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.

 

Irreducible complexity and Evolution

page: 4
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2017 @ 08:03 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

Because for some people that also isn't an answer that is allowed to be. Many Creationists insist that "All Things" were created complete at the same time. Which is where you get humans and Dinosaurs living together and stuff like that. They don't allow for any form of evolution to be acceptable. Not even if their God is said to be the one who did it.

There are many different types of Creationists and not all agree with each other either, let alone anyone else.




posted on Sep, 6 2017 @ 08:07 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

They make sense, when someones pastor decides it is an "affront to god". In the beginning they got upset that we were said to be related to "damn dirty apes". Then they stopped being logical or factual and went all missionary about it


I did some research into proteogenic/abiogenic things during my PhD, in a purely literature search kind of way. I'm not about to make suggestions, but I know more about the ideas than they do.



posted on Sep, 6 2017 @ 08:08 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

I think I worded my reply wrong.

I know WHY it's an argument from them, I just don't get it.

Let's take the "created in gods image" thing. Who is to say their god wasn't a simple single cell organism?

I think too many abrahamic religious folk take stories too literally and forget the messages (I used to be a Christian by the way).



posted on Sep, 6 2017 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

It certainly seems like some are stuck on Darwinian evolution, rather than evolve themselves and read what's relevant today.

My stance on how life began is pretty much the same on what's after you die. I just don't know. The only difference being, when I die, I'll find out. Or, if there's nothing, I won't lol.



posted on Sep, 6 2017 @ 08:14 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

I feel that they must also be using a command line driven OS then
Because gods forbid the theories of evoution ... evolve, based on new evidence?

The oldest, least developed ideas are the easiest to pick on, damn the fact they are no longer the ideas we hold



posted on Sep, 6 2017 @ 08:18 PM
link   
a reply to: whismermill
There's another obvious flaw in the logic of trying to use eukaryotic Paramecium bursaria as evidence for the storyline of

...some “simple” prokaryotic cells swallowed other cells but did not digest them.

Regarding the so-called "endosymbiont hypothesis". Which as explained before, would also have to include the other part of the storyline concerning retention of "the adapted cells" after replication if one wants to use this honestly as "evidence" for the "endosymbiont hypothesis" or a response to the phrase "no experimental evidence exists to show that such an event is possible." which was referring specifically to what was explained before that including all the 3 main details of the storyline and nothing else (and may I take this opportunity to point out that the publishers of these stories and the article you provided are fully aware of these flaws and that Paramecium bursaria are eukaryotic? Something to think about when thinking about the word "honestly"...)

This is interesting though (considering Paramecium bursaria being classified as ciliates)...

Most ciliates are heterotrophs, feeding on smaller organisms, such as bacteria and algae...

Source is wikipedia, the page for Paramecium bursaria can take you to the page for ciliates where that way of phrasing things (events, phenomena, observations) is listed under the heading "Feeding" rather than "(Endo)symbiosis".

It's easy to lose track of this part of the storyline when talking about how one eukaryotic organism feeds on another most likely* also eukaryotic organism (*: "No definition of algae is generally accepted. ...Some authors exclude all prokaryotes[3] and thus do not consider cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) as algae." Source: wikipedia where Zoochlorella is listed as "Eukaryota"):
Symbiogenesis - Wikipedia

Symbiogenesis, or endosymbiotic theory, is an evolutionary theory of the origin of eukaryotic cells from prokaryotic organisms,...

The Endosymbiosis Theory: Evolution of Cells - Video & Lesson Transcript | Study.com

The endosymbiosis theory explains how eukaryotic cells may have evolved from prokaryotic cells. ...

Kinda pointless to bring up experimentation with eukaryotic organisms when trying to figure out the capabilities of prokaryotic organisms in terms of what they can accomplish in this regards without intelligent interference and just time and natural processes.

So the 3 main details and logical requirements to be observed for this storyline to be rationally believed to be a possibility or let alone plausible to have happened in the past:

[1.] ...many teach that for millions of years, some “simple” prokaryotic cells swallowed other cells but did not digest them.

[2.] ...Instead, the theory goes, unintelligent “nature” figured out a way not only to make radical changes in the function of the ingested cells...

[3.] but also to keep the adapted cells inside of the “host” cell when it replicated.

And for all these 3 main requirements (which each of their own has its more detailed requirements):

"No experimental evidence exists to show that such an event is possible."
edit on 6-9-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2017 @ 08:20 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

Learn to cite. Learn to actually put your own thoughts down. Or you know admit, you know nothing Jon Snow



posted on Sep, 6 2017 @ 08:21 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

And there's some pretty major flaws in your religion.

