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.

 

It seems that Darwinism becoming outdated and obsolete.

page: 13
15
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 28 2018 @ 05:53 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Again not qute getting it correct. For someone who claims to have a scientific background you are skipping bits. DNA codes for more than proteins. Introns, ever hear of them?

Its not semantics, it is being correct about the science. We are not talking religious texts here.




posted on Oct, 28 2018 @ 06:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

Surely you have no control over me...

Now you don’t have to go out of your way to inform me you are ugly...
That is apparent to all... like just now as you struggle to be the one in control...

You pretending to be a scientist introduced here by yourself is somehow the topic...
Of course you are unwilling to provide any form of proof that you are...
Because you are a coward hiding behind the lie that people here are so enamoured by you that they have sought you out
However and here’s the part where you stumbled on...
Here is the truth of the matter...
You know that little bit where you said you have never posted any personal information about yourself here...
And so by your own words I find you to be nothing but a liar trying to bully me into submission...

You are nothing to me now...

edit on 28-10-2018 by 5StarOracle because: Word



posted on Oct, 28 2018 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

I've never claimed to have control over you neighbour. Yet here you are, still posting, after "dismissing me". Take what you will from that.

You are unfamiliar with commonwealth phrases it seems
How droll. You also fail to comprehend what I said. I said I would not post my name, and address, or proof of my degrees heee. You read what you want.

So prove you have power here. Don't reply.

Prove you have meaning here, talk to the OP. Show that Darwinism is outdated. By that it would be evolution, because Darwin's original ideas have been added too for over a century. So show its wrong, all of it. Don't say it is so, don't quote the bible. Show that there no chance that life has evolved. But you best be talking to the actual theory of evolution, not what you want it to be.



posted on Oct, 28 2018 @ 06:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

Darwinism is outdated most of his beliefs are now dismissed and the theory of evolution has evolved into new beliefs which too in time will be dismissed or better understood to be misunderstood or misrepresented...

You can quote me on that for your future reference...

As far as dismissing you that was to say once more so you can understand...

I don’t believe you are a scientist...

Far be it from me not to respond to someone who remarks about me, especially as an individual...
edit on 28-10-2018 by 5StarOracle because: Word



posted on Oct, 28 2018 @ 06:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

Again not qute getting it correct. For someone who claims to have a scientific background you are skipping bits. DNA codes for more than proteins. Introns, ever hear of them?


I was never saying DNA codes for only proteins, I was explaining one of many, many examples that demonstrate an interdependence of function in organisms. The DNA --> RNA --> protein process is one of them.

Instead of trying to divert again with semantics, explain how DNA could undergo the process of transcription with the subsequent translation of its RNA fragments to create proteins when the proteins that are necessary for these functions are not yet present?



posted on Oct, 28 2018 @ 06:12 PM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

You basically repeated what I typed. Congratulations, for confirming you do not read what is typed. The OP was talking to the whole of the theory of Evolution, not just Darwin's original. He made the mistake of associating Darwin as the only contributor to the theory.

Nice to see you keep replying neighbour.



posted on Oct, 28 2018 @ 06:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: 5StarOracle

You basically repeated what I typed. Congratulations, for confirming you do not read what is typed. The OP was talking to the whole of the theory of Evolution, not just Darwin's original. He made the mistake of associating Darwin as the only contributor to the theory.

Nice to see you keep replying neighbour.


Not sure what you're getting at, that is not what we were talking about.

Can you explain how DNA could undergo the process of transcription with the subsequent translation of its RNA fragments to create proteins when the proteins that are necessary for these functions are not yet present?



posted on Oct, 28 2018 @ 06:17 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Its not semantics neighbour, it is being correct with an explanation. Science is a study of specifics, not generalities.

You are asking an unfocused question. Because I am assuming, and ask for clarification here. You mean in the first instance, how did the proteins exist with out DNA or RNA? You are assuming that DNA was the first coding source for heritability. We do not KNOW what was first. There is evidence proteins may have been the first, and RNA another chance. RNA is less stable than DNA, so there is a good chance that DNA proved advantageous. We don't know. DNA, RNA, and proteins don't survive death that long (millions and millions of years), so we can simply hypothesis. IT does not affect the fact evolution occurs. The occurrence of evolution does not invalidate any religion, unless you are a young earther.

