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.

 

Scientists Unveil Missing Link In Evolution

page: 14
29
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 21 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by stuff1
I had seen some requests for "crazy creationist" to come out of the woodwork and defend against IDA.

It is unbelievably frustrating to here them claim this is the missing link. Funny, evolutionist never admitted to "missing link" until now, I thought evolution was "fact" just last week. Besides isn't a missing link supposed to show true transitional forms Anyway, there is much hype but little science. After reading 75 times that this proves evolution at various outlets, the only science I have found is that it thumbs, grooming claw, and nails make the case. Huh?? The following was taken from
www.answersingenesis.org...


Ida is indeed "A" missing link. It is not "The" missing link because such a link will never be found that will appease the people who deny evolution. Any claims that Ida is "THE" missing link is unfounded and mostly media hype.

Evolution is fact, if anyone out there could prove that it was indeed not fact then you deserve fame and fortune. If evidence was found to prove that evolution is false under lab scrutiny then it would be welcomed with open arms into the scientific community.

In fact, to all that want to claim that evolution is false, here is all you need to prove it wrong:

-a static fossil record

- True chimeras, that is, organisms that combined parts from several different and diverse lineages (such as mermaids and centaurs) and which are not explained by lateral gene transfer, which transfers relatively small amounts of DNA between lineages, or symbiosis, where two whole organisms come together.

- A mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating.

- Observations of organisms being created.


Originally posted by stuff1
In order to make a case evolution you need to show that new information was created in the DNA. Yet there is not one example of clear, empirically supported examples of information-gaining, beneficial mutations.


While it is true that most mutation is not beneficial, it is the non-beneficial ones that don't last long, and are usually weeded out by natural selection. To say that Beneficial mutations aren't commonly observed is false. Take these mutations for example:

-Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon.
-There is a certain mutation that actually makes Human bones stronger.
-Anti-biotic resistant diseases.
-Pesticide resistant insects.









[edit on 21-5-2009 by ExistenceUnknown]




posted on May, 21 2009 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Avenginggecko
 



Ultimately, all of those questions either end with "It's too complex to understand," or "I don't know", or "It's in the Bible." Nevermind the fact that there's no way to create a scientific Intelligent Design hypothesis, because there's no way to test it.

I'm not arguing that Intelligent Design is completely wrong, and evolution is completely right. I'm also not arguing that there is no God and science is always better than religion or faith. I'm just trying to get the point across that until ID can be scientifically testable, it's not science, it's just philosophy.



Of course this doesn't disqualify the idea of a God/ID/Source/IT, either.

Some things must be understood using our right brain in conjunction with our left brain. So we use a different set of measurements or evaluations.

Example: I have a great deal of life experience. Anyone who personally knows me knows that I am telling the truth.

But...you don't know me, hence, I may be lying or may not even exist! But it doesn't stop the fact that I do have much life experience. It is a reality. Yet, I cannot prove it to you. I can make you acquainted with this reality but most will never know.

Can we view God or ID in this way?

God data is not to be searched from out side ourselves but from within. This is the problem when we look to using just our left brain to solve problems and to seek "proven" information, much in life is approached philosophically as it involves higher more abstract reasoning and not black and white data.

So what you just described is also ironically what the religious side of science is frantically searching for, life without ID or God. In this they are failing!

Here is where conditioning comes in; we have set prejudices because of our conditioning and the idea that something may be repugnant to us if it doesn't fit our opinions. But it doesn't make it any less real.

To keep an open mind would mean putting aside the prejudices and looking at possibilities in a different light so as to not miss any clues! Prejudice blocks these clues.

The Bible may be wrong or right, but regardless, our views do not change reality. Our view of reality can change, but did it have any power over the true reality? No. So let's instead try to understand it.



posted on May, 21 2009 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Silverpine Sepulcher
 



This theory sounds more believable than a god creating us cause he was bored. Really why in the world would God create us if he had no reason to? After all he must of been around a lot longer then the time he made us


You are leaving out the possibility that we are an experiment! Perhaps, there is more to this whole thing than just "random" partying?



posted on May, 21 2009 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by MatrixProphet
This is the perpetual issue that I confront and never receive an answer: Where did consciousness come from and how could it randomly and with time develop without the template of a conscious mind in the first place?


One thing that the explanation of consciousness has going against it is that we just do not want to accept a naturalistc explanation, especially since it does not fit with the ideas of a soul or an afterlife. We have barely begun to understand what consciousness is so it isn’t at all amazing that we would not know how it came to be. This is the best answer that science can currently offer you.

