Evolution Now Dead. 30 Papers Suggest DNA is Encoded Intelligently

page: 11
41
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by VaterOrlaag
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Great post.

Admittedly, I was a in a rotten mood when I posted earlier.

I'm just shocked that this thread has gotten so many stars/flags when the people doing the starring and flagging should know better!


I am curious. You are suggesting that there is no validity in Biblical reasoning. Let's see where we land between science and the Bible.

God created from what is hidden and allows us to find the light (enlightenment) from the process by searching the light of the material world.

Hebrews 11

11 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. 2 This is what the ancients were commended for.

3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

God Creates with the microcosm. He has this correct and science confirms. Additionally, God Quoted Einstein a few thousands earlier than Einstein lived.

Genesis 1:1

In the Beginning (Time), God created the heavens (Space) and the earth (Matter). Let there be light (Energy).

Leonard Susskind says Energy is information in movement within a hologram.

Video Link

God said it first.

Genesis
1:27 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

Mankind finds a way (1948) to manage light into an image on a screen by collapsing energy and information into a viewing device. Later (today), that computer projection of time, space, matter and energy allows us to discuss topics like this on ATS. Light, both particle and wave, is combined with consciousness to collapse memory locations, even from the past, into images that represent consciousness from other individuals within the image of a Creative being. You are reading this as we speak and the computer becomes your evidence that it is possible. Light, Wave and Consciousness made and managed by programming (WORD).

God said it first.

John 1

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

Mankind was patterned by this process with the first image as a template.

1 Colossians 1:

15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

In John 1, the Son of God is called the WORD (LOGOS) that created the entire thing. We read the same from the last verse listed.

Science says that all of reality is energy in the form of collapsing wave function, rendered into matter by the observer (Copenhagen Interpretation). It states that this is accomplished by collapsing the wave function of light, both particle and wave. Consciousness collapses the wave and the double slit experiment demonstrates that the observer is responsible for collapsing the wave (Similar to the Memory location in a game) to the screen of perception.

Hummm. Did God say this first?

The Trinity.

Father (Light / Particle / Quanta)

Son (Word / Wave)

Holy Spirit (Consciousness / I AM)

Science only lacks one thing? Acknowledgment of God. Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is saying it does not exist. Disbelief is saying light is a duality and not a trinity. Is the human life particle, wave and consciousness? YES! Does the Bible get there first? YES

Hydrogen is where hydrogenesis starts. Hydrogen is one proton and one electron in a balanced state of equilibrium. Did God say that the knowledge of good and evil is the primary aspect of creation and light (knowledge and the fruit it produces)? Yes.

Hydrogen bonds then create all of reality and matter by adding a neutron with the proton. The electron is not untied. Positive and Neutral. How does this connect to God (neutral) and Son of God (Positive) dividing the light from the darkness?

A man in a cave says that the mark of mankind is 666. Carbon has 6 protons, 6 neutrons and 6 electrons. How did he get this information? Does it fit our fruit of knowledge and the money system based on oil? I suppose you think this is all just coincidence?

I suppose this is simply all misplaced concreteness. I for one have eyes to see. I assume others can see also. If you can provide a better answer to this enigma, feel free to show come context other than incredulity. Truth requires context to make a meaningful connection.

edit on 2-10-2012 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 


There is no validity because the Bible is a book of fairy tales edited by various men in power over centuries.

Any good intention that "Jesus" had was perverted when his followers decided to make all the "rules" and write all the books in their favor.

I see modern Christians as the anti-thesis of the original intent of this "savior".

Instead of "love thy neighbor", we have "love thy neighbor unless thou is gay".

Instead of "thou shalt not covet", we have religious leaders that openly cheat with both women AND men.

"Thou shalt not kill"? Can someone tell me why some Christians have no objection to going to war, especially if it's in the name of some divine entity?

You see where I'm going?

