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.

 

DNA further disproves ID

page: 1
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 07:15 AM
link   


The two elephant species diverged from a common ancestor some 7.6 million years ago, experts working in the US, Germany and Switzerland say.

They came to their conclusion after comparing a genetic analysis of the two species with material derived from the extinct woolly mammoth and mastodon.

The African elephant is much bigger than its Asian counterpart.

It is known for its large, floppy ears, and both sexes have great ivory tusks - unlike the Asian species, in which typically only the males have large external tusks.


source

Now this is where logic once again works against the bogus concept of creation . Surely if an higher power (which doesn't and has never existed BTW) created life Elephants everywhere would be exactly the same and all creatures extinct and living that share the same common traits would have the same DNA.

Of course people will argue against this logic and the weight of logic in general using ideas that have no supporting evidence and of course go against the weight of logic.




posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 08:54 AM
link   
Your logic makes no sense at all and is tenuous at best. There is nothing here to "disprove ID", rather your own limited idea of how ID works.



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 09:18 AM
link   
What logic? I fail to see your point? Animals like people change to adapt to their enviornments.

African elephants have larger ears to cool themselves in the heat. Whereas Asia elephants don't need that feature.

Crocs and Alligators same thing came from the same source but their snouts are different as are the alignment of their teeth.

I needn't go on but this does not "disprove" ID. You need to come to the table with more than that.



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 11:36 AM
link   
Can you please explain why the Creator should make all memebers of a species homogeneous - I am not judging you but need to see where your argument stems from.



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 12:11 PM
link   
Creationism does not exclude evolution. It is obvious that all species have evolved to meet the needs of their particular enviroment. To acknowledge evolution does not reqire that one must deny the existence of a creator.

I, like the others do not understand the point of your post unless your only point is to deny the existence of God.



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 12:50 PM
link   
ID just shows how far ppl are willing to go for their belifs wheter it be true or not ,

ID preachers do point out anormaliteis in our enviroment but they dont bring forth any new answer or info to the case ,

, we where pondering that the real reason why ID was created was because ppl are lazy ,

the only new things ive lernt about christianity is that god its basicly a massive sun dial and that the old testament is a readers digest , the remains of what was left when the romans burned the libraries ,



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 01:53 PM
link   
There's nothing that intelligent design can't explain.

Elephants with different characteristics - check, designer wanted it that way.

Elephants with same characteristics - check, designer wanted it that way.

Elephants with removable explosive tusks - check, designer wanted it that way.

etc etc

That's why ID is not science. It can explain everything, and therefore nothing.



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Why does creation of life have to be limited to "skin and bone" creation. If an intelligent designer, created the "energy" to produce a life force... Why wouldnt it just be almost an automatically written program? ( almost like artificial intelligence ) which creates a flesh and bone form of "life", the life we experiance, which would create deviations based on survival and adaptation to phsyical enviroment.



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 04:32 PM
link   
I agree that this news does not disprove Intelligent Design, but does help in a great way to proving Evolution. As for intelligent design, people who believe in that always say that a creator could have created an animal, and it 'adapts' to it's environment, yet they shoot down evolution in the same breath. Adaptation to the environment is the first step of evolution, if a species keeps adapting for millions of years, pretty soon it will not be anything like what it started as. Thus, Evolution.



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 04:43 PM
link   
I personally believe that Intelligent Design is a flawed concept to a degree.....On any level it presents itself as a poorly written high school research paper.

Take all those who believe in ID at this present time....What if proof was uncovered that modern humans came into being tens of thousands of years ago in the Middle East at the hand of those Legends name as the Anunaki......Those same people peddling ID, while at first having a bird over this being proven, would only go on to say that ID still exists because some great unknow force lead to the creation of the Anunaki Race....

And on and on and on....It is like a poorly written high school research paper because those who choose to point at the presence of God care only to go back as far as they have to in order to prove their point.

The "zero" point where time and the living form was first created may be long lost in the shadows of antiquity. A god (or gods) does
not need to be present for ID to occur, and to fix such a title as God onto such an occurance may lead to trouble down the road (ET creates Man; Man comes of Age to the level of his "creator"; ET comes back and says "Man I created you, be kind and do as I say and you will be rewarded; Man chooses to do ET's bidding, because if ET was wise enough to create him, he must be all knowing).



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11




Now this is where logic once again works against the bogus concept of creation . Surely if an higher power (which doesn't and has never existed BTW) created life Elephants everywhere would be exactly the same and all creatures extinct and living that share the same common traits would have the same DNA.


i suggest you read the urantia book.
www.urantia.org...
its a great read and if nothing else will give you some different ideas to consider.



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 04:52 PM
link   
I don't mean to double post, but I thought that if I included this thought in my last contribution, the note woudl have been long, and things could have become confusing...

xpert11, I agree with you.....I used to work at a nursing home, there was a nurse there who raised rabbits. This nurse also happened to be hardline religous, going to some little secular church in the hills of VT, and homeschooling her children.

We had alot of discussions about raising bunnies, breeding them for long lears, long hind limes, massive buck teeth. It was well into these discussions that I learned of her religous beliefs, and was rather dumb-struck when I found she didn't believe in evolution.....Breeding bunnies for certain traits wouldn't be considered evolution???? WTF



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 05:06 PM
link   
Collins: Why this scientist believes in God

The director of the Human Genome Project.