[edit on 21-5-2009 by ExistenceUnknown]



posted on May, 21 2009 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by yeti101
 


What is intelligent design / creationism?

Intelligent design is based of many logical conclusions that the earth is wonderfully and beautifully made so it must have been an intelligent designer who did this. The science that is used to back this up is the anthropic principle. Which is 109 reasons why life is only sustainable on the planet earth.

ourworld.compuserve.com...


It is also based off the big bang theory. Which states there was nothing and then there was something. This is a logical impossibility. Since most evolutionary scientists believe in the big bang (as opposed to the steady state model which says the universe always existed) They are forced to believe in a beginning. This is backed up by the second law of thermodymics (all warm bodies move to cold bodies). This means the all the the suns are burning up and the universe will end /therefore it had a beginning. So then who/what created the big bang? Something outside of time / space (time was created during the big bang as well). God perhaps? Your philospohical view may take you toward aliens but who created the aliens? How do you backup that they are beyond space time (I can backup that God is beyond space time by quoting Bible prophecy and encrypted codes in the bible that are beyond the probability of 10 to the power of 50, meaning they would never happen randomly)

I was personally drawn to this theory once I studied history and realized the Christ resurrection is the most historically validated event in history (even validated by Jesus's enemies, Pliny the Young and the Jewish Talmud). The Bible also has more manuscript validation than any other work (over 5000 geographically disperse Greek manuscripts alone)

However, there is a problem to the arguments above. They allow for theististic evolution, which discounts the book of Genesis and considers it an allegory (as opposed to literal interpretation of Genesis) If you take this belief, as a Christian, you must believe that their was death and suffering before sin (Darwinism) You also believe that souless mongoloids walked the earth for millions of years before Adam finally got a soul. Creationist believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis

Anyway, creationist look at the same evidence that evolutionist do!! They just have different assumptions. For example a creationist would say the grand canyon (and the dried out lake above it) are evidence of a worldwide flood (receding waters left a lake above). Evolutionist look at a tiny river and say "millions of years of erosion"

www.answersingenesis.org...


In their mind the "personified" mother nature can do anything with time. However, creationist can debunk radiometric dating methods by simply assuming a world wide flood (radiation occurred during opening of the North Atlantic Ridge)

www.answersingenesis.org...

While Radiometric dating has biological assumptions that could change if a flood happens. Helium dating which dates the earth at 6,000 years (+- 2000) and its only assumption is that the laws of physics have not changed over time (i.e. diffusion rates of helium)

www.icr.org...

I could go on. The big bang assumes that the earth could not be the center of the universe for philospohical reasons. Creationist believe it is the center for philosophical reasons. Creation science is turing out to be validated by looking at different planets magnetic shields decay rates.

creation.com...

My point same science different assumptions, based of philosophical bias. BOTH take faith creationism is more reasonable once the facts are looked at.



posted on May, 21 2009 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by MatrixProphet
God data is not to be searched from out side ourselves but from within.


Which is irrelevant in relation to consensus on the planetary level, what comes from within is subjective, it becomes objective only if we ALL see it pass the test of LOGIC, the only deduction tool we ALL have in common



Originally posted by MatrixProphet
But it doesn't make it any less real.


What is real ?

Do you think that's the air you are breathing ?


Originally posted by MatrixProphet
To keep an open mind would mean putting aside the prejudices and looking at possibilities in a different light so as to not miss any clues! Prejudice blocks these clues.


Is existance of God excluded from being a prejudice ?

What clues are you talking about and how exactly non-existance of God blocks them?


Originally posted by MatrixProphet
Our view of reality can change, but did it have any power over the true reality? No. So let's instead try to understand it.


Again. What is true reality ?

How exactly assuming existence of God brings ANYONE closer to understanding of the reality ???



posted on May, 21 2009 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by 5thElement
 


If you believe in Darwinism than you believe that all changes occur for the benefit of survival. How then can you trust your brain to do deductive reasoning. Is it tricking you for survival purposes? This is not my argument. Darwin is quoted as such (I am paraphrasing)



posted on May, 21 2009 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by ExistenceUnknown
 



One thing that the explanation of consciousness has going against it is that we just do not want to accept a naturalistc explanation, especially since it does not fit with the ideas of a soul or an afterlife. We have barely begun to understand what consciousness is so it isn’t at all amazing that we would not know how it came to be. This is the best answer that science can currently offer you.


