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.

 

Charles Darwin film 'too controversial for religious America'

page: 34
29
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 04:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 


Not by my definition by science, what you were trying to describe is known as translation, where a ribosome goes through the DNA strand and translte it to Mrna. This process is started and stoped by certain markers called start and stop codons

As the ribosome translates it translates in nucleotide sequences of three. By this point there is an immesurable amount of things that can cause the mutation. There is no way you can show that a mutation in this process happens on purpose. Its just rediculous and does not make sense.




posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 04:55 AM
link   
reply to post by pyramid head
 


ribosome goes through the DNA strand and translte it to Mrna.

I'm actually talking more about the DNA mismatch repair system.


There is no way you can show that a mutation in this process happens on purpose. Its just rediculous and does not make sense.


I agree and am not saying that. I am saying "circumstantial" rather than "random" because that explains an occurrence as having no deliberated reason but rather is determined by circumstance.

How many times need I repeat myself?

[edit on 23-9-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 05:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 


You are still impling some intent for things to go wrong. I am not going to get into a phylisophical argument about what random is, there is circumstances in anything and everything, if it was more circumstantial than random it would be called circumstatial mutation. but it is not, it is called random mutation. Meaning random.



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 05:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 


The point of having a peer reviewed journal is to have a publication of your "peers" review findings you have written and be able to build on that science by being able to recreate the same experiment with the same result. Evolution cannot be a true peer reviewed journal science because they are not recreating anything, just sharing information. Making it no different that ID, and those scientists in the "scientific community" BS.



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 05:09 AM
link   
reply to post by pyramid head
 


You are still impling some intent for things to go wrong.

No I am not; I explicitly said otherwise. Your definition of random is not mutually exclusive with circumstantial, I'm just saying that circumstantial is better than the oversimplified "random".

My original points stand though; universe came before stardust and that evolution is not random (even when people like to describe mutation as random). The "selection" part of Natural and Artificial Selection effectively constitutes a kind of unconscious 'will' of nature.



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 05:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 


You cant disregaurd a word because you dont like it. It is what it is, and is currently being taught that way in university classrooms.

To quote your source:
"The Universe comprises everything that physically exists: the entirety of space and time, all forms of matter, energy and momentum, and the physical laws and constants that govern them."



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 05:16 AM
link   
reply to post by pyramid head
 


The point of having a peer reviewed journal is to have a publication of your "peers" review findings you have written and be able to build on that science by being able to recreate the same experiment with the same result. Evolution cannot be a true peer reviewed journal science because they are not recreating anything, just sharing information. Making it no different that ID, and those scientists in the "scientific community" BS.


No, again peer review is to determine whether a submission is or is not scientific, and how strongly or weakly it relies on the methodology of science and therefore how sound the conclusions are. Evolution is a cornucopia of pieces of distinct science and each gets addressed individually from mutations in DNA to active experiments in artificial selection and back to the fossil record and it makes very different predictions for each bit. In a wider sense one could say that every peer reviewed thing in biology is one for evolution since evolution is the explanation for the diversity of biology.



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 05:20 AM
link   
reply to post by pyramid head
 


You cant disregaurd a word because you dont like it. It is what it is, and is currently being taught that way in university classrooms.

But I can disagree and am disagreeing about it's usage as it's more misleading (particularly to the idiot) that it ought to be. It's just more common in the lexicon than more suited word is the reason it's used more than the better word.

In this sense "Random" is to "circumstantial" as "Survival of the fittest" is to actual evolutionary theory.


To quote your source:
"The Universe comprises everything that physically exists: the entirety of space and time, all forms of matter, energy and momentum, and the physical laws and constants that govern them."


Yes and notice that it says "space and time" which are not made of stardust. Nor is momentum or the physical laws. Universe comes before stardust. "Get over it."



P.S.: Lol

[edit on 23-9-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 05:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
[No, again peer review is to determine whether a submission is or is not scientific, and how strongly or weakly it relies on the methodology of science and therefore how sound the conclusions are. Evolution is a cornucopia of pieces of distinct science and each gets addressed individually from mutations in DNA to active experiments in artificial selection and back to the fossil record and it makes very different predictions for each bit. In a wider sense one could say that every peer reviewed thing in biology is one for evolution since evolution is the explanation for the diversity of biology.

