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.
Originally posted by matiascs
Please take 5 min. to read this abstract from this very well known journal:
www.pnas.org...
I've posted this before, but it seems that peer review does not sit well in this forum.
- M
Do you realize that to make a completely new species of anything is for two separate species of animal to mate?
no one has ever observed the origin of a new species
Sooner or later, the evidence will win.
humans are 99 percent similar to chimps might as well add that humans are 35 percent similar to daffodils.
Originally posted by Locoman8
reply to post by rnaa
A new species of finches? Do you realize that it's still finches?
Do you realize that to make a completely new species of anything is for two separate species of animal to mate?
If you get a new species of frog or cat, you are still talking about a frog or a cat. Can you show me where two completely different species of animal mated and created a new species? I believe in evolution as far as inner-species evolution is concerned. I don't believe in external-species evolution.
Sure mankind will evolve, but not into another animal. they will still be humans.
There was a massive extinction of dinosaurs yet out of the blue, mammals showed up.
Even the cambrian explosion can't be explained.
There is not intermediate species between these accounts.
That's what Darwin's theroy was all about. We all came from one speck or organism and evolved into everything we see today.
That has already been proven false.
Instead of Darwin's tree of life showing that things get MORE complex, starting from something simple at the root and exploding into many different things, the tree should be reversed. Life, organisms, animals have gone from more complex to less complex throughout the span of life on earth. It is a reversal of Darwin's theory.
cambrian explosion can't be explained.
Originally posted by Maslo
The point is, they are a different species, unable to cross-reproduce and "synchronise" with the ancestor, so its only a matter of time before they start to look different.. After reproductive isolation, its inevitable..
What about the broken vitamin C enzyme? Why would creator put it into the genome? To deceive us? What about other "broken genes"?
Originally posted by Maslo
This is just not true, and since your whole argument is built around this, its not true either. As long as the mutation is established (it escaped all control mechanisms), there is no way a cell can distinguish it from other DNA bases. So, evidence?
Originally posted by NatureBoy
reply to post by Kerry_Knight
ok then, we can't know what or why god does things i can accept that....
Now, let's ask the more important question...
Do we know what god has said?
Has he told us how, why or when he created the world?
Has God provided any solid data about the world?
has he told us how to live our lives?
Originally posted by Daniem
So you havent heard about the speciation events that has been observed? Where two members of the SAME species mated, and gave birth to another species? Do a google search or something, this is not a secret, its been observed in nature AND labs.
Are you ignorant of this, or are you purposly lying? I hate creationist dishonesty.
The evidence will win, yes, but you will wind up saying: yahweh created evolution. Thats is how it has always been with you people, since ancient times when god made lighting, and the rainbow.. god is ALWAYS behind stuff you have no clue about.
Yup, all life, plant or animal are related and similar. Seems like you believe your god was lazy when he made us
Originally posted by NatureBoy
I would be interested in seeing some papers about this because i really don't think that true at all, firstly whales having legs is a widely accepted fact - fossil records and extensive, museums have skeletal structures, people cutting up modern whales still sometimes report finding them, etc, etc, etc...
The idea for science to spend time wondering about how whales lost their legs.
They have looked at the DNA of whales (hox c6-c10) and could find no trace of vestigial genes. Perhaps it is because they never had any legs! – Kerry Knight
I would be interested in seeing some papers about this because i really don't think that true at all, firstly whales having legs is a widely accepted fact - fossil records and extensive, museums have skeletal structures, people cutting up modern whales still sometimes report finding them, etc, etc, etc
This whale for instance, uses those limbs deep within the core of its body as arms would an oar at depths it must conserve body heat and save energy using a slower paced form of propulsion while, it can transfer more blood to the extremities flukes and fins where other muscles are incorporated in a more direct propeller propulsion effort.
Again do you have some scientific evidence of this or is it decided purely on faith?
While i say that whales have limbs deep within the blubber these limbs are today pretty much only a pelvis with leg sockets (like our acetabulum) and two unattached bones - you see when sonic hedgehog (shh) was crippled about 34 million years ago it stopped the limbs working, the whale can't do anything with them - the whale learned a new form of swimming where it waggles it fins like almost all aquatic animals do, this is much more effective.
abcnews.go.com...
The link is to a rather heartwarming story of a blind child who has learned to use to 'see' - it seems that the brain mechanics of echolocation are actually almost exactly the same as those we use for sight - in fact many people have suggested that bats 'see' the image created by their noises in the same way we see color and shape, the very same circuits of the brain. Evolution is a very powerful thing, when the latent ability exists and the conditions are right it can be very swift indeed - just look how fast humanity managed to evolve pigs, chickens, cows, etc into the animals they are today! Ok not exactly natural selection, but that it can be done in a few thousand years on such a scale shows that it is possible for the systems to shift very rapidly.
Dawkins could actually take you on a walk around the British museum (and various other science buildings) and show you skeletons of people who you are actually related too - sure without a time machine we will never be able to draw a precises and detailed map - not knowing the exact high and hair color of each and every one of our forfathers doesn't cause the slightest problem - it's the genes that we track, when they developed and who has them - but still, i will find some quotes or maybe a video of dawkins explaining this
.
all that "junk DNA" evolutionists used to call it, isn't junk after all. – Kerry Knight
Then explain the bit that ruins about ability to produce vitamin C? that has a massive bit of 'junk' inside it!
Paper presented at a symposium on Natural Genetic Engineering – Natural Genome Editing, July 2-6, 2008, by Shapiro JA. 2009.
Genome-wide (pervasive) transcription.