The point however is, none of that is involved in how evolution has become outdated. THIS is an attempt by you to shoe horn in "creation of first life" into evolutionary theory.



posted on Oct, 28 2018 @ 06:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

There is evidence proteins may have been the first


But if large functional proteins managed to assemble by random processes, they would not be able to act upon the nucleic acid chain. There are many proteins involved with even the most rudimentary replication process. How would these proteins have emerged and been selected for, if they had no nucleic acid chains to code? And also, what is forming these protein complexes? Proteins require extensive folding and precise conditions to form properly, which would not be present in a primordial soup.


RNA could have also come first
.

RNA sequences form through transcription of DNA strands. This process requires proteins. In order for RNA sequences to replicate they need proteins. This is interdependence, and it is unavoidable. This is why incremental progression would not suffice to create these systems.



posted on Oct, 28 2018 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Unavoidable interdependence...
I like that...
Complexity requiring creation with great intelligence needed to provide the rules of interaction
and processes...
That does not sound like evolution at all...



posted on Oct, 28 2018 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

What part of "we don't know" don't you grasp? None of this invalidates evolutionary theory (the topic of the thread).



posted on Oct, 28 2018 @ 07:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

That being said because admittedly by yourself that a creator or creators to include your own beliefs could be a possibility the only problem with that is that you can’t quantify that which is beyond measure...
In other words science and evolution is not ready to bow down to God
But that opinion will evolve..
And they will be left with no choice in the future...



posted on Oct, 29 2018 @ 12:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage
a reply to: Noinden

I'd like to apologize to you and to anyone else I may have lost my temper with. I may not agree with your views, but that's no excuse for my negative attitude.



posted on Oct, 29 2018 @ 12:50 PM
link   
This about sums up the evolution debate. A scientist/professor/Dr. clearly smarter than anyone else on ATS has questions on the specifics of evolution. He has tried to go out and get answers from those who are experts on the subject. He is not able to find sufficient evidence to answer specific scientific questions about the theory of evolution. He is just told to believe it, as we all are. He has done nothing wrong. He is attempting to get answers to his questions on how specifically it happened. This generation does not ask questions. They just say believe it or you're stupid. It's all been proven, we don't need to look up any answers or listen to any questions about it. If you ask any questions about it you're a science denier.

Same thing here on ATS.



posted on Oct, 29 2018 @ 02:17 PM
link   
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

I mean this with no sarcasm. That is very Christian of you. It is all good. Unlike some here, you were willing to engage a little.



posted on Oct, 29 2018 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: jjkenobi

Neighbour you are misrepresenting this. There are people here on ATS who have done research into evolution (or at least genetics), Dr Tour is an expert in nanotech, like myself he is a Synthetic Organic Chemist. Its not his area of expertise, so just because he has a "Dr" in front of his name, it does not mean you should believe him. If I saw Dawkins walking into a Pharma Chemistry (my day job) lab and saying we were doing it all wrong, I'd walk him to the door (mainly because he's not cleared to be there, but also, because he is not an expert in that area).

Dr Tour is while more informed in scientific method than most posters here, is no expert.

End of story.



posted on Oct, 29 2018 @ 02:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: Barcs






Anyways the video in the OP is mostly BS. Evolution is the most substantially backed theory in the history of science. It's not in danger of going obsolete, it's updating as we learn more.


Yes. Your mind has manifested that reality for you.


Negative, I just agree with testable repeatable results of experiments.



posted on Oct, 29 2018 @ 03:06 PM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

Why should science bow down to anything? Its a methodology, not a sentient creature. Scientific method was created by religious individuals. Many scientists are religious. Darwin was, I've said before, and will say here there are devout Christians and Jews and Muslims (for example) on ATS that you will have run across, who do not dismiss evolution, like you lot do. I'm not going to out them, as they talked to me in confidence.

YOU seem to be of the opinion that its a religion of its own. Its not. Because it will readjust its ideas based on new data. What religion has ever ode that?

As for that last line of yours? Take your apocalyptic death cult somewhere else neighbour. I'm confident in my faith. My day job is also as secure as any job ever is.



posted on Oct, 29 2018 @ 03:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

That is also the trend on sites like "answers in genesis"




posted on Oct, 29 2018 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

Anywhere there is an unballance in responders you will get it. I see Atheists getting stuck into any one vaguely spiritual too. But yes, here, God Like Productions, "Answers" in Genesis. There is a misrepresentation on what science is and does. We all know one of the regulars here dismisses science by saying "its a relgion" and not "real science". As if his home schooled mind would know



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join