Evolution Now Dead. 30 Papers Suggest DNA is Encoded Intelligently

page: 2
41
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 01:42 AM
link   
reply to post by tinfoilman
 

Dear tinfoilman,

Thank you for an incredibly helpful and thorough explanation. May your stars and flags multiply.

May I ask one other question?

If the DNA has a lot junk, it's evidence for evolution. If there is no junk, well that's evidence of a guided process. Something was guiding the process preventing a lot of random junk from entering the DNA.
Again, forgive my ignorance, but could junk DNA "atrophy" and fall away, or change into something more useful? You would be left with only the useful DNA.

I don't think nature does that generally, consider male nipples, but is it different in this case?

With respect,
Charles1952




posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 01:58 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


I don't know.That's probably where I'd have to leave and a geneticist would have to jump in and pick up after me. I know people were debating that very thing some years ago, but I don't know what ever happened with that theory.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 02:05 AM
link   
Religion and science are merging more and more. They're both saying the exact same thing, only in different ways. Especially if a scientist isn't a Christian lets just say, then he can't say "oh God did this and that". Instead he has to say something like "the evidence points to some higher intelligence... etc etc".

But the two are converging more and more. From what I've heard most scientists believe in God, or a higher power of some sort. Most can't say all that much for fear that they could lose there jobs as often they work for corporate science which is telling them to create a certain kind of science to fit there corporate agenda.

I think most scientist genrally figure out that there's way way way too many specific equations all having to work in harmoney to make life exist, which would be impossible for random chance to make that happen. So most often they end up in some scenario where they know there's some kind of intelligent creator. They might not become Christians per say but they do actually figure out by doing the math that there is some higher power.

This is kinda a neet video... ha ha





posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 04:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
Allow me to ramble for a bit, this may be confused.

I don't think I've ever cared about the evolution debate. I accept the belief that God created humans. How? I don't know, and His method doesn't bother me very much.

While I love science, and reason and measurements, etc., just looking at it's history tells me not to put too much faith in it. It attacks your opponent's belief one day, and attacks yours the next.

I may not be a thoughtful, prepared, Christian, but the basis of my belief lies elsewhere, and I don't really care which position is ahead at the moment.


But that is the beauty of science, it tries to count out faith because faith is hope.
It doesn't attack beliefs, it challenges them.
The religious seem to think of science and atheism as just another religion.
Well its not, science is all about coming to conclusions that everyone can agree on (usually minus the religious), backed up by undeniable physical evidence.
Now, I say undeniable. Not because science always thinks its right.
It literally knows its right, not by default, but by testing every theory on everything until we are positive.

I tell you the sky is blue, you look to the sky, see that it is blue, and agree.
Not because I'm dictating or attacking your beliefs, but because you can see it is blue.

And that is why science is seperate from religion.
With religion you can never be sure.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 04:01 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Plus if your beliefs contradict your opponents, then surely one of you must be wrong?



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 04:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by EnochWasRight

Originally posted by boncho
Saying that Noncoding DNA is somehow indicative of evolution is a crap argument. Also stating that functionality of DNA that we don't completely understand is indicative of a creator or god is equally crap.


Yet the papers clearly indicate intelligence behind the encoding.


That intelligence is not necessarily divine in origin, and no more proves a 'creator' than evolutionary theory disprove one.

There is a link to a fascinating, and highly informative documentary in the following thread...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Intelligence, can, and has, been gained by trial and error, but it has done so according to a set of predetermined factors. While it is possible to attribute those predetermined factors to a divine influence, to do so only confirms that divine force's lack of influence once the function was set in motion. So to accept 'God's' role in our 'creation' is equally to accept that God's absenteeism in the now. In short, the greater our understanding of how life in this universe exists and persists, the greater the distance between us and that creator. Particularly as humans. Whatever or whomever, or if ever, the creator, it is we, our intelligence, and desire for survival, that drives our own evolution. However, well or specifically designed, we have and always have had, relative autonomy in how that creation has evolved within the parametres of this 'creation'. Furthermore, it is clear, that whatever else, it is the universe that was created, or set in motion, not us, we are a nothing amongst all that is.


edit on 2-10-2012 by Biliverdin because: clarity



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 04:39 AM
link   
I love it when people say "You need more proof?" Then they proceed to post Bible verses. Here's a hint. The Bible is not proof of ANYTHING. Except maybe that our ancestors had great imaginations. I am agnostc. There is no way to prove or disprove "God"



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 05:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
Saying that Noncoding DNA is somehow indicative of evolution is a crap argument. Also stating that functionality of DNA that we don't completely understand is indicative of a creator or god is equally crap.