Maybe you should check them out instead of constantly using them as if they're some sort of authority lol.



posted on Sep, 6 2017 @ 08:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79

I know WHY it's an argument from them, I just don't get it.


Probably because there is nothing to get. It's a bad argument on their part and one they probably haven't bothered to investigate to find out whether or not there is an argument there or not.

Most people are perfectly happy to pretend to have answers to things whether or not they're real answers or not. Especially for things that don't actually affect their lives in an obvious way if those answers go untested.

It takes both courage and humility to start testing those kinds of answers to see if they are in fact solid or not. Because they might not be correct and then you have another difficult question to answer again. Much easier to just pretend that you have that answer, don't test it for accuracy and move on without looking back.



posted on Sep, 6 2017 @ 08:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

He's a jehovahs witness. He'll disappear in a day or two once he's met his posting requirements for the week.

(I'm not joking btw. They really have to do it lol)



posted on Sep, 6 2017 @ 08:25 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

That makes a lot of sense. It's also the main reason I'm no longer religious. As soon as you start questioning and investigating certain religions, you find a lot of contradictions and absolute falsehoods. Living a lie just isn't worth it.



posted on Sep, 6 2017 @ 08:42 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

I totally agree. I've never seen the problem with Not Knowing something. Especially something which is difficult to actually know in the first place.

In fact, I think I subscribe to that philosophy so much that even the things I do know, even the stuff I know for sure, I always keep a tiny opening for the chance I could still be wrong.

I am just this one point of consciousness stuck where I'm am at any given moment. Beyond that there is some degree flexibility.



posted on Sep, 6 2017 @ 08:53 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

I'm always up for learning something new or expanding on what I already know. Even a refresher on the things I'm sure about never hurts, just in case there's some new info or I've unknowingly forgotten something.

Anyways, I think we're about a mile off topic now lol. Back to the "evolution bad, god good" theme



posted on Sep, 6 2017 @ 08:57 PM
link   
I get it!!!




posted on Sep, 6 2017 @ 09:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

I love that banana argument Ray has. He tells it with such confidence too which is 1000x funnier to watch it.

I wonder if his head would explode upon seeing a watermelon???

"What an evil piece of fruit!! It's too big for a hand and has no tab on it or anything!!! Damn you Satan/Science!! Obviously a Fruit created by Evolutionists!!" LOLOL



posted on Sep, 6 2017 @ 11:39 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

Oh I know he's a Jo Ho. We've done this dance, and he pulled out the single "Molecular Biologist" (actually a Micro Biologist but hey horse shoes and grenades blah blah blah), who is also a Jehovah Witness, who disagrees on Evolution. Because she is a Jehovah's Witness.... I know plenty of Pagans who are anti Science too. They don't like that Science will not accept their ideas on alternative medicine.



posted on Sep, 7 2017 @ 12:18 AM
link   
a reply to: cyberjedi

Ah! the blessed Origins and Creationism forum, where poor ignorant, uneducated people come to get LESSONED (lessend) in incremental science, I tend to stay away from here because of the pack mentality and active puerility. It really is nice to see intelligent people presenting solid evidence for Intelligent design.

I see a number of people on the board, who understand the reality of life and I will address my comments to you, though I am quite certain most of you already know.

I very much enjoyed the video you posted, outlining irreducible complexity, its a slam dunk for anyone with a brain of their own.

Please don’t feel left out, the remainder of you, If I need to, I will refer to you in the third person as you all seem to enjoy doing.

Consciousness as you know, is the only thing that is evolving and everything in the physical world possess consciousness, everyhing from minerals to cells to plants, animals and humans and so on.

As humans, we evolve to a level, where living in a physical world is no longer compatible to the consciousness awareness we have attained. We go on to become essential beings where we, as individuals go on to acquire group consciousness.

Our emerging ability to objectively witness the multitude of worlds and sentient life we are swimming in, makes living in the physical world difficult and unnecessary. As is the case when we die, our mind simply becomes aware and focused on a different reality, in a finer state of existence.

The designers of living organisms, you could state, are not God directly, but are designed and constructed by our advanced global consciousness. Evolution of consciousness takes innumerable forms and exist in all the subtle worlds, life we could barely imagine.

Everything has a common goal, that is, to create and support life in the physical world for the benefit of all creation. Every point where consciousness is present, there is a force striving for awareness to understand its surroundings.