.


Let me ask you when your last peer reviewed paper was published?

Just lets see how well you think you know this process



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 05:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Stylez
 


Let me ask you when your last peer reviewed paper was published?

Just lets see how well you think you know this process


OOooo.Nice retort! Oh goodness I sure can't top that one being only a first year uni student. *shakes head*

What do you think you know of the process? Keeping in mind that you are now basically attacking the merits of all science and science methodology (ignoring it's proofs in technology just for a minute).

The inbuilt 'science-checker' is there to refine the communities conclusions to the most rigorous they can be. The term anti-intellectualism jumps to mind right about now.

Edit to add:
I like your avatar, btw. Saucy! Want to touch!



[edit on 23-9-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 06:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard


Scientists regard this argument as having been disproved in the light of research dating back to 1996 as well as more recent findings.[53] They point out that the basal body of the flagella has been found to be similar to the Type III secretion system (TTSS), a needle-like structure that pathogenic germs such as Salmonella and Yersinia pestis use to inject toxins into living eucaryote cells. The needle's base has ten elements in common with the flagellum, but it is missing forty of the proteins that make a flagellum work.[54] Thus, this system negates the claim that taking away any of the flagellum's parts would render it useless. On this basis, Kenneth Miller notes that, "The parts of this supposedly irreducibly complex system actually have functions of their own.

Wiki






I recently discussed how Wikipedia has inaccurate information on intelligent design, or constantly rebuts (fallaciously) the claims of ID proponents. This post looks at merely two sentences out of the long Wikipedia entry on intelligent design and finds inaccuracy, misrepresentation, bias, and hypocrisy. These two sentences come from Wikipedia's discussion of polls and intelligent design. Wikipedia presently states:

According to a 2005 Harris poll, ten percent of adults in the United States view human beings as "so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them".[17] Although some polls commissioned by the Discovery Institute show more support, these polls have been criticized as suffering from considerable flaws, such as having a low response rate (248 out of 16,000), being conducted on behalf of an organization with an expressed interest in the outcome of the poll, and containing leading questions.[18]
There are a number of biased and/or inaccurate aspects of this statement:

(1) Support for the intelligent design viewpoint is much greater than 10% of Americans: Intelligent design includes a broad spectrum of beliefs. It includes those who accept common descent and support a form of intelligently guided evolution. It also includes those who believe that an intelligent agent designed life-forms separate from other species in something close to their present form. ID doesn’t require special creation by any means, but special creationists do share with other intelligent design proponents the view that the complexity of life arose via intelligence, and not an unguided / random process like natural selection acting upon mutation. William Dembski explains this:

Intelligent design does not require organisms to emerge suddenly or to be specially created from scratch by the intervention of a designing intelligence. To be sure, intelligent design is compatible with the creationist idea of organisms being suddenly created from scratch. But it is also perfectly compatible with the evolutionist idea of new organisms arising from old by gradual accrual of change. What separates intelligent design from naturalistic evolution is not whether organisms evolved or the extent to which they evolved, but what was responsible for their evolution.


www.evolutionnews.org...


[edit on 23-9-2009 by Stylez]



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 06:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
OOooo.Nice retort! Oh goodness I sure can't top that one being only a first year uni student. *shakes head*


ok



What do you think you know of the process? Keeping in mind that you are now basically attacking the merits of all science and science methodology (ignoring it's proofs in technology just for a minute).


Yeah I remember wheh they used a similar tactic to keep people from "attacking" religion but I'm not impressed and I rate scientist's and their usual fudged data and politically peer reviews, right up there with used car sales man. You may think peer reviews are all that but science has just about had it with them.




The inbuilt 'science-checker' is there to refine the communities conclusions to the most rigorous they can be. The term anti-intellectualism jumps to mind right about now.


mmm The term mighty presumptuous of you, does too.

Look, are you trying to be a smart ass or just what are you talking about jumping to mind what is that about?



I like your avatar, btw. Saucy! Want to touch!


*sigh* at least buy me a drink first lol

Ok I see where this is going, been there done that.

G/nite

[edit on 23-9-2009 by Stylez]



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 06:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Stylez
 


I wouldn't take anything the Discovery Institute says as reliable or scientific, they are, after all, just another creationist group.




