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.

 

More ‘Evidence’ of Intelligent Design Shot Down by Science

page: 1
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 02:45 PM
link   
More ‘Evidence’ of Intelligent Design Shot Down by Science

Intricate cellular components are often cited as evidence of intelligent design.



They couldn’t have evolved, I.D. proponents say, because they can’t be broken down into smaller, simpler functional parts. They are irreducibly complex, so they must have been intentionally designed, as is, by an intelligent entity.



"But new research comparing mitochondria, which provide energy to animal cells, with their bacterial relatives, shows that the necessary pieces for one particular cellular machine — exactly the sort of structure that’s supposed to prove intelligent design — were lying around long ago. "

"It was simply a matter of time before they came together into a more complex entity."

"The pieces “were involved in some other, different function. They were recruited and acquired a new function,” said Sebastian Poggio, a postdoctoral cell biologist at Yale University and co-author of the study published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences."

www.wired.com...




“You look at cellular machines and say, why on earth would biology do anything like this? It’s too bizarre,” he said. “But when you think about it in a neutral evolutionary fashion, in which these machineries emerge before there’s a need for them, then it makes sense.”

[edit on 27/8/2009 by Daniem]




posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Daniem
 




"But new research comparing mitochondria, which provide energy to animal cells, with their bacterial relatives, shows that the necessary pieces for one particular cellular machine — exactly the sort of structure that’s supposed to prove intelligent design — were lying around long ago. " "It was simply a matter of time before they came together into a more complex entity."


How, exactly, does that disprove I.D.?

It only shows that when the need arise, it is provided.



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 03:11 PM
link   
Tom & Jerry makes more sense than this propeganda..
Things do not Just happend for christ sakes...

There has not passed enough TIME for this nonsese to take place...
If this is the case, there should be intelligent life ALL over the universe, because Sol is an young star system, soo... Cant have it both ways, as these semi-science tries to do...



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 03:25 PM
link   
Just explain to me how our Universe is 16 billion years old, and Earth is 4 billion years old, olny 1/4th of the life span of the universe it self can create this awesome life by Chance,by a lightning in a pool of boiling water in an earth burning hot by 1 billion year of melted rock and heat..

If any one can produce life in a cop of water in a fire place by overloading it with electricity, I will stand corrected !! I will admit I was wrong !



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Daniem
 


Argh, see what you did now ...

With all this science and reason you just provided "them" with two more gaps.



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
reply to post by Daniem
 


Argh, see what you did now ...

With all this science and reason you just provided "them" with two more gaps.


I hope you didn't mean me


I.D. does not necessarily involve "god".



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Deaf Alien
 


You know I lovez you DA, so no, not directed at you.


Just preempting the inevitable rationalization.



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChemBreather
Tom & Jerry makes more sense


“any technology not known by the local people, will be perceived as theological or made by Gods.”
- Arthur C. Clarke

Im not surprized YOU dont believe the oh so cold data from science.


ID says it cant have evolved because it cant be broken down into smaller, simpler functional part


Well..cellular complexity is reducible



"Intelligent design mavens once cited flagella as evidence of their theory. Scientific fact dispelled that illusion. This mitochondria study does the same for protein transport."

[edit on 27/8/2009 by Daniem]



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Daniem
 


I'm not sure about that, that "ID says that could not have evolved", infact I know a few ID'ers who support evolution. They say that ID was incorporated into the beginning humans, but through time humans changed and through change evolved into better humans. I also know a few that support evolution fully and they state that ID is evolution and it is quite apparent in being so. Everything has led up to a specific point, the changes we are seeing are the direct result from God, to help guide us from a spiritual evolution, basically the more we evolve spirtually as a whole the more evolved we become. Evolution as ID sounds interesting. I will not state my opinion here, because I don't think its necesaary.

[edit on Aug 27th 2009 by TheMythLives]



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChemBreather
Just explain to me how our Universe is 16 billion years old, and Earth is 4 billion years old, olny 1/4th of the life span of the universe it self can create this awesome life by Chance,by a lightning in a pool of boiling water in an earth burning hot by 1 billion year of melted rock and heat..

If any one can produce life in a cop of water in a fire place by overloading it with electricity, I will stand corrected !! I will admit I was wrong !


Look, if you take a glass of water, you can populate it with billions and billions of bacteria (and beyond that). A single medium size swamp contains a truly astronomical number of organisms. The process of mutation, selection etc is therefore happens in a deeply parallel manner. Instead of one "computer", you now have a quadrillion. That might help explain the complexity of life eventually achieved.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 03:53 PM
link   
Why must we put everyone into these nice tidy little boxes.

ID'ers
Creationists
Evolutionists

I may believe in some form of ID, but not neccessarliy the same as those mentioned in the OP

for the record I believe in all 3 to some degree.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 11:29 PM
link   
None has disproved the other. I am reluctant to get right into this topic, as my views keep changing the more I learn, but why cant intelligent design, evolution and creation all work with one another?

I agree most closely with TheMythLives, and I like Deaf Alien's comment "I.D. does not necessarily involve "god"" yet I still have many qualms with that comment. D.A. feel free to PM me if you want to pick my brain about it...