Our universal awareness, or more accurately our planetary intelligence, designed the first humans, and indeed struggled to achieve the perfect organism for its needs.

Intelligence eventually created the first physical forms to enable peak physical experience for enlightened conscious to exist in this dense dimension.

Ancient knowledge suggests a series of root races and sub races over billions of years where introduced into the physical world before the last sub root race finally became the perfect biological instrument, modern man.

As a perfectly sound explanation of WHY we share so much DNA with other creatures and why there appears to be a baseline code for all creation, it is simply that. Our code is intelligently designed.

A code for life at its base, a code for plants, animals, humans, all necessary and hierarchically structured to build more advanced life but all based on code that was proved successful through trial and error.

For scientists in the subtle realms, it would appear much like running a simulation. Etheric templates are created and manifested into the physical world and physical form is built out as a perfect match to the etheric blueprint.

Intelligent adaptation would be a primary goal for anything designed by any intelligent consciousness.

Every living entity has an etheric shell that surrounds every cell in our body, and we permanently reside in several dimensions simultaneously. It is through this etheric shell that life energies are funnelled to our physical cells.

Intelligent Adaptation

This is what THEY, the evolutionists study.

Perfectly legitimate science, I cant fault it, MUCH, it all sound very reasonable and feasible, but of course, it is full of fiction to explain what it is they don’t understand.

Intelligence has evolved over billions of years, and it exists at a much subtler state of matter, but we do not have the conscious awareness to objectively observe it.

Once you allow it to sink in, that your mind is not entirely dependent on your physical body but that your body is entirely dependent on your mind, you will likely conclude that this subtle state of existence has been around much longer than our physical existence, you can begin to imagine the incredible organisation, experience and science that must exist within the undetected inner world of our physical world.

If you view life in the physical, as the first necessary step in consciousness evolution, and you where part of this universal consciousness, as scientists you would design biological life forms to inhabit the denser physical dimensions.

Over billions of years from being barely aware of anything as a grain of dust, we evolved into the the dreamy world of plants and over time transmigrating into the emotional world of animals and on to the self aware, mental development of humankind. Once you become aware of something, you can not become unaware and there is no going back after you have passed through a kingdom, you must evolve. As you evolve you take on the physical form most suitable for your evolutionary needs.

There is intelligence in everything we see. If you can’t see that, then you are blind.

The modern scientist is too indoctrinated in hard imagined fictions to be able to give that up easily.

Before we attempt to analyse the subjective, we need to activate a faculty that allows causal knowledge to flow, to give us the tools to see, there is no short path to that, we just have to evolve to experience it.

Some of us have at least evolved far enough to see that clearly.




posted on Sep, 7 2017 @ 03:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: whismermill
Perhaps you missed this part or didn't notice it was a logical requirement for a proper comparison between the storyline and what we're observing regarding Paramecium bursaria and Zoochlorella...

...Instead, the theory goes, unintelligent “nature” figured out a way not only to make radical changes in the function of the ingested cells but also to keep the adapted cells inside of the “host” cell when it replicated.

i.e. what you mentioned regarding Paramecium bursaria and Zoochlorella is not quite the same thing as the storyline in the so-called "endosymbiont hypothesis" as described above* is it? *: regarding what is emphasized as the important part of the storyline to check for, also by use of the phrase "not only" to indicate there's a more or equally important part of the storyline that needs to fit our observations for the storyline to become a possibility or a plausible suggestion (after that we'll still need to figure out if that is actually what happened, but that's the next question)

That's what I meant with "That doesn't stop people from pretending and claiming that there is so-called "evidence" for this storyline and myth though...". Apples and oranges, they aren't the same fruit. It's not what I called "proper evidence" in my commentary earlier, "evidence that makes sense logically. Not leaving out or downplaying inconvenient details using every propaganda technique I've ever read about...". Such as the details that I bolded now, which are conveniently left out of the presentation and discussions regarding Paramecium bursaria, Zoochlorella and their supposed relation to the endosymbiont 'hypothesis' (myth), especially the last bit: "... also to keep the adapted cells inside of the “host” cell when it replicated."


well, both Paramecium and zoochlorella synchronise their replication. To the point that all chlorellae in the host cell are inherited to the progeny, undergoing coordinated division with the host cells, giving a constant population density of several hundred per cell.
Thats why you'll hardly ever find a paramecium without chlorella in its natural habitat.



posted on Sep, 7 2017 @ 03:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: kennyb72
a reply to: cyberjedi

Ah! the blessed Origins and Creationism forum, where poor ignorant, uneducated people come to get LESSONED (lessend) in incremental science, I tend to stay away from here because of the pack mentality and active puerility. It really is nice to see intelligent people presenting solid evidence for Intelligent design.