You can keep posting scripture and I'll keep reminding you that it is nothing but words in a book and not applicable in reality.
edit on 2-10-2012 by VaterOrlaag because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 


Evolution is dead? Ha. Could you please point me to the conclusion of the paper cited that claims DNA was designed or that evolution is wrong? So far I can't find it.
edit on 2-10-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)


Journal of Nature

Lead Research Paper that Carl Quotes in the Video
edit on 2-10-2012 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 



[The unprecedented number of functional elements identified in this study provides a valuable resource to the scientific community as well as significantly enhances our understanding of the human genome. Our analyses have revealed many novel aspects of gene expression and regulation as well as the organization of such information, as illustrated by the accompanying papers (see www.encodeproject.org... for collected ENCODE publications). However, there are still many specific details, particularly about the mechanistic processes that generate these elements and how and where they function, that require additional experiments to elucidate.

The large spread of coverage—from our highest resolution, most conservative set of bases implicated in GENCODE protein-coding gene exons (2.9%) or specific protein DNA binding (8.5%) to the broadest, most general set of marks covering the genome (approximately 80%), with many gradations in between—presents a spectrum of elements with different functional properties discovered by ENCODE. A total of 99% of the known bases in the genome are within 1.7 kb of any ENCODE element, whereas 95% of bases are within 8 kb of a bound transcription factor motif or DNase I footprint. Interestingly, even using the most conservative estimates, the fraction of bases likely to be involved in direct gene regulation, even though incomplete, is significantly higher than that ascribed to protein-coding exons (1.2%), raising the possibility that more information in the human genome may be important for gene regulation than for biochemical function. Many of the regulatory elements are not constrained across mammalian evolution, which so far has been one of the most reliable indications of an important biochemical event for the organism. Thus, our data provide orthologous indicators for suggesting possible functional elements.

Importantly, for the first time we have sufficient statistical power to assess the impact of negative selection on primate-specific elements, and all ENCODE classes display evidence of negative selection in these unique-to-primate elements. Furthermore, even with our most conservative estimate of functional elements (8.5% of putative DNA/protein binding regions) and assuming that we have already sampled half of the elements from our transcription factor and cell-type diversity, one would estimate that at a minimum 20% (17% from protein binding and 2.9% protein coding gene exons) of the genome participates in these specific functions, with the likely figure significantly higher.

The broad coverage of ENCODE annotations enhances our understanding of common diseases with a genetic component, rare genetic diseases, and cancer, as shown by our ability to link otherwise anonymous associations to a functional element. ENCODE and similar studies provide a first step towards interpreting the rest of the genome—beyond protein-coding genes—thereby augmenting common disease genetic studies with testable hypotheses. Such information justifies performing whole-genome sequencing (rather than exome only, 1.2% of the genome) on rare diseases and investigating somatic variants in non-coding functional elements, for instance, in cancer. Furthermore, as GWAS analyses typically associate disease to SNPs in large regions, comparison to ENCODE non-coding functional elements can help pinpoint putative causal variants in addition to refinement of location by fine-mapping techniques78. Combining ENCODE data with allele-specific information derived from individual genome sequences provides specific insight on the impact of a genetic variant. Indeed, we believe that a significant goal would be to use functional data such as that derived from this project to assign every genomic variant to its possible impact on human phenotypes.


Where's the part about evolution being wrong and the part about the intelligent designer? That is copied from the conclusion. I don't see what exactly you guys are talking about. Could you please show me how any of this is saying that there is a designer?
edit on 2-10-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by EnochWasRight


Carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen form the basis for all life. Just so happens, they are present here in balance. Air molecules are smaller than light. It just so happens that we can see at a distance because of this. Why this way and not another?

 


I don't know, ask a phage that. And I don't mean Phage from the forum, I mean ask an actual phage. I doubt you will get much of an answer.

Neither will you if you ask the billions of species that have gone extinct before us...

Why one way and not another? It was another way for a lot of things that weren't you.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 



[The unprecedented number of functional elements identified in this study provides a valuable resource to the scientific community as well as significantly enhances our understanding of the human genome. Our analyses have revealed many novel aspects of gene expression and regulation as well as the organization of such information, as illustrated by the accompanying papers (see www.encodeproject.org... for collected ENCODE publications). However, there are still many specific details, particularly about the mechanistic processes that generate these elements and how and where they function, that require additional experiments to elucidate.

