It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by MatrixProphet
No you cannot prove that there is a Creator, nor can it be proved that there isn't one. This is where logic can come in.
Science has not been able to explain how the birds wing nor the human eye came about through evolution. It is one of the arguments that is plaguing the scientific community. The more evolved the scientific community becomes the more unanswered their questions.
There is a definite separation amongst the scientists that is going on. It would be no surprise that we would not agree. But I do find it interesting that there are some die hard former evolutionists that are now saying that evolution is no longer feasible. Out of curiosity, have you kept up on this?
There is the possibility that life started (or was helped along) in ice at very low temperatures due to the higher concentrations of the chemicals needed being excluded from the ice and being gathered in ice pockets - see link in my last post for full details.
Originally posted by TheRedneck
As to the issue of evolution covering life origins, I can only tell you that, while it may well be that this is now considered separate from evolution, it was not always so. It wouldn't be the first time I have found scientific thinking to have moved so far from what I was taught as to actually start an argument. In my mind, evolution will always include the 'primeval soup' theory, since it did when I first learned it, but I will try to take this change into account in future debates. Science does advance, as is proper, and it's difficult to keep up with all the advancements. That's why most scientists specialize.
I would assume most of these failed mutations would have either been aborted (depending on the genetics) or been eaten by other animals due to lack of survivability that the failed mutation gives. On the other hand look at all the people with glasses and other eye deficiencies - some of them could be failed mutations.
2. Assuming the lack of any intelligent design, variations which drive evolution must be random and without thought as to the mutation being undergone by that being evolved. It would stand to reason that more can be wrong with any organised system than could be right with it. For instance, there are many many mutations of the eyeball that would render it useless, yet few would improve its efficiency. so there should be a great many failed mutations for every successful one. Should we not see much evidence of these failed mutations, or has that evidence simply escaped me?
The idea of multiple genetic mutations occurring simultaneously to advance a species is a bit too fantastic for me.
It seems that life, at least as we know it on this planet, is almost indecently eager to evolve eyes. We can confidently predict that a statistical sample of reruns (of evolutionary life on Earth) would culminate in eyes. And not just eyes, but compound eyes like those of an insect, a prawn, or a trilobite, and camera eyes like ours or a squid's, with color vision and mechanisms for fine-tuning the focus and the aperture. Also very probably parabolic reflector eyes like those of a limpet, and pinhole eyes like those of Nautilus, the latter-day ammonite-like mollusc in its floating coiled shell... There are only so many ways to make an eye, and life as we know it may well have found them all.
- The Ancestor's Tale
Given that an amoeba does not maintain any cohesion with other amoebas, and the obvious idea that two independent such animals stuck together through cellular cohesion would be less likely to survive, how could this transition have happened?
Recent studies suggest that... bacterial cells can actively seek out small chambers or cavities and assemble there, engaging in quorum sensing behavior.... Within chambers of distinct shapes and sizes allowing continuous cell escape, bacterial colonies can gradually self-organize... The ultimate highly organized steady state is conducive to a more-organized escape of cells from the chambers and increased access of nutrients into and evacuation of waste out of the colonies... The cells might be optimized to maximize self-organization while minimizing the potential for stampede-like exit blockage. The self-organization described here may be crucial for the early stage of the organization of high-density bacterial colonies... It suggests that this phenomenon can play a critical role in bacterial biofilm initiation and development of other complex multicellular bacterial super-structures, including those implicated in infectious diseases.
- Self-Organization in High-Density Bacterial Colonies: Efficient Crowd Control
* * *
The reproductive system in heterosexual animals is one of the most complex systems in biology (IMHO anyway). It operates very differently from asexual mitosis. Is there an intermediate link between these two, or how could an organism that used mitosis as reproduction have evolved into two different sexes?
There should be a great many failed mutations for every successful one. Should we not see much evidence of these failed mutations, or has that evidence simply escaped me?