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.

 

A Microbiologist Explains Her Conversion From Evolution To Creation.

page: 7
20
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 02:42 PM
link   

ketsuko
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


Sounds like my husband, also a microbiologist.

He thinks that continuing to dogmatically with evolution is doing science a disservice, not so much because he thinks there needs to be a shift toward creationism or anything like that but because he believes the dogmatic defense of it is stifling scientific inquiry.

Physics went from Newtonian to Einstein to Quantum. Each was a shift in the fundamental understanding and allowed for huge new leaps forward.

So why must our understanding of biology be forever stuck with Darwin maybe our deeper understanding would allow us make that next leap forward if scientists could question Darwin.

But then, maybe it was easier for Physics being based primarily on math like it is. Numbers are much harder to argue with.


None the less, much of what we know of the life sciences are based upon population numbers but if you look at the probabilities behind evolutionary theory, it simply can never happen (from a numerical and probabilistic view point).

For example; if you have a 50.0000000001% chance of rolling the dice and winning, then you will absolutely win. All you have to do is keep playing.

But if you have a 49.99999999999% chance of winning, you will absolutely lose. The more you play, the more you loose.

If you look at the probability that there will be a genetic mutation, that it will not kill the organism outright (as most mutations do), that it is a germ-line change and is heritable and that it confers some additional survivability to the organism, then the probability of all that is infinitesimally low. The more you play, the more you loose - in a big way!

This is a major hurdle that those who hold to evolutionary theory have never addressed.

Also, in a truly numerical sense, random mutation should produce as many (if not more) degenerative changes that over time and population reduce the survivability and capability of a species, but we hardly see any of this. Evolutionists seem only to see a 'directed' evolutionary path which seems to have a goal of greater complexity and higher performance in biologic systems (and definitely this appears to be observed in nature). How do these systems 'know' what their goal is? Simple survival of the fittest is insufficient to produce such a directed development, especially in the light of so many improbabilities.

It is not that I am saying that genetic change does not happen, it does, it is just that all the proposed mechanisms of Evolutionary Theory are insufficient to overcome these basic road-blocks.



posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 02:46 PM
link   
 




 



posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


You bring a perveted example of the bible thumping brainwashing kind as proof? It's no different than a Atheist displaying ignorrance in the form of vomited idealistic perversions of there own reality.

I see you at this point in the thread acting as a holy roller of the darwinian kind. No better than the brainwashed child who turned in that failure of a test.



posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 

Please tell me that was joke made by someone science test.


Never mind... just remember seeing this...



It is in creationist museum - thus test must be true...





OpenMindedRealist
You are confused by my statements because you assume that there are only two choices: all Darwinian evolution, or all intelligent design. The point was made farther up the thread that the two ideas are not exclusive of each other.


As soon as you said 'random adaptation', there is not much room left for confusion.



posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ZakOlongapo
 


Peppered Moth

A little excerpt:

"The evolution of the peppered moth over the last two hundred years has been studied in detail. Originally, the vast majority of peppered moths had light colouration, which effectively camouflaged them against the light-coloured trees and lichens which they rested upon. However, because of widespread pollution during the Industrial Revolution in England, many of the lichens died out, and the trees that peppered moths rested on became blackened by soot, causing most of the light-coloured moths, or typica, to die off from predation. At the same time, the dark-coloured, or melanic, moths, carbonaria, flourished because of their ability to hide on the darkened trees.[1]

Since then, with improved environmental standards, light-coloured peppered moths have again become common, but the dramatic change in the peppered moth's population has remained a subject of much interest and study, and has led to the coining of the term industrial melanism to refer to the genetic darkening of species in response to pollutants. As a result of the relatively simple and easy-to-understand circumstances of the adaptation, the peppered moth has become a common example used in explaining or demonstrating natural selection.[2]"

Or this, lol.


edit on 29-10-2013 by RedShirt73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by chr0naut
 

Random, you said random?

Please read topic before making such a funny random joke.

There is nothing random about evolution, mentioned in this topic many times.

Also evolution has been observed in laboratories last 50 years. No randomness and not only mutation, as you randomly selected to show it.




edit on 29-10-2013 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by redmage
 


I am not criticizing Darwin's theory itself. How many times must I say it? My criticism is directed towards those today who believe it explains the adaptations and developments of all species, and precludes any intelligent design.

I reserve the right to bash anyone who jumps to conclusions regarding science or spirituality and then asserts his beliefs over those of another.

As to your request for me to provide you with a complete theory that incorporates Darwinian mechanisms and fills in the gaps to explain all life on Earth... Want me to bring you a magma sample from the planetary core while I am at it?

Seriously, that is the other half of my point. Too many people refuse to consider that contemporary knowledge may not be entirely accurate, forcing researchers with new ideas to go against the grain for years until they fully develop a replacing theory. This is the kind of close-minded thinking I had hoped would be less prevalent on ATS than in general society.



posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 02:56 PM
link   
I would further Infinity, Frogger, and Alice for each of you to explain to me, Individual Conciousness and how this just so happened to come into play?

Musta been one hell of a fart for our universe to create such a phenomenon.



posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by sulaw
 



You bring a perveted example of the bible thumping brainwashing kind as proof? It's no different than a Atheist displaying ignorrance in the form of vomited idealistic perversions of there own reality.