true.
but there is something to be said of intuitive speculation...
something you have to experience in order to appreciate.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 05:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheIrishJihad
I love it when people say "You need more proof?" Then they proceed to post Bible verses. Here's a hint. The Bible is not proof of ANYTHING. Except maybe that our ancestors had great imaginations. I am agnostc. There is no way to prove or disprove "God"


Of course there are many ways to prove that you have a Creator. Look at pictures of snowflakes, look at man, look at the innocence of a small child before anything of the world gets hold of him, look at an elderly couple so in love that one is taken within a short time of their life partner dying because they truly had become one, look at the universe....He has designed everything so that we are without excuse to see His glory. But because we live in a fallen world that is decaying and man is such a stubborn and prideful creation, man would rather live out his physical life believing and acting that he is his own god. Well, Our Creator will let him. He'll let him reap whatever he sows. He'll let him gaze upon all of the above things listed above and still choose to not acknowledge Him.

He is but one heartfelt prayer away from a humbled and broken heart. But sadly, in these last days most of the hearts are hardened by the love of sin and so therefore will never seek to walk into the Light. Sinful man instinctively knows that that Light will require change, and because he loves his sin more, he'll stay right where he's at in the darkness so that he can keep partaking of it.

You are fortunate being agnostic in that you don't deny nor yet believe, but yet you believe Satan when he says that there is no "proof of God"? Do you not think that your Creator is quite capable of destroying that argument in the blink of an eye? It's He that gives you belief. Not me. Not some church. Him. Sadly, most will never even seek Him for that belief that He's willing to give. A heartfelt repentant prayer is what He requires, and it is the LAST thing that a prideful and arrogant heart will ever do. Herein lies rebellion and disobedience, and why our children are taught disobedience in everything that they watch, read and learn today. Every pressure being put upon us today will serve His purposes - it will bear down on the shoulders of the meek so that they drop down on knees in sorrow and repentance (and be saved), and it will irritate those who are perishing to rebel and be destroyed. Mankind instinctively knows that a 'showdown' is on the horizon, and the Creator tells His own why and what whereas Satan keeps them blind to the very last minute. To a man indoctrinated in the world doctrine of today, this seems unfathomable and unfair. Your Creator will tell you otherwise - your Creator will show you all of the proof sitting before all of our eyes, and He'll show you why many choose to ignore it and why few will be saved. There is proof - your Creator gives you the faith in and of the only name given under Heaven by which man must be saved - Christ Jesus.

The proof is all around you, but God has not yet given you faith to believe. Does a proud heart keep you on the fence of agnosticism?



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 06:26 AM
link   
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 


NO it isn't. You Creationists like to use irreducible complexity as an argument because of your ignorance of how the works at this point. First it was the human eye, then it was the biocompass a certain species of fish have, now its this half ass'd argument.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 06:29 AM
link   
its all the radiation they put in the air and all the fluoride they put in the water. that's what is stopping DNA from evolving and stopping the human race from progressing apart from TPTB



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 06:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by EnochWasRight

Originally posted by boncho
Saying that Noncoding DNA is somehow indicative of evolution is a crap argument. Also stating that functionality of DNA that we don't completely understand is indicative of a creator or god is equally crap.


Yet the papers clearly indicate intelligence behind the encoding.


What about all the extinct species?

Were they not intelligently designed? What about viruses and bacteria that kill their hosts?

Did God get drunk when he designed them all?



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 06:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheIrishJihad
I love it when people say "You need more proof?" Then they proceed to post Bible verses. Here's a hint. The Bible is not proof of ANYTHING. Except maybe that our ancestors had great imaginations. I am agnostc. There is no way to prove or disprove "God"


There comes a point when your contention becomes statistically improbable. For me, it came when I learned the meaning of graven image, fruit of knowledge and the true meaning behind 666. The mark of mankind is Carbon and it produces our fruit of knowledge and graven images. Carbon has 6 protons, 6 neutrons and 6 electrons. This extends between three points of context. I'm sorry, but the broad picture that the Bible paints is precision to our history and future.

Revelation 13

18 This calls for wisdom. Let the person who has insight calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man.[e-or of mankind] That number is 666.

If this were not enough, you can go a few verses above and see the petrol dollar ponzi scheme explained, the NWO pictured and the devastation that Carbon manipulation has caused for environment. The environment is based on the breath of God. What numbers do Oxygen and Nitrogen represent? 777 is Nitrogen (God's Heptadic mark on scripture) and 888 is Oxygen (Jesus in Greek Gematria). This breath is used to share the Word. Word is information, and as the Bible states, information is the foundation of creation. Is DNA WORD?