I see a number of people on the board, who understand the reality of life and I will address my comments to you, though I am quite certain most of you already know.

I very much enjoyed the video you posted, outlining irreducible complexity, its a slam dunk for anyone with a brain of their own.

Please don’t feel left out, the remainder of you, If I need to, I will refer to you in the third person as you all seem to enjoy doing.

Consciousness as you know, is the only thing that is evolving and everything in the physical world possess consciousness, everyhing from minerals to cells to plants, animals and humans and so on.

As humans, we evolve to a level, where living in a physical world is no longer compatible to the consciousness awareness we have attained. We go on to become essential beings where we, as individuals go on to acquire group consciousness.

Our emerging ability to objectively witness the multitude of worlds and sentient life we are swimming in, makes living in the physical world difficult and unnecessary. As is the case when we die, our mind simply becomes aware and focused on a different reality, in a finer state of existence.

The designers of living organisms, you could state, are not God directly, but are designed and constructed by our advanced global consciousness. Evolution of consciousness takes innumerable forms and exist in all the subtle worlds, life we could barely imagine.

Everything has a common goal, that is, to create and support life in the physical world for the benefit of all creation. Every point where consciousness is present, there is a force striving for awareness to understand its surroundings.

Our universal awareness, or more accurately our planetary intelligence, designed the first humans, and indeed struggled to achieve the perfect organism for its needs.

Intelligence eventually created the first physical forms to enable peak physical experience for enlightened conscious to exist in this dense dimension.

Ancient knowledge suggests a series of root races and sub races over billions of years where introduced into the physical world before the last sub root race finally became the perfect biological instrument, modern man.

As a perfectly sound explanation of WHY we share so much DNA with other creatures and why there appears to be a baseline code for all creation, it is simply that. Our code is intelligently designed.

A code for life at its base, a code for plants, animals, humans, all necessary and hierarchically structured to build more advanced life but all based on code that was proved successful through trial and error.

For scientists in the subtle realms, it would appear much like running a simulation. Etheric templates are created and manifested into the physical world and physical form is built out as a perfect match to the etheric blueprint.

Intelligent adaptation would be a primary goal for anything designed by any intelligent consciousness.

Every living entity has an etheric shell that surrounds every cell in our body, and we permanently reside in several dimensions simultaneously. It is through this etheric shell that life energies are funnelled to our physical cells.

Intelligent Adaptation

This is what THEY, the evolutionists study.

Perfectly legitimate science, I cant fault it, MUCH, it all sound very reasonable and feasible, but of course, it is full of fiction to explain what it is they don’t understand.

Intelligence has evolved over billions of years, and it exists at a much subtler state of matter, but we do not have the conscious awareness to objectively observe it.

Once you allow it to sink in, that your mind is not entirely dependent on your physical body but that your body is entirely dependent on your mind, you will likely conclude that this subtle state of existence has been around much longer than our physical existence, you can begin to imagine the incredible organisation, experience and science that must exist within the undetected inner world of our physical world.

If you view life in the physical, as the first necessary step in consciousness evolution, and you where part of this universal consciousness, as scientists you would design biological life forms to inhabit the denser physical dimensions.

Over billions of years from being barely aware of anything as a grain of dust, we evolved into the the dreamy world of plants and over time transmigrating into the emotional world of animals and on to the self aware, mental development of humankind. Once you become aware of something, you can not become unaware and there is no going back after you have passed through a kingdom, you must evolve. As you evolve you take on the physical form most suitable for your evolutionary needs.

There is intelligence in everything we see. If you can’t see that, then you are blind.

The modern scientist is too indoctrinated in hard imagined fictions to be able to give that up easily.

Before we attempt to analyse the subjective, we need to activate a faculty that allows causal knowledge to flow, to give us the tools to see, there is no short path to that, we just have to evolve to experience it.

Some of us have at least evolved far enough to see that clearly.



This is the truth right here! Thanks Kennyb72.



posted on Sep, 7 2017 @ 04:01 AM
link   
Are the evolutionists on this board familiar with the fruit fly experiment?

"No Fruit Fly Evolution Even after 600 Generations''

www.icr.org...

Would this then, when applying your ideology, that some species evolve, and others do not?



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join