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 DisappearCompletely
Evidence for ID? Please feel free to post some, .and not assumptions based from complexity
Originally posted by cheeser
reply to post by Kerry_Knight
The top 16? Can you provide a reference? I would consider myself a evolutionary biologist and havn't heard of any such thing.. some more middle American church camp bull#?
But will the A-16 deliver? Will they help rid us of the natural selection "survival of the fittest" mentality that has plagued civilization for a century and a half, and on which Darwinism and neo-Darwinism are based, now that the cat is out of the bag that selection is politics not science? That selection cannot be measured exactly. That it is not the mechanism of evolution. That it is an abstract rusty tool left over from 19th century British imperial exploits.
Or will the A-16 tip-toe around the issue, appease the Darwin industry and protect foundation grants?
Certain things look promising. First, while most of the A-16 have roots in Darwinian and neo-Darwinian theory, they recognize the need to challenge the prevailing Modern Evolutionary Synthesis because there’s too much it doesn’t explain.
For example, the Modern Synthesis was produced when genetics was still a baby and we’ve now discovered all the human genes there are to be found. We’ve only got 20,000 - 25,000 of them, roughly what other species have, and those genes arrived on the scene a half billion years ago. So there’s a push for more investigation into non-genetic areas, for how body plans originated, for instance. Charles Darwin never said.
Second, the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis event is being hosted by Konrad Lorenz Institute, where for years there have been discussions about self-organization.
Third, one of the stars of the symposium, New York Medical College cell biologist Stuart Newman, hypothesizes that all 35 animal phyla self-organized at the time of the Cambrian explosion (a half billion years ago) without a genetic recipe or selection (hardwiring supposedly followed).
Fourth, KLI’s chairman, Gerd Mueller has collaborated with Stuart Newman on a book about origin of form. And Newman has other allies within the group, including Yale biologist Gunter Wagner, Budapest biologist and KLI board member Eors Szathmary, as well as KLI’s science manager, Werner Callebaut – a Belgian philosopher who will deliver the non-centrality of gene paper.
I published a "first peek" at Stuart Newman’s concept (Appendix, "Stuart Newman’s High Tea") following his presentation at the University of Notre Dame in March. There has so far been a stonewalling on the science blogs about self-organization. The consensus of the evolution pack seems to be that if an idea doesn’t fit in with Darwinism and neo-Darwinism – KEEP IT OUT!
Meanwhile, Swedish cytogeneticist Antonio Lima-de-Faria, author of the book Evolution without Selection, sees any continuance of the natural selection concept as "compromise". He says Darwinism and neo-Darwinism deal only with the biological or "terminal" phase of evolution and impede discovery of the real mechanism, which is "primaeval" – based on elementary particles, chemical elements and minerals (Chapter 6, "Knight of the North Star").
Lima-de-Faria’s views are considered "extreme" by some science elites 20 years after publication of Evolution without Selection, his book about self-assembly – a phenomenon he defines as "the spontaneous aggregation of biological structures involving formation of weak chemical bonds between surfaces with complementary shapes". However, it looks like some other science elites may be warming up to concepts he laid down decades ago as evidenced by comments at June’s World Science Festival in New York.
Steve Benner, pioneer of synthetic biology and founder, Westheimer Institute for Science:
"But certainly our view of how life originated on Earth is very much dependent on minerals being involved in the process to control the chemistry. . . . So in that sense, I agree with my distinguished colleague from Lund ."
Paul Davies, theoretical physicist and astrobiologist, Director BEYOND Center, Arizona State University:
"There has to be a pathway from chemistry to biology – powerful levels before Darwinian evolution even kicks in."
Originally posted by Angus123
Humans and chimps are so similar they share all but one chromosome and can donate blood back and forth. The bones in a whales fins are identical to the bones in the human hand. I could go on and on.
But you would only say "so" and I would only get a headache. You need your religio-crutch, and I'm content to let you hobble around with it.
Originally posted by Ismail
reply to post by savagediver
You are aware that most of the scientists listed here were born anywhere in between the dark ages and the 19 th century ? At a time when NOT being a creationist could get you fired, presecuted, or even burned at the stake.
Yeah and now days its the exact opposite, if they find out you are a Christian in science, they will ruin your career.
Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by Daniem
And you get to dictate what exactly is and is not scientific? Perhaps a snake can be genetically modified to speak? Can't imagine why anyone would want to do that but.....