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.

 

A New Look On The Evolution Theory (Video)

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 05:58 PM
link   
I watched this video and the theory behind it i believe to be highly plausable.

Darwins theory tells us that we evolve randomly, through natrual selection.

In this video, a theory has been put forward that this is not the case, that it is not acedental, but infact intended. That we evolve when a gene is "unlocked" that has been preiously locked.

For a quick example that was used in the video was the cattapila turning into a butterfly or moth. The catapila evolved into a new animal, intentialy. If evolution was random, how did the catapila know what genes to turn on? Sure there different colours and patterns, but butterflys none the less.



Mod Edit: BB Code.


[edit on 10/1/2009 by Mirthful Me]

[edit on 10-1-2009 by Trolloks]




posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 07:14 PM
link   
There is just nothing new here
except for the we came from another planet that had life, life that came to that planet from another.

The only new point is : NO Big Bang ... and this may be ...

If one can accept God as an eternal being, then i can accept No Big Bang. Matter can`t be created from nothing except if you accept the idea of antimatter (but it doesn`t exist), or maybe there is a parallel universe based on antimatter and the 2 cancel each other out.

As for DNA holding information about the future species that may be so. And any evolution has the information for future species.

Example : species 1 (bacteria) contains information for species 2 3 4 5. after the evolution the new species 2 may contain info for species 6 7 8 9. Ok u get the point.



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 07:14 PM
link   
A catapillar does not evolve into a butterfly or moth. I question the validity of the video simply because they do not understand the difference between evolution and life cycles.



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
A catapillar does not evolve into a butterfly or moth. I question the validity of the video simply because they do not understand the difference between evolution and life cycles...


...or science and stuff people make up to validate their own claims.

If I had a dollar for every time I argued with someone about evolution who didn't understand the science behind it then, well, I'd make money a really weird way, but I just wish people would take the time to learn about the opposing side. I don't care if you don't agree with me, just show that you've made an attempt to learn.



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 10:05 PM
link   
I just thought it was an interesting perspective on the evolution idea. I still dont have a solid opinion in evolution. Dawins does have holes, and christian creation sounds just completely mad, sayin he created it all in 6 days, even before he made days! got his order of creating things a bit muddled, and would of been a smart move making light a wee bit earlier.

However, i do have to say the summerian creation theory (the original genisis) is very compelling after readin Max Igan's book "Earths Forbidden Secrets" The evidence is scary none the least that it could be true. If you havent read the book i highly recommended it as a must read.

I do apologies that i couldnt bring anything new to ATS, ive just joined and with the amount of topics covered on this site, goin to be hard to try and find anything new,lol.

I do think its interesting with the gene theory that he brings forward, and maybe even able to one day unlock our genes. Scary and exciting, depends on how it is used, but then again, science is always used mainly for weaponry findings, or becomes abused by it, which is a great shame how we have the knowledge and power to bring peace to everyone, solve povity and save many lives, but choose to destroy it.

As bill hicks once said, we could be exploring space together in peace right now, if we didnt spend so much in arming countries, only to invade them after.


Oh yea, and the link for the book if anyone is interested is www.thecrowhouse.com...

[edit on 10-1-2009 by Trolloks]



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 07:16 AM
link   
ok so ive only watched the first 9 minutes and so far he has already butchered evolutionary thoery

by saying somthings are contruary to it, but these things are our modern understanding of it so not contruary to it all unless he is on about the original 1860's publications of the origin of species

he has butchered the panspermia hypothesis of rna world

has simply made up the dna carries all the data neccessary to form all life, and somehow thinks becasue we carry junk dna that means we are early on in our dna evolution and all that junk dna is for future evolution. when its remenants of past evolution hance atavisms and why we carry none expressive genes from earlier life such as carrying the gene to create vitamin c but we have lost the ability (the Lenski RE et al cit+ experiments show evolution can be guided by earlier bengin mutations but can happen at different generations when the experiment are re-run, but that is far from what this guys saying when he says it is all done by the genetic tick which is at best a semi accurate way to calaculate mutation times)

so far its no better then any other psuedo-science video, lets se what the rest has to offer

so most of what he is saying is evolution but then he says its not evolution, then butchers random mutation passing them all off as bad which they clearly arnt drug resitance? doubled muscle mass? resitance to colesterol based disease? immunity to many forms of cancer (admittedly that mutation also leads to dwarfism for the area that shares this trait)

he aslo seems to think random applies to ALL of evolution not just the small part it plays at the genetic level

ooo that was a good one genetic mutations are replaced by normal dna not passed on ....well all the examples of random mutations given above are heredity in nature they ARE passed on

[edit on 12/1/09 by noobfun]



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 08:03 AM
link   

randel

we came from another planet that had life.

I can accept No Big Bang. Matter can`t be created from nothing


The problem with this theory, I never like it, is that if life somehow came here from another planet how did that planet come to have life? It’s a never ending circle of questions with no reasonable answers.
It’s exactly the same as saying god creating life – what created god etc.

And if you actually know anything about the big bang theory you’d know it doesn’t come from nothing – that’s not what’s suggested. Basically if you trace back and the big bang has been confirmed, it’s as much of a confirmed theory/fact as anything else you’ll find. The cosmic background microwave radiation which was predicted by the big bang theory has been measured and it has been measured dot for dot.

While we don’t know exactly how the universe started, the prevalent theories don’t say there wasn’t anything as a matter of fact the fist law of thermodynamics is that matter and energy can’t be created or destroyed, they can only change form. So that would dictate that the universe has always existed in some form.



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 08:21 AM
link   
All of it, evolution included depends on the presupposition that consciousness is alive or should even be the definition for what life is, wrongly IMO....

Science simply can't get over itself...

Things really are created in their own image....science is the spitting image of what created it....ego..



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by newday
All of it, evolution included depends on the presupposition that consciousness is alive or should even be the definition for what life is, wrongly IMO....
no it doesnt

it works on basis that

everything dies

everything breeds with variance

everything unsited for its enviroment is more likley to die

conciousness or the conecpt of it (it has no real deffinition and could quite possably be a false construct of our mental processes that allow abstract thought to be more functional) doesnt apply, evolution works with or without the organism having conciousness and it appears to be a by product of evolution


Science simply can't get over itself...
its trying to work out what happens and why and be honest about it even if what it finds out completley goes against what is already thought to be right .... it should get over its self how? stop trying to be accurate? honest? workable? improve our understanding? improve our living conditions?

id rather it didnt get over its self and carried on, its saved a whole bunch more lives then anything else has managed and improved them in inumerable ways ..... just becasue it doesnt agree ith your personal unproven beliefes doesnt make it wrong just meas your beliefs are unproven so quite possably wrong


Things really are created in their own image....science is the spitting image of what created it....ego..
i think your confusing science and religeon

science says it doesnt have all the answers but its working on it, doesnt know the 100% truth but were trying to get there

says this is the best understanding we have presently but things may change

wheres the ego? saying bieng x did this and then this happened and then we appeared and were linked with the cosmos by special mind rays called x

thats all unproven and unprovable so to make those claims and say they are 100% truth no other option possible takes ego, to say we/i dont know takes a whole lot of humble and not a lot of ego



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join