To keep it simple, it is clear that mitochondria have evolved from a similar type of bacteria so I support evolution. But the processes involved are phenomenally complex so I support intelligent design. Yet the process are not so phenomenally complex that some amazing things can happen in a long enough time span. (thinks back to another post about the thousands of proteins the human body makes, and that elastin is made of 1044 amino acids)... things like that are not so complex as they seem, due to the shape of molecules, and positive/negative charges, there is much lower number of possible matches.

Dont think about it like throwing random stuff into a cup and zapping it with millions of volts... think about it like throwing a handful of magnets into that cup. They arrange in a very specific order, yet the pattern they make is bound to change significantly.

Sorry for such a long winded post, and this reply not being exactly on topic with the OP, but I am replying to all of the responses to the OP.

Open your minds, but dont believe everything you hear. Regardless of who's 'side' you take, try to see the other point of view.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 03:51 AM
link   
I don't really have a problem with evolution. I think survival of the fittest is pretty obvious.

But 1 thing about evolution bothers me and it's hard to ignore.

Since it is the DNA that determines the organism etc, then does that mean that every possible DNA configuration is actually pre-determined?

I mean, is it possible for your DNA to give you anything other than what you are now? It's kind of like 4+4 always = 8. Didn't really evolve to that, just is what it is. But if you start with 1+1 and keep adding to it, then it kind of evolves into that.

I mostly see DNA as being a configuration code for an organism. Change 1 parameter and you change the program itself. Same thing. Cells are just nanobots that follow and carry out that code.

So I don't think evolution has all it's "bugs" worked out yet. Survival of the fittest part seems obvious though, as well as that which is best adapted being that which benefits the most. A self balancing system really.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 04:09 AM
link   
reply to post by ChemBreather
 


Here's some evolution in action, as it were:

Deer Mouse

And here is the "life in a bucket" you were after:

Sceintists re-create life's first spark



Like other would-be nucleotide synthesizers, Sutherland’s team included phosphate in their mix, but rather than adding it to sugars and nucleobases, they started with an array of even simpler molecules that were probably also in Earth’s primordial ooze.

They mixed the molecules in water, heated the solution, then allowed it to evaporate, leaving behind a residue of hybrid, half-sugar, half-nucleobase molecules. To this residue they again added water, heated it, allowed it evaporate, and then irradiated it.

At each stage of the cycle, the resulting molecules were more complex. At the final stage, Sutherland’s team added phosphate. “Remarkably, it transformed into the ribonucleotide!” said Sutherland.


[edit on 29/8/09 by stumason]



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 04:40 AM
link   
Reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


Funny that one who would rationalize this to support their view would bitch about others doing the same for theirs.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 04:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


Quite how you can "rationalise" anything to fit a belief of some airy fairy, goat-herders story about some dude in a cloud who makes whole universes in 6 days is beyond me!

No amount of rationalisation is even possible, unless you discard mountains of scientific evidence, hit yourself over the head with a mallet and ingest large amounts of wild mushrooms.

Incidentally, this is probably where most of those "prophets" got their visions from.. Being stuck in a desert for however long, with no food or water, living off what you found. They all did it, Moses, Jesus, Mohammed...

I bet a good sum of money that they all ate something that just didn't "sit" right with them... and hey presto, "God" is speaking to them..

Funny that...



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 01:45 PM
link   
Reply to post by stumason
 


How one can make soo many assumptions and then treat those little assumptions as fact then claim to be "scientific" is vastly funny to me. Thank you. But then again, the whole silly war of beliefs that neither side can really prove except with stuff like this conjecture here is as funny as it is tiresome.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChemBreather
Tom & Jerry makes more sense than this propeganda..
Things do not Just happend for christ sakes...

There has not passed enough TIME for this nonsese to take place...
If this is the case, there should be intelligent life ALL over the universe, because Sol is an young star system, soo... Cant have it both ways, as these semi-science tries to do...


OK if things can't happen as you say, how did the intelligent creator come into existence?? The defficiencies in the intelligent design theories are its downfall, not criticism from scientists.

I see no logic in any of your statements on this thread.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Deaf Alien

How, exactly, does that disprove I.D.?


It doesn't. In fact it is impossible to disprove, or falsify ID. Which is why it is not a scientific theory. Same with creationism.

It is a theory, but for for it to be science it must be falsifiable.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChemBreather
Just explain to me how our Universe is 16 billion years old, and Earth is 4 billion years old, olny 1/4th of the life span of the universe it self can create this awesome life by Chance,by a lightning in a pool of boiling water in an earth burning hot by 1 billion year of melted rock and heat..

If any one can produce life in a cop of water in a fire place by overloading it with electricity, I will stand corrected !! I will admit I was wrong !


Actually there has been many demonstrations on such events, yet no demonstrations of an intelligent creator. In fact science has shown that the universe has many aspects that would be illogical to include in design.

And remember it's the religious folks who are claiming earth to be the only source of life in the universe. There aren't many scientists or biologists who will say life is most likely unique to earth. The chances of life existing before our sun existed is very high.

You dismiss something because it requires chance, yet you may believe something else that also requires a high level of chance because it has meant no evidence has been left behind to prove creationism. Who or what created god??

How would conveniently stating intelligent design solves everything, when it actually means there's no explanation for the creation of the creator!!! What is the purpose of such a theory that translates one unknown into another!! It's absurd!! Is it beneath creationists to use their brains??!!!

[edit on 29-8-2009 by john124]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join