In a widely cited 1980 article
published with Leslie Orgel, Crick applied
The central dogma view to discriminate
genomic DNA into classes that do and
do not encode proteins, labeling the
Latter as “junk DNA” unable to make a
Meaningful contribution to cell function.
One criterion propounded to distinguish
Informational DNA is whether it is
Transcribed into RNA. Employing this
Criterion, the evidence for functionality
Of all regions of the genome has recently
Been extended by a detailed investigation
of 1% of the human genome.
study has indicated that virtually all
DNA in the genome, most of which does
not encode protein, is transcribed from
one or both strands. So the central
dogma-based notion that the genome
can be functionally discriminated into
transcribed (informational, coding) and
nontranscribed (junk) regions appears
to be invalid.
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu...
Originally posted by NatureBoy
A change that large would take thousands or hundreds of thousands of years to show, we've already talked about this - the evidence is in the fact that all the fossils, DNA, etc all fit neatly into a tree of life and all other involved sciences such as geology back this order up.
As for your refusal to talk about religion while you're supporting ID -
seems somewhat strange to me that whenever a complex logical, scientific or theological argument develops everyone of faith retreats to some form of ephemeral Deist god - it's not until they want to get their own way that the fire and brimstone comes out!
It seems to me that these tiny little confusions about evolution theory, scientific method, etc that creationists have turned into talking points are designed to try and pull down the framework of science and reason so that they can then replace it with the same terribly unjust, ill reasoned and evidence free opinion of how we should live our lives.
It seems that christianity is becoming a bate a switch scam just like many of the other cults, i.e. Scientology - first they tell you the almost plausible front story 'it's possible that evolution is some how wrong' but then when they've got you are you're emotionally attached they start to pull out the stuff about talking snakes, zombie carpenters and eternal damnation.
Originally posted by NatureBoy
I'm interested, i've taken the time to explain many areas of science and history as seen from a twenty first century perspective
,
Originally posted by Kerry_Knight
Originally posted by Maslo
Perhaps if Man didn't need Oranges to eat, the only creation on this earth with the intelligence to protect them during early frosts wouldn't care enough causing vast pollin sources from orange blossoms to vanish giving honey bees a real pain in the ass.
Originally posted by matiascs
I'm sorry...I actually thought you were being serious...after this it's obvious you are trolling around.
One more thing: you may try to use this search engine (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...); if you think your information is contemporary and what others say is 'outdated'...please back it up using the reservoir for all biomedical information that is provided.
Tyson: I want to put on the table, not why 85% of the members of the
National Academy of Sciences reject God, I want to know why 15% of the
National Academy don’t. That’s really what we’ve got to address here.
Otherwise, the public is secondary to this.
[Moderator then turns to thepanel for responses.]
Larry Krauss: It’s hard to know how to respond to Neil, ever. But the
question you asked about, “Why 15%,” disturbs me a little bit because of
this other presumption that scientists are somehow not people and that
they don’t have the same delusions—I mean, how many of them are
pedophiles in the National Academy of Sciences? How many of them are
Republicans? [laughter] And so, it would be amazing, of course, if it were
zero. That would be the news story.
But the point is I don’t think you’d expect them, in general, to view their
religion as a bulwark against science or to view the need to fly into buildings
or whatever.
So the delusions or predilections are important to recognize, that scientists
are people and are as full of delusions about every aspect of their life as everyone else.
We all make up inventions so that we can rationalize our existence and why we
are who we are.
Tyson: But Lawrence, if you can’t convert our colleagues, why do you
have any hope that you’re going to convert the public?
Note that Larry Krauss uses the word “delusions” three times as he
refers to the beliefs of the 15% of the members of NAS who maintain
some kind of faith in God; that is, those who are not outright atheists
like the rest. In another part of his speech on this same subject, Tyson
vehemently demands to know, “How come this number, the 15% who
believe in God, isn’t zero?”
Tyson is quite correct to raise this question.
He wants to know why all the members of NAS aren’t atheists because
logically, they should be. Atheism and evolutionary Darwinism are
inextricably bound together. To maintain otherwise is to enter the realm
of, as Krauss says, “delusions.”
The serious Darwinists have always known this.
Sir Julian Huxley, considered by some to be the primary architect of Neo-Darwinism,
called evolution “religion without revelation.” In 1964, Huxley wrote,
“Evolution is the most powerful and the most comprehensive idea that
has ever arisen on earth.” Later in the same book he passionately argued
that we must change “our pattern of religious thought from a
God-centered to an evolution-centered pattern,” going on to say that
“the God hypothesis . . . is becoming an intellectual and moral burden
on our thought.” Therefore, he concluded that “we must construct
something to take its place.”
Originally posted by Kerry_Knight
I will make a suggestion to you however you want to take it. Their is a man named Chuck Missler. Someone who has had more "above top secret" security clearance than anyone I ever heard of that also has some very thought provoking ideas that corroborate the genesis account scientifically better than anyone I have heard. I believe his area was computer science and did a lot of black ops sort of things for the military gathering intelligence.
If anyone here knows where natureboy can access some of the mp3's I am talking about I would appreciate it, I think he would be very impressed with this mans insight.
Originally posted by Pauligirl
Originally posted by Kerry_Knight
I will make a suggestion to you however you want to take it. Their is a man named Chuck Missler. Someone who has had more "above top secret" security clearance than anyone I ever heard of that also has some very thought provoking ideas that corroborate the genesis account scientifically better than anyone I have heard. I believe his area was computer science and did a lot of black ops sort of things for the military gathering intelligence.
If anyone here knows where natureboy can access some of the mp3's I am talking about I would appreciate it, I think he would be very impressed with this mans insight.
This Chuck Missler?
en.wikipedia.org...
Really?