine evolution with the Christian Philosophy. Essentially, I threw out the Old Testament for the science I was taught from 9th grade through college. Eventually, as my quest for knowledge continued, I realized that matter is subordinate to consciousness - as demonstrated in the double slit experiment, along with other experiments analyzing the workings of matter. I also began to realize that the random interaction of matter could not have given rise to the superior nature of spirit/consciousness, as is theorized by evolution.

At first I compromised and thought that evolution was the manner by which spirit/consciousness developed its favored vehicle of expression (the human body). But after a while this seemed silly - why would spirit go through such a drawn-out process if it actually is as powerful as I experienced it to be? Then I read the testimony of John the apostle, who summed up creation rather simply. He claimed, from what he was shown by Jesus, that it was the conscious Word of God that created matter and then the human body as a vessel for consciousness to inhabit and explore the material creation.

And so, "The Word became Flesh"


I can see clearly how that explanation puts Evolution to shame in terms of logic and plausibility. The reproducible data is just overwhelming.



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 10:25 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm


It's overflowing with empiricism. Like an effervescing elephant.



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 10:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: PhotonEffect

Hmm, I guess this is where I lose you unfortunately, because I don't understand what that means or how this fits into the reality we are able to experience. In other words, can this Word of God be represented scientifically?

How does his word actually create matter? Is it possible that it was just meant to be a symbolic representation of how the material world came into existence, and not how it actually came into existence?


It happens every waking second. Schroedinger's cat exemplifies this concept. A cat is put inside a box with poison - is it dead or alive? Quantum physics insists that the cat is neither dead or alive but exists in a probabilistic state until an observer - consciousness - looks inside the box. Schroedinger, along with the double slit experiment, insist that this is the way that particles behave on a quantum level, and the conscious observer is integral to the manifestation of matter. Because we have never observed the probabilistic waveform that exists outside of our field of observation, we take this for granted. Luckily for us, scientific analysis has been able to observe this phenomenon in photons. Photons normally behave like a wave, until they are observed on the quantum level and then this act of conscious observation causes the photon to behave like a material particle :



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 10:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: PhotonEffect

Still waiting for a response. Did you bother to read the papers?????

Whenever you're ready



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 10:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton
It happens every waking second. Schroedinger's cat exemplifies this concept.

Which concept do you mean? So Quantum effects are the word of god? Or do you mean consciousness is?

It seems you are using science to confirm your faith, which is cool.



new topics

top topics



 
45
<< 15  16  17    19  20 >>

log in

join