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.
There's also an AWFUL, AWFUL false polarity set up between Darwinism and christian fundamentalism such that if you disagree with the former you must be part of the latter. NOT SO. It also allows you to rule out data and argument that might be perfectly valid on the grounds that a Christian did it. Well, you know, I'm not a Christian myself, but there have been lots of perfectly good scientists who were.
It's just a lot easier to be smug and make fun of the scientists, and just for a brief moment experience an exhilirating sense of intellectual superiority which in reality of course does not exist.
You never hear an argument of an intelligent design of newly discovered structures in the Universe -- the field of astrophyscis is really making progress
Originally posted by rich23
That because they're Christians the giant-sized holes they're kicking in Darwinism are somehow not there.
Design is also referred to while explaining homology.
Originally posted by JudahMaccabbi
I did answer your question by this thread. What gave life similarity in structure and make-up is the master plan for life.
Life I said, if the genetic code can be used much like software programming using libraries of functions and objects then the basis is always similar since the basic libraries are always reused.
In C, C++ (I use these examples since I learned these languages there are basic libraries which are always referred to from the code itself. The basic structures you reffered to can be similar in nature. If the 'creator' (group of creators) were to create living life forms they would design a basic form and then use that basis to create variations. I think we are not too far off from this. Scientists were able to grow a fully functional urinary bladder from stem cells.
You never answered why you don't follow evolution, yet majored in bio.
I am quite sure at some point you were told that evolution is now considered the unifying theme of biology. But, whatever. But, I do wonder if you actually took any courses in evolutionary theory.
Else, you wouldn't flat out lie and say that ID is a theory like evolution. There's no proposed mechanism for how the designer did it; hell, the designer is flat out ignored! And, you bringing up the Big Band Theory further lets me know you didn't take any courses in evolution. Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of the universe.
When ID proposes a mech through which it works, I will take it more seriously. When it says at least SOMETHING about the designer, I will take it more seriously. But PLEASE, don't be foolish and say it's on par with evolution.
I could also ask you what if the aliens came and verified evolution? What then for ID? Besides, no one has ANY idea how to design a life form. And no, I don't mean breathing "life" into dirt or having life spring from your godly ejaculate (I refer to religions because they at least give a mechanism for their thing).
The biggest proponent of ID, the Discovery Institute, is run mostly by Christians with mostly Christian money. Michael Behe and others pushing ID are Christians. Sure, ID doesn't have to be religious, but it's awfully funny that the biggest promoters are Christians...
[edit on 18-4-2006 by truthseeka]
Originally posted by rich23
His source for this is Martin Rees, Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape The Universe. Rees himself doesn't go down the intelligent design route but does point out the need for these constants to be pretty much exactly the way they are.
Originally posted by rich23
Once you move to the level of molecular biology things get even odder. You cannot compare the complexity of species at the morphological level, but by comparing the amino acid sequences of a given protein, say haemoglobin, from two different species, you can get an idea of how far apart these species are from each other within a Darwinian model.
Plus, if mutation is supposed to be random and selection is based on environmental factors, how come adaptation takes place so quickly? Darwinists seem to want it both ways: the easy stuff can take place in years, while the bigger stuff can happen over aeons. I just don't find it very convincing, but that does not make me a creationist, either.
Originally posted by rich23
The avian lung is a strange arrangement in which air passes in and out flowing in one direction only through, effectively, one long tube. It's markedly different from our lung system which is closed at one end like a bag. There cannot be an intermediate system, an evolutionary half-way house. This is just one example of the problems posed by gradual evolution.
Even Stephen Jay Gould admits that speciation is not well-addressed by Darwinism, which is why he came up with 'punk-ek' - punctuated equilibrium. But while this addresses the problems with the fossil record, it doesn't provide any better explanation for the mechanism of speciation.
Once you move to the level of molecular biology things get even odder. You cannot compare the complexity of species at the morphological level, but by comparing the amino acid sequences of a given protein, say haemoglobin, from two different species, you can get an idea of how far apart these species are from each other within a Darwinian model. The trouble is, the results you get do not map on to the Darwinian model at all well.
To sum up:
Gaps in the fossil record - not many intermediate species, and those that exist are apt to be disputed
No possibility of intermediacy in certain instances
No correlation between the Darwinian model and the biochemical data.
Plus Cremo's Forbidden Archaeology lists many, many instances of the discovery of modern human skeletons in dramatically out-of-place strata that have just been ignored, wiped out of the scientific record. They couldn't exist according to the theory, therefore they don't exist. We can therefore keep the theory and not worry about fitting in the new data. This is something that happens across all sciences, not merely archaeology or biology.