The large spread of coverage—from our highest resolution, most conservative set of bases implicated in GENCODE protein-coding gene exons (2.9%) or specific protein DNA binding (8.5%) to the broadest, most general set of marks covering the genome (approximately 80%), with many gradations in between—presents a spectrum of elements with different functional properties discovered by ENCODE. A total of 99% of the known bases in the genome are within 1.7 kb of any ENCODE element, whereas 95% of bases are within 8 kb of a bound transcription factor motif or DNase I footprint. Interestingly, even using the most conservative estimates, the fraction of bases likely to be involved in direct gene regulation, even though incomplete, is significantly higher than that ascribed to protein-coding exons (1.2%), raising the possibility that more information in the human genome may be important for gene regulation than for biochemical function. Many of the regulatory elements are not constrained across mammalian evolution, which so far has been one of the most reliable indications of an important biochemical event for the organism. Thus, our data provide orthologous indicators for suggesting possible functional elements.

Importantly, for the first time we have sufficient statistical power to assess the impact of negative selection on primate-specific elements, and all ENCODE classes display evidence of negative selection in these unique-to-primate elements. Furthermore, even with our most conservative estimate of functional elements (8.5% of putative DNA/protein binding regions) and assuming that we have already sampled half of the elements from our transcription factor and cell-type diversity, one would estimate that at a minimum 20% (17% from protein binding and 2.9% protein coding gene exons) of the genome participates in these specific functions, with the likely figure significantly higher.

The broad coverage of ENCODE annotations enhances our understanding of common diseases with a genetic component, rare genetic diseases, and cancer, as shown by our ability to link otherwise anonymous associations to a functional element. ENCODE and similar studies provide a first step towards interpreting the rest of the genome—beyond protein-coding genes—thereby augmenting common disease genetic studies with testable hypotheses. Such information justifies performing whole-genome sequencing (rather than exome only, 1.2% of the genome) on rare diseases and investigating somatic variants in non-coding functional elements, for instance, in cancer. Furthermore, as GWAS analyses typically associate disease to SNPs in large regions, comparison to ENCODE non-coding functional elements can help pinpoint putative causal variants in addition to refinement of location by fine-mapping techniques78. Combining ENCODE data with allele-specific information derived from individual genome sequences provides specific insight on the impact of a genetic variant. Indeed, we believe that a significant goal would be to use functional data such as that derived from this project to assign every genomic variant to its possible impact on human phenotypes.


Where's the part about evolution being wrong and the part about the intelligent designer? That is copied from the conclusion. I don't see what exactly you guys are talking about. Could you please show me how any of this is saying that there is a designer?
edit on 2-10-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)


Let the lead researcher for the Genome project speak for himself.




posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 09:30 PM
link   
Why are you dodging my response, EnochWasRight?

Is that because I'm right and you're wrong?

It is a book..with words...that have been perverted by man.

It's the gospel of MAN, not "God".



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


reply to post by boncho
 



And in the presence of oxygen, why would a species adapt to breathing nitrogen?


It was just a poor example. What I was trying to imply is that species changing from themselves and back only happens in South Park. They have a proven evolutionary Multi-species. Man-Bear-Pig.

I don't know why I stepped into an evolutionary thread. Do you think people who's minds are made up will ever change? (You mean evolve?)

"There is a god."
"There is no god."
"Yes there is."
"No there isn't."
"Prove it!"
You Prove it!"

Geez. Intrptr ducks out the side door.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
Genesis 1:1

In the Beginning (Time), God created the heavens (Space) and the earth (Matter). Let there be light (Energy).


That is not a quote from Genesis 1:1. It does not say "(Time)" after it says "In the beginning"
It does not say "(Space)" after it says "God created the heavens"
It does not say "(Matter)" after it says "...and the earth"
It does not say "(Energy)" after it says "Let there be light"

Those words in parenthesis are your interpretation of the words "beginning", "heavens", "earth" and "light".
That is not necessarily what the bible meant when it referred to those words and it cannot be proven that those words you placed in parenthesis were what the original words were referring to.


Originally posted by EnochWasRight
Genesis
1:27 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.


The bible also says "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things."