Thank goodness I am not looking for the science of genetics and biology to answer that for me!

Also, thankfully, there are many fields of science. We tend to forget that and focus on just biology.

I work in behavioral science and thankfully the answers are not so oblique.

And "naturalistic" has what meaning for you?



posted on May, 21 2009 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by stuff1
 


I believe that "This is what I think and it must be true, because you cannot prove otherwise" will never, ever have any more weight then "WE DO NOT KNOW"



posted on May, 21 2009 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by 5thElement
 



Which is irrelevant in relation to consensus on the planetary level, what comes from within is subjective, it becomes objective only if we ALL see it pass the test of LOGIC, the only deduction tool we ALL have in common


No, you do not understand levels of consciousness. You are using a broad description of LOGIC which is interpretive. Please check out my thread:
Are Atheist's Mostly Left Brained?



Is existance of God excluded from being a prejudice ?


Oh, of course there is prejudice regarding a God, pros and cons. But if you read my posts, there comes an easier explanation regarding the start to life (using Occam's Razor) if we can make deductions based on what is the simpler explanation.

Leave religion out of it IF you can.



What clues are you talking about and how exactly non-existance of God blocks them?


I explain it well in the OP and pages 9 and 10 on my thread. I won't waste this thread on it, nor will I repeat it all. I am sure you can appreciate that?



Originally posted by MatrixProphet
Our view of reality can change, but did it have any power over the true reality? No. So let's instead try to understand it.


Again. What is true reality ?



Being deliberately obscure and obtuse will not make for good discussion. It is a lame way out of discourse.


How exactly assuming existence of God brings ANYONE closer to understanding of the reality ???


You would like me to give a 2+2 = 4 dissertation on this, using facts so you can stump me, but it doesn't work that way. Either you have access to higher consciousness or you do not. It would be like trying to explain the laws of physics to a 3 year old. I explain how this takes place within the focus of behavioral science on my thread above.

If one is involved in strictly the material world, then anything beyond it will drown you.

[edit on 21-5-2009 by MatrixProphet]



posted on May, 21 2009 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by 5thElement
 


How do you know, we can't know? Your statement is self refuting.

On the other hand, I am absolutely sure there is absolute truth. If your statement above is the reason you ignore evidence it is simply based of philosophical objections.




[edit on 21-5-2009 by stuff1]



posted on May, 21 2009 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by MatrixProphet
 


1. If God exists than objective Moral laws exist
2. Objective moral laws exist.

Therefore God exists.



posted on May, 21 2009 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by MatrixProphet
Thank goodness I am not looking for the science of genetics and biology to answer that for me!


And rightfully so, something as abstract as consciousness may never be explained by those fields of science.


Originally posted by MatrixProphet
And "naturalistic" has what meaning for you?


Naturalistic in the context I was using refers to the non-supernatural.



posted on May, 21 2009 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by stuff1
 



1. If God exists than objective Moral laws exist
2. Objective moral laws exist.

Therefore God exists.


Laws of nature. Laws of God. It is a "natural" state of reality.



posted on May, 21 2009 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by ExistenceUnknown
 



Naturalistic in the context I was using refers to the non-supernatural.


And you know this how?



posted on May, 21 2009 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by MatrixProphet
 


Laws of nature would explain survivalism. It would not explain selfless acts that do not help the species survive, these acts can be explained by an objective moral standard.



posted on May, 21 2009 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by MatrixProphet
And you know this how?


I'm afraid you have lost me. What relevance is this to the point being made? Can you elaborate?



posted on May, 21 2009 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by stuff1
reply to post by MatrixProphet
 


Laws of nature would explain survivalism. It would not explain selfless acts that do not help the species survive, these acts can be explained by an objective moral standard.


Could you give me an example of a selfless act?



posted on May, 21 2009 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by stuff1
 



Laws of nature would explain survivalism. It would not explain selfless acts that do not help the species survive, these acts can be explained by an objective moral standard.


Yes, we agree. But I try to put things in as much of a scientific wording as I can since the abstract tends to confuse some on these threads who only work out of left brain logic.



posted on May, 21 2009 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by ExistenceUnknown
 


You said that naturalistic pertains to that which is non-supernatural.

This of course would depend completely on perception. Imagine that there is a Super Scientific God in the sky (which I believe in) who in his perception is natural and even may come from a family that would consider themselves "natural."

Now, if we are comparing them to sentient creatures with corporeal bodies, then I can see where you are coming from.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join