I heart thunderfoot.



[edit on 23-9-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 06:20 AM
link   
Please stick to the topic and away from assumptions about the personality of fellow members.



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 06:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Stylez
 


Yeah I remember wheh they used a similar tactic to keep people from "attacking" religion but I'm not impressed and I rate scientist's and their usual fudged data and politically peer reviews, right up there with used car sales man. You may think peer reviews are all that but science has just about had it with them.


So you presume the fact that ID and Creationism starts with the conclusions instead of the observations first has nothing to do with why it never makes it through peer review? Evolution made it through peer review (at least after a while) with a zeitgeist where it was incredibly controversial so surely if the peer review system is so biased then it's only a matter of time until the scientific community accepts it and adopts it as central to biology. Shall we wait and see because I don't think that'll ever happen regardless of popular creationist belief that the Theory of Evolution is in it's dying throws.

And the "jumps to mind" bit was just me saying that broadening your attacks from evolutionary theory to the scientific community more generally smacks as a fairly anti-intellectual thing to do. These are the people using the same age old methodologies that gave rise to modern technology and medicine. Do you want to see the western world return to a time where heretical books were burned as evil and witches burned at the stake?

[edit on 23-9-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 07:09 AM
link   
So are we done and dusted with all the Bacterial Flagellum and Irreducible Complexity stuff? Have we moved on now?



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jim Scott
Creation and evolution are not at odds. It was created aged, with the appearance that it evolved. Works for me.

Smart choice Jim, this is the only creationist argument that science will have a lot of difficulty trying to disprove. But why would God play tricks on us like that?


Originally posted by Stylez
This is why we know Virus's don't really evolve like we were once taught.

Right, viruses that reproduce asexually utilize different mechanisms for passing along their genetic material than organisms that reproduce sexually. If a hundred viruses mutate, and one mutation is beneficial, that one mutation can also reproduce asexually and start an entire mutated strain of the original virus. My interpretation of that abstract is that there are limitations to how fast the mutated strain will multiply, but I see no problem with that.

So I'm not sure how that article disproves evolution, apparently we are interpreting it differently.



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stylez
It just goes with the territory I guess.


I am a firm believer in the scientific method and in its power to increase human knowledge of all knowable truth concerning the world outside the mind - to include "religious" ideas when those ideas make some sort of claim about some force acting on physical things around or within us with intelligent or deliberate intent.

Interestingly enough though, the scientific method does not detect truth directly. The power of the scientific method comes from its ability to detect error, thereby limiting the places where truth may be found. Since no theory is ever fully proven by the scientific method, no one should ever consider any theory or even "fact" above all question. When a theory or interpretation can no longer be questioned, it leaves the realm of science and moves into the realm of holy, untouchable, religious dogma.


The only difference is the object of worship.


I was wondering where that quote is from? I didn't see a source.

In any case that's exactly the point I've been making. If we find human fossils and dinosaur fossils in the same sedimentary layer, that can disprove evolution. Scientific theories are falsifiable, and such a find would disprove big parts of the theory of Evolution unless the dig site turned out to be an old museum or something like that.

But there is a difference, and it's not the object of worship. The difference is that creationist theories CAN'T be disproven, at least according to creationists. But I agree that scientific theories CAN be disproven and often have been, that's the way science works.

So on the one hand you have a set of theories that is willing to adapt itself to new evidence, discarding old beliefs if necessary to come up with a new theory that is NOT contradicted by the evidence. Oh the other hand, you have a theory that no conceivable evidence will ever change, no matter what the evidence is. Which approach is more objective? It seems odd for you to present this quote which appears to portray the reasons why a scientific perspective should be preferable to a creationist perspective.



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 08:33 AM
link   
The only thing that irreducible complexity says about a system is that it didnt evolve by addition of new parts. There are still plenty of ways it could evolve, like deletion of parts (yes, that simple!) or change in function. This argument along with the flagellum one has been proven false so long ago that even some serious creationists know it was a mistake.
All other creationists arguments on this thread were proven wrong long ago on talkorigins.org , just look them up, im writing from a mp so i cant add links...

[edit on 23-9-2009 by Maslo]



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 11:20 AM
link   
And cellular lipid membrane someone mentioned forms spontaneously due to hydrophobic effects.




top topics



 
29
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join