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[a] it.

You are suggesting that a few verses like this represents the fallacy of misplaced concreteness. Far from it. These verses are a foundation that science itself uses to describe nature. God was there first. He even gets the microcosm correct.

Hebrews 11

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.

Does God say that our universe is a holographic image of Time, Space, Matter and Energy? YES. Does Science. YES.

Genesis 1:1:3:27

In the Beginning (Time), God created the heavens (Space) and the earth (Matter). Let there be light (Energy). 1:27 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

A hologram is an image. We are INSIDE the image and we are the IMAGE of God. How does the Son of God fit in?

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.

Leonard Suskind is not incorrect. Energy is Information (WORD) in movement. Go back to Genesis 1 and John 1. Word is Time, Space, Matter and Energy in the form of Hydrogenesis. Hydrogen starts out as one proton and one electron in balanced equilibrium. Good and evil are pictured as this foundation. The Neutron comes in later with the proton (Son) and the electron is the one that is not in union with the other two. The neutral observes and the proton acts in conjunction with the neutral. Each of these is a picture of good, evil and God. The elements then paint a picture of the rest of Genesis in parable. All of physics is contained in the first 5 books of the Bible, hidden in allegory. It all depends on having eyes to see.

If this were not enough, consult the link in my signature to see the article on my theory of existence from light.


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



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 07:31 AM
link   
Here's the thing. Life here on earth could have been created by beings/a being not from here. DNA itself could have been purposely introduced here by these beings whomever they may be. The instruction code is so complex, but it is something a very evolved being could create. Then we get to another point. Who created these beings. The fact that they had a lot longer to evolve somewhere else could have been a clue. These beings could be very ancient and possibly have evolved to only need structured energy to exist. There has to be something to build that structure around, possibly a neutrino or something. Maybe it is something we cannot perceive because our instructional code does not allow us to. The possibilities are endless as to what is really happening in this reality. I can't believe that science with it's present limitations can ever find the truth. Science is of man and mans flaws are so great that he will doubtfully ever be allowed to ascend to join these creatures. I think mankind is purposely trying to break the bond with these beings. If they are as evolved as I think, we cannot break this bond or communication and still live. Beings like this could be immortal and possess the knowledge of the universe. Something that mankind would abuse. They steer us but give us free will. This whole reality is just something for them to do. Do they exist somewhere else in bodily form? I don't know, it is possible that remote control tactics are used. What I say may be possible, it doesn't mean it is. I'm just saying that science can be blinded by it's knowledge to omit possibilities. The UFO's people see could be remote control drones to interact if needed, sent here long ago and resting on another planet until needed also.

I know this sounds crazy but so does believing in the limitations that science touts as reality. Most things that science now says as true will be disproved in the future if we don't destroy ourselves first. Our memories can be wiped in one illness and we will have to start over.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by tinfoilman
reply to post by charles1952
 


What most evolutionists/creationists end up arguing about is if the information in the DNA got their randomly or was it designed and put there by God.

The truth of it is you can never really tell if information is random or not. Eventually you realize there is no such thing as random. Once you realize that you realize there is no such thing as information either. The whole concept just falls apart.


I have to disagree, there is a way to infer design in a signal. I can certainly tell the messages here are not random. Consider SETI, how would they determine an intelligent signal from a random pattern? The message would have to contain meaning onto something else. It would be coded. Once the code was broken the patterns would reveal meaningful information separate to it's physical medium.

Semiosis uses a system of symbols, language and the like contain two types of information, classical Shannon information in the form of the physical arrangement of matter and also symbolic non physical information represented by the physical arrangement of the matter. It is this formal symbolic meaning that creates action at it's destination. Meaning information is very real. I have no idea how anyone can say information is not real. It causes real effects. We use it to communicate.

A semiotic state, must entail an encoding medium, a defined system of symbols and most importantly it must include protocols to understand and maintain the integrity of the symbolic message so that it's meaning can be understood.

Intent, purpose and knowledge seems required. That is how SETI would determine the difference IMO. There would also need to be a sufficient amount of it to crack the code and it's meaning.

DNA is also in state of semiosis. Evolution can only happen once this state is achieved.