Evil is something inherent to mankind. Rocks are not evil, nor trees, nor the ground we walk on. People are.
If god created mankind in his own image, then god must contain some evil which isn't surprising since he supposedly killed innocent children to punish others who were guilty, made people capable of sinning so that he can punish them by sending them to hell... the list goes on. Seems pretty evil to me.

edit on 2-10-2012 by Qemyst because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 09:32 PM
link   



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 09:40 PM
link   
This just in, scientists learned something new, therefore god is real!

Are the religious folks going to try and piggy back on every little discovery? Seems y'all are getting a little desperate.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 

Thanks NorEaster.


So, in essence, this debate comes down to the plausible existence of a God-thingy that either "spoke" all of this into physical manifestation or not. No such thingy exists, so no...it didn't "speak" anything into existence.

I agree. Thats ludicrous. From the Bibles own passages it seems that God needs a piece of Adam's rib to "make" Eve. That implies genetic engineering or at least cloning. If God could just "poof" stuff from thin air why would he require a tissue sample?

Also the Flood story. Why a two by two sample of animals to ride out the storm in a Man Made boat? He's God after all. Just poof away the bad and poof the good back in. There would be no need to convince a skeptic to build a boat, capture 20 million species and then destroy the world with a huge flood.


The rest is crap that we haven't figured out yet. It's not magic, though, just because we haven't nailed it down yet.

The "magic" as I see it is right in front of our nose. An egg, a seed, the Genome and the magic of the womb. Along with the human mind, these "inventions" are surely magic that in my mind haven't been explained or shown to have merely "developed or formed or evolved" from swamp gas either. Thats also ludicrous.

This is an auto generated response. It is not connected to any user so no reply is necessary.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 09:57 PM
link   
This "Anti Evolution" thing is just an attempt to cover up the eugenics plot, you know...

Don't you?

(Third line is always relevant)



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 10:02 PM
link   
Guy the scientist have been responsible for people believing they were not created but instead were descended from monkeys therefore responsible for sending people to hell . Now they have embarrassed themselves with the discovery of an undeniable fact that DNA is necessary for all life and it does not self assimilate in a living cell that does not occur in nature by it's self either . Nobody is crowing with pride against science or you . But the truth is out . jreply to post by xDeadcowx
 



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by SimonPeter
 



Guy the scientist have been responsible for people believing they were not created but instead were descended from monkeys therefore responsible for sending people to hell


Did you just say that Scientists are responsible for sending people to hell?
edit on 2-10-2012 by ErtaiNaGia because: >Implying



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
 


To people who think that the world was created in 6 days and the Earth is flat, scientists are charlatans, heretics, etc.

In reality, without scientists, we'd all be living by biblical standards, etc.

Why pay for a wedding when you can trade some cattle for a wife?



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by SimonPeter
 



Guy the scientist have been responsible for people believing they were not created but instead were descended from monkeys therefore responsible for sending people to hell


Did you just say that Scientists are responsible for sending people to hell?
edit on 2-10-2012 by ErtaiNaGia because: >Implying


Essentially, yep, he did.

I'm pretty sure though, that if god and hell do in fact exist, that god is the one responsible for sending people to hell. Definitely not scientists.

God is the one who created man. If man can sin and commit acts of evil, then it is gods fault for allowing it to happen, and thus, gods doing if they end up being sent to hell by it.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by VaterOrlaag
 



To people who think that the world was created in 6 days and the Earth is flat, scientists are charlatans, heretics, etc.

In reality, without scientists, we'd all be living by biblical standards, etc.

Why pay for a wedding when you can trade some cattle for a wife?


I'm telling you bro...

You are not dealing with religious fundamentalism.... you are dealing with thought police DISGUISED as religious fundamentalists.

They are trying to cover up the Eugenics plot.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 11:14 PM
link   
You know that sometimes people make videos to try and influence people right?
So wouldn't it make sense for someone to present the "facts" and be biased.

Denying a creator gets does not get harder and harder. That is just your opinion based on your personal feelings regarding the subject.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by SimonPeter
 


I'm laughing so hard right now... just finding out you need DNA to live!! Oh my god, mind=blown





new topics
top topics
 
41
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join