I did not always embrace these perspectives. As a graduate student in physical chemistry in the 1970s, I was an atheist, finding no reason to postulate the existence of any truths outside of mathematics, physics and chemistry.




I had always assumed that faith was based on purely emotional and irrational arguments, and was astounded to discover, initially in the writings of the Oxford scholar C.S. Lewis and subsequently from many other sources, that one could build a very strong case for the plausibility of the existence of God on purely rational grounds. My earlier atheist's assertion that "I know there is no God" emerged as the least defensible. As the British writer G.K. Chesterton famously remarked, "Atheism is the most daring of all dogmas, for it is the assertion of a universal negative."



YOu people that dont believe in God amaze me.
I can fully understand why people dont believe in religion, or religious books, but to deny there is a God?

Good luck in your godless world.



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyingRoman
.Breeding bunnies for certain traits wouldn't be considered evolution???? WTF


No it wouldnt be considered evolution at all.
Variations are natural. Breeding for variation is natural.

Evolutionist would have you believe that species are/were able to 'evolve' into different species.
Not going to happen no matter how many million years you wait.
Bunny breeding will not ever produce a kangaroo, and breeding chimps to attain human traits will never produce a human.
Species do not and can not produce anything other than their own kind.



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11Bravo
Species do not and can not produce anything other than their own kind.


Crossbreeding =D
Donkey + horse = donkeyhorse? It's not really a donkey, neither a true pure horse, it's a mule


Then those species produce something else, because the other gender didn't come from their own species =p a MIX.

Zebra + Donkey = Zeedonk

[edit on 26/7/07 by -0mega-]



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 05:51 PM
link   
What exact proof do I.D. promoters offer us? Nothing; just worshipping the gaps. At first it was the eye was too complex; but that quote of Darwin saying so what only a set up for his next paragraph where he had stated how step by step how an eye forms. Funny how ID promoters, which I call promoters since they aren't scientists, never include the whole story on Darwin's true opinion of the eye. He had never thought it to be too complex.

What evidence do ID promoters see the opposite side giving to disprove ID? I mean, evolutionists will tell you exactly what you'll find if evolution is wrong, but ID promoters never do. What proof will you accept that God doesn't exist?



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by -0mega-

Originally posted by 11Bravo
Species do not and can not produce anything other than their own kind.


Crossbreeding =D
Donkey + horse = donkeyhorse? It's not really a donkey, neither a true pure horse, it's a mule


Then those species produce something else, because the other gender didn't come from their own species =p a MIX.

Zebra + Donkey = Zeedonk


You got me on that one man.

Correct me if Im wrong, but mules cant breed can they?
They cant have any of their 'own kind'.



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 06:52 PM
link   
I have a question.
If god created all animals
and god is perfect
wouldn't he create animals without the need for them to "adapt" over time to their environment?

Wouldn't he create them to be perfect the first time?

So for those who say evolution doesn't exist but adaptation does, why would this happen?

and some might say "well since environments change, god created animals so they could change with their environment". Well then why wouldn't god create the environments to NOT change. He's omnipotent so he could do this without breaking a sweat. If the environments remained static, he wouldn't need to take the extra time to engineer the animals to adapt. A perfect being would be able to cut that step out.



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 07:17 PM
link   
Add to that, if god was perfect, why did he create superfluous body parts on animals and on us?

The appendix for example -- that's a holdover from when we were not human, and ate more and tougher plants. The appendix is a vestigial organ for helping digest all the cellulose we used to eat.

The coccyx. Has anyone ever fallen on their coccyx? I fractured mine once. It's a vestigial tail. We used to have tails millions of years ago. Why would god put that on us unless we had tails? Hmmm? Anyone?

Nipples and rudimentary uterus in males. Men have a very rudimentary and nonfunctional uterus attached to their prostates, and do not produce milk to nurse children. So why were these anomalies created by a "perfect" being?

There are several more examples, but these should suffice. They are evidence of evolution, not creation. If we were created we would not have these anomalous body parts. Unless someone is going to try to tell me the the coccyx is a way god punishes us when we're being a**holes.


[edit to fix spelling error]

[edit on 26-7-2007 by MajorMalfunction]



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11Bravo
They cant have any of their 'own kind'.


I think it would be good to have a defintion of 'kind'.

This provides some insight:

You may eat all clean birds. But these are the ones which you shall not eat: the eagle, the vulture, the osprey, the buzzard, the kite, after their kinds; every raven after its kind; the ostrich, the nighthawk, the sea gull, the hawk, after their kinds; the little owl and the great owl, the water hen and the pelican, the carrion vulture and the cormorant, the stork, the heron, after their kinds; the hoopoe and the bat.

So Raven is a kind? Is the bat a bird kind? Are all bats a single kind, but Little owl vrs great owl different kinds? Or are all owls a kind?

So what is the definition of Kind? Species? Genus? Family? Order? Seems we have a bit of conflict, sometimes it is a species (e.g. Hoopoe = species), sometimes higher up the scale (e.g. Bat = order).

Because if it is reproductively isolated species, then we have already seen new species evolving.

I think we can generally discard the nebulous concept of 'kind' as pseudoscientific.


[edit on 26-7-2007 by melatonin]



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join