What mechanism can produce a semiotic state? This is a powerful question that separates those that wish to see and those that would prefer not.
edit on 2-10-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 08:16 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 08:18 AM
link   
The mathematical pattern of the 64 codons in mRNA and the 64 anticodons in tRNA based upon four nitrogen bases has been shown here in rigorous, non-speculative terms to exist in the sacred geometries of various religions, such as the Tree of Life (Otz Chiim) of Jewish Kabbalah and the Hindu Sri Yantra. This means that the signature of God is written in the mathematical pattern of DNA itself. If you don't want to accept that profound implication, you are forced to believe in highly improbable miracles whereby the demonstrated highly detailed matching between these sacred geometries and scientific facts about the structure of DNA/RNA occur by trite chance. Up to you.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 08:29 AM
link   
reply to post by DarknStormy
 


That's because the Bible is filled with lot's of symbolism and figurative language, which makes it hard for literalists to reconcile which parts of it are meant to be taken seriously and which are flowery prose that may or may not have a hidden meaning.

reply to post by EnochWasRight
 



Within the first minute of the video the narrator has dropped in the term "irreducibly complex". The argument from irreducible complexity has already been debunked in regards to things like the evolution of the eye and the bacterial flagellum now they are trying to attach it to DNA? DNA is a chain of proteins that self-replicate, in fact that's really all life is - CHEMISTRY. If you want to claim that NATURAL CHEMISTRY, needs a SUPERNATURAL cause than you are committing a fallacy, an argument from ignorance alongside an argument from incredulity.

I don't believe X could have come about naturally, its just too complex, therefore Y (supernatural cause).

You may as well be claiming that the natural fusion occurring in the Sun is irreducibly complex, or hell you could grab just about anything in quantum physics and claim its irreducibly complex. It's an argument that can be made with anything that you personally don't understand and would prefer to reject the possibility of a natural explanation.

Evolution is a basic biological fact (here separating it from the overarching THEORY of evolution), the genetic make-up of a given population will change over time. You can't kill something which is a directly observed, constantly documented and blatantly obvious fact. These small changes, over the course of MANY generations, can add up to seem very drastic (dinosaurs to birds) or be quite subtle (sharks, crocodilians, etc). If we extrapolate back (and compare the fossils we find) we can see that several billion years ago the only life that was around was single-celled. With the knowledge that life-forms mutate and change from generation to generation, the fossil record, and the ability to compare genes of living species, we can determine evolutionary ancestry fairly well. Evolution dead?




posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 09:00 AM
link   
Christians don't have a monopoly on "God." Even if there was "proof" that the Universe was intelligently designed, it wouldn't "prove" that Jehovah-Jesus is anything other than a fictional character. So please stop asserting as if it's a well-known "fact" that intelligent design = the God of the Bible. Using a logical fallacy to prove a point is not very convincing.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by micpsi
The mathematical pattern of the 64 codons in mRNA and the 64 anticodons in tRNA based upon four nitrogen bases has been shown here in rigorous, non-speculative terms to exist in the sacred geometries of various religions, such as the Tree of Life (Otz Chiim) of Jewish Kabbalah and the Hindu Sri Yantra. This means that the signature of God is written in the mathematical pattern of DNA itself. If you don't want to accept that profound implication, you are forced to believe in highly improbable miracles whereby the demonstrated highly detailed matching between these sacred geometries and scientific facts about the structure of DNA/RNA occur by trite chance. Up to you.


Here is another study confirming the golden ratio is found in the human genome.


This new bioinformatics research bridges Genomics and Mathematics. We propose a universal "Fractal Genome Code Law": The frequency of each of the 64 codons across the entire human genome is controlled by the codon's position in the Universal Genetic Code table. We analyze the frequency of distribution of the 64 codons (codon usage) within single-stranded DNA sequences. Concatenating 24 Human chromosomes, we show that the entire human genome employs the well known universal genetic code table as a macro structural model. The position of each codon within this table precisely dictates its population. So the Universal Genetic Code Table not only maps codons to amino acids, but serves as a global checksum matrix. Frequencies of the 64 codons in the whole human genome scale are a self-similar fractal expansion of the universal genetic code. The original genetic code kernel governs not only the micro scale but the macro scale as well. Particularly, the 6 folding steps of codon populations modeled by the binary divisions of the "Dragon fractal paper folding curve" show evidence of 2 attractors. The numerical relationship between the attractors is derived from the Golden Ratio. We demonstrate that: (i) The whole Human Genome Structure uses the Universal Genetic Code Table as a tuning model. It predetermines global codons proportions and populations. The Universal Genetic Code Table governs both micro and macro behavior of the genome. (ii) We extend the Chargaff's second rule from the domain of single TCAG nucleotides to the larger domain of codon triplets. (iii) Codon frequencies in the human genome are clustered around 2 fractal-like attractors, strongly linked to the golden ratio 1.618.


www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Dragon fractal, gotta love it.
Hmmm... how does random mutation theory sit with this?
edit on 2-10-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)



top topics
 
41
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join