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 john_bmth
Originally posted by kennyb72
reply to post by squiz
It would appear that atheists like Dawkins have for long time used the argument that a large proportion of DNA is junk to hint that evolution rather than intelligent design came up with life.
Citation for this claim, please.
Why wouldn't the OP present the fact that this little nugget of information strengthens the case for creationism.
Citation for this claim, please.
Originally posted by BelowLowAnnouncement
Wow you'd really rather waste your own time than try a quick Google search? Is it so hard, or do you just enjoy being arrogant.
I googled it and found several relevant sources linking Dawkins and his opinion on junk DNA, don't be so stupid purely for arguments' sake. And don't tell people they have an agenda, I mean, what the f do you know? You're just some chump on a computer thats too lazy to look for himself.
As for the second citation you require (I mean, you couldn't look at it objectively, right?), I'm not sure if you're aware that it is in favor of the creationist view, but as it was previously (by people like Dawkins, google it) used as an argument AGAINST creationism and FOR evolution, then why can't it being proven wrong be in favor of the creationist argument? I'm not sure exactly what citation you are looking for, but an ounce of common sense could have saved us both time.
Originally posted by john_bmth
Originally posted by BelowLowAnnouncement
Wow you'd really rather waste your own time than try a quick Google search? Is it so hard, or do you just enjoy being arrogant.
So it's "arrogant" to expect people to support their claims with evidence? What an enlightened world you inhabit...
I googled it and found several relevant sources linking Dawkins and his opinion on junk DNA, don't be so stupid purely for arguments' sake. And don't tell people they have an agenda, I mean, what the f do you know? You're just some chump on a computer thats too lazy to look for himself.
Then by all means post the scientific source that states junk DNA is evidence of intelligent design.
As for the second citation you require (I mean, you couldn't look at it objectively, right?), I'm not sure if you're aware that it is in favor of the creationist view, but as it was previously (by people like Dawkins, google it) used as an argument AGAINST creationism and FOR evolution, then why can't it being proven wrong be in favor of the creationist argument? I'm not sure exactly what citation you are looking for, but an ounce of common sense could have saved us both time.
See above.
Originally posted by jiggerj
It does? All I see is that it strengthens the claim that there is no junk DNA. Plus, do creationists really want to lay the blame for the cancer gene on a competent creator? How about the faulty genes that cause mental retardation, deformities, and all the other genetic diseases. No, you guys don't want to go there.
Originally posted by Druscilla
What's with all the faith based creationist nonsense?
This is about DNA. Please take the religious debate over to religious forums.
To the OP, thank you, this is a wonderful find, and very cool.
It'll be nice to see what we can DO with this information, and what possibilities the other 20% as yet undiscovered might hold on offer.
If creationists still want to barge in; I'm all for what this research could indicate on the horizon - RE-creation of ourselves.
Once we know how all the puzzle pieces fit, and how many different ways they fit together, we can work on re-engineering ourselves to FIX all the flaws in this beautiful, but horrible design we've been stuck with.
Have all the biological keys to the kingdom, we very well could redesign ourselves to grow wings, and literally fly, or any number of things much more worthwhile like eliminating diseases, halting and reversing aging, eliminating mortality except where it occurs through accident, or voluntary expiration, re-engineering ourselves
Originally posted by ISHAMAGI
The problem is science has it wrong and things this complex will never be able to be copied.
Think of this creation has been around billions of years computers have been around a hundred. The universe itself is growing infinitely more complex as processing power increases it can still never catch up. We our genome etc is evolving faster.
Originally posted by john_bmth
Originally posted by BelowLowAnnouncement
Wow you'd really rather waste your own time than try a quick Google search? Is it so hard, or do you just enjoy being arrogant.
So it's "arrogant" to expect people to support their claims with evidence? What an enlightened world you inhabit...
I googled it and found several relevant sources linking Dawkins and his opinion on junk DNA, don't be so stupid purely for arguments' sake. And don't tell people they have an agenda, I mean, what the f do you know? You're just some chump on a computer thats too lazy to look for himself.
Then by all means post the scientific source that states junk DNA is evidence of intelligent design.
As for the second citation you require (I mean, you couldn't look at it objectively, right?), I'm not sure if you're aware that it is in favor of the creationist view, but as it was previously (by people like Dawkins, google it) used as an argument AGAINST creationism and FOR evolution, then why can't it being proven wrong be in favor of the creationist argument? I'm not sure exactly what citation you are looking for, but an ounce of common sense could have saved us both time.
See above.
Sorry, Cant be bothered to research all the rubbish that Dawkins spouts just to provide you with an argument.
(Dawkins's) stance is well understood as a left brained closed minded atheist and he has used this argument as part of his assault on Intelligent design.
Please try to move on as your last few threads have nothing to do with the OP
Surely you must be aware that computers are completely naturally occurring phenomena and are a result of natural selection. Whilst it is perfectly obvious that many parts of a computer don't actually do anything, it still is an amazing accident of nature.
Originally posted by Druscilla
We, could perhaps redesign ourselves on the fly, over the counter, with a shot, to effect cosmetic changes like hair color and type, eye colors and shapes, skin pigmentation (or patterns even), metabolism, muscle tone, and several other relatively minor phenotypical changes all with an over the counter, or even off-the shelf injection in just a few decades.
We're approaching a point where evolution through natural selection becomes Evolution on-purpose by choice and self design.
Because this book says otherwise, and nobody has ever proven it wrong:
Originally posted by LightAssassin
It's so funny to see someone support creationism when referring to us re-creating ourselves yet not support the idea of a super advanced race of 'God-like' beings being capable of same, with us.
If we can do it why is it so impossible to admit that another race a long long time ago, who have mastered genetics, could have done the same thing?