Birds are unique among living vertebrates in possessing pneumaticity of the postcranial skeleton, with invasion of bone by the pulmonary air-sac system1, 2, 3, 4. The avian respiratory system includes high-compliance air sacs that ventilate a dorsally fixed, non-expanding parabronchial lung2, 3, 5, 6. Caudally positioned abdominal and thoracic air sacs are critical components of the avian aspiration pump, facilitating flow-through ventilation of the lung and near-constant airflow during both inspiration and expiration, highlighting a design optimized for efficient gas exchange2, 5, 6, 7, 8. Postcranial skeletal pneumaticity has also been reported in numerous extinct archosaurs including non-avian theropod dinosaurs and Archaeopteryx9, 10, 11, 12. However, the relationship between osseous pneumaticity and the evolution of the avian respiratory apparatus has long remained ambiguous. Here we report, on the basis of a comparative analysis of region-specific pneumaticity with extant birds, evidence for cervical and abdominal air-sac systems in non-avian theropods, along with thoracic skeletal prerequisites of an avian-style aspiration pump. The early acquisition of this system among theropods is demonstrated by examination of an exceptional new specimen of Majungatholus atopus, documenting these features in a taxon only distantly related to birds.
Taken together, these specializations imply the existence of the basic avian pulmonary Bauplan in basal neotheropods, indicating that flow-through ventilation of the lung is not restricted to birds but is probably a general theropod characteristic.
I don't follow this. Species share common amino acids. The genome of different species can still be very similar -- there are similar genes in mice and men. Is that what you implied, or the opposite?
? It's that old false polarity again. PLEASE try to get away from that, it's getting boring.
Trying to tie this to divine powers
Originally posted by rich23
Melatonin - the point is not that there have been no precursors similar in structure to the avian lung. The point is that an intermediate system, a gradual evolution from one system to that system, doesn't work. There just aren't any half-measures. Did you find any? No. That, btw, is what I meant when I said there was no possibility of intermediacy in certain instances. If you can even posit something half-way between the avian lung and more conventional arrangements, I'd like to hear it. It's not a question of finding the same arrangement in another species. It's how do you get from there to here in easy steps while maintaining the organism's ability to breathe?
As for the skeptics' hatchet job on Cremo, this is all-too-predictable. It's dismissing the data, again and again, rather than attempting to explain it.
As for that 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' - by what criterion are you judging the claim to be extraordinary? THAT's the big hole there... all you can do is, entirely arbitrarily, declare something extraordinary and raise the bar.
The problem is, in a sense, political: when people have so much invested in a theory they have a really hard time abandoning it and will stick to it despite data to the contrary. Note, too, that I am an agnostic: from which point of view I can observe the conflict between two sets of scientists adhering to slightly differing orthodoxies. I have nothing invested in Darwinism and nothing in any religion. It's the logic or otherwise of a postion that affects me.
Cremo and Thompson are quite right about the extreme conservatism of many archaeologists and physical anthropologists. While an undergraduate at a prominent southwestern university, I participated in classroom discussions about the claims for a very early occupation at the Timlin site (in New York) which had just been announced. The professor surprised me when she stated flatly that, if the dates were correct, then it was "obviously not a site." This dismissal of the possibility of such an ancient site, without an examination of the data or even a careful reading of the published claim, is dogmatism of the sort rightfully decried by Cremo and Thompson.
Originally posted by rich23
I'm sorry to keep coming back to this point, but we seem to keep missing each other. About the avian lung structure, I do take your point about soft tissue not being preserved: but, in a sense, I'd be satisfied if you could even posit - yup, that's right, just make up - an intermediate form between that and whatever came before it. If I could even imagine something that came half-way between that and its precursor... otherwise you just have this massive leap from one lung structure to another. Perhaps it's a failure of imagination on my part. You seem to know your stuff in this field. What would the precursor lung structure be? Can you even suggest to me a way of getting from whatever the precursor structure to the avian lung system that allows the organism to continue breathing?
I won't even pretend to have an answer myself.
...otherwise you just have this massive leap from one lung structure to another. Perhaps it's a failure of imagination on my part. You seem to know your stuff in this field. What would the precursor lung structure be? Can you even suggest to me a way of getting from whatever the precursor structure to the avian lung system that allows the organism to continue breathing?
This of course is the old canard (a term that is peculiarly well suited to this subject!) of the argument from personal incredulity. Carl cannot conceive of a pathway by which the avian lung could evolve from a bellows arrangement, so of course, in his mind, it cannot have happened. This was the original design argument used by William Paley. It was intellectual gruel then, and it is intellectual gruel now. Carl would have us believe that there is an 'in-principle' barrier to the evolution of 'flow-through' ventilation. (I think Carl means unidirectional flow-through ventilation - he doesn't seem to recognise the distinction between unidirectional and bidirectional flow-through ventilation). Of course, there is no such 'in-principle' barrier and one can think of very obvious routes by which the avian system could develop from a bellows arrangement. The first obvious step in this process, the development of a bidirectional flow-through system with air sacs positioned beyond the lung in the tail end of the trunk is strongly supported by this study.
Check... I haven't done that kind of thing myself for some time, but I know what you're saying. Can I just steer you away from the word 'ritual' in relation to what I do, though?
I occassionally reach similar states, not through a sort of physical ritual like you, but through chemical means
Originally posted by JudahMaccabbi
I came across this article that counters evolutionists claims to evolution of chimps to humans
here is the article
I was hoping for some thoughts on this.
[edit on 28/4/06 by JudahMaccabbi]