It sounds to me as though I touched a nerve. I'm not surprised.


I see you at this point in the thread acting as a holy roller of the darwinian kind. No better than the brainwashed child who turned in that failure of a test.


I really don't care how you see me. I'm not here to make friends, and you certainly wouldn't be the first person to take offense at my persistence in lifting the veil of ignorance.


First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. - Mahatma Ghandi



edit on 29-10-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperFrog
 


Your evolution has not procured a walking talking monkey either. It has produced a individual who's own ignorrance is mocking someone else's belief as hersay.

A evolutionist who wants to push there views as right is no better than a individual who believes in god.



posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by sulaw
 



I would further Infinity, Frogger, and Alice for each of you to explain to me, Individual Conciousness and how this just so happened to come into play?

Musta been one hell of a fart for our universe to create such a phenomenon.


The topic is: A Microbiologist Explains Her Conversion From Evolution To Creation.



posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by sulaw
 



Your evolution has not procured a walking talking monkey either. It has produced a individual who's own ignorrance is mocking someone else's belief as hersay.

A evolutionist who wants to push there views as right is no better than a individual who believes in god.


I don't want my children growing up mistaking fiction for fact. Meanwhile, you believe that as long as faith is strong enough, it lends factual validity to any fiction you care to bring to the table. That is not what our future needs, and I will not sit idly by and watch that happen.

edit on 29-10-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 03:03 PM
link   
The sole cause when Darwin's evolution theory breaks down is when scientists fail to find any cure for cancer so long as they continue to carry on with experiments using model species like mice, pigs, cows, etc...

But they won't tell you about it, because they are afraid to lose grant money.



posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


Please




It sounds to me as though I touched a nerve. I'm not surprised.


You obviously do care infinity, or you wouldn't have so ingorrantly responded as "Touching my nerve" when you have done nothing of the sort.

Where's my talking monkey! And don't pull it's takes millions of years, minor changes in the Monkeys should be universal, no? There should be NO monkeys left! They should all be walking talking, poker playing, cigar smoking humans?



posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 03:08 PM
link   

sulaw
reply to post by SuperFrog
 


Your evolution has not procured a walking talking monkey either. It has produced a individual who's own ignorrance is mocking someone else's belief as hersay.

A evolutionist who wants to push there views as right is no better than a individual who believes in god.


Can you walk and talk? We are apes, just for your info.


I am not pushing any views, just pointing at scientific facts.



posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by tomoe723
 


Let's guess what is more likely to cure cancer - scientist who are looking for cure or prayers?

I don't have problems with scientists using mouse in experiments.



posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by sulaw
 


We share a common ancestor with other current day primates. The different evolutionary paths are what we see in the separate paths from that common ancestor.

[SNIP]

edit on 29-10-2013 by Wertdagf because: (no reason given)


Mod Note: ALL MEMBERS: We expect civility and decorum within all topics - Please Review This Link.

edit on 10/29/2013 by kosmicjack because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


Well, she is a real person and is published.

So, I sent her an email to ask if the article in question is accurate and she no longer "believes" in evolution.

Chances are she may not take the time to respond; however, I did ask (if she responds) may I share her response with others on this forum.

Let's see if she actually said any of this or if the JW's spun the story for their site, shall we?

I'll agree that a Microbiologist who has made up their mind about function will probably not produce credible work. Modern Synthesis is the cornerstone of that field . . . Medicine would still be dark ages without it or it's reliable predictions.

That said . . .

Science: Theory is not promoted to fact. Facts are explained by theory.
Religion: Ideology is promoted to fact. Facts are misrepresented to fit Ideology.


edit on 10/29/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 03:20 PM
link   

RedShirt73
reply to post by ZakOlongapo
 


Peppered Moth

A little excerpt:

"The evolution of the peppered moth over the last two hundred years has been studied in detail. Originally, the vast majority of peppered moths had light colouration, which effectively camouflaged them against the light-coloured trees and lichens which they rested upon. However, because of widespread pollution during the Industrial Revolution in England, many of the lichens died out, and the trees that peppered moths rested on became blackened by soot, causing most of the light-coloured moths, or typica, to die off from predation. At the same time, the dark-coloured, or melanic, moths, carbonaria, flourished because of their ability to hide on the darkened trees.[1]

Since then, with improved environmental standards, light-coloured peppered moths have again become common, but the dramatic change in the peppered moth's population has remained a subject of much interest and study, and has led to the coining of the term industrial melanism to refer to the genetic darkening of species in response to pollutants. As a result of the relatively simple and easy-to-understand circumstances of the adaptation, the peppered moth has become a common example used in explaining or demonstrating natural selection.[2]"

Or this, lol.


edit on 29-10-2013 by RedShirt73 because: (no reason given)


Hmm, did you know that the genome of the European Peppered Moth (Lepidoptera) could be expected to produce a germ line mutation once every 300 generations (= 300 years as the European Peppered Moths life-cycle is annual). We know the size of the genome and have measured and calculated genomic rates of change since mapping their genome.

Yet in this case, we have TWO mutations in 200 years (to a darker colour and back) and we have confirmed that these changes were actual heritable germ-line changes to the genome.

Evolutionary Theory is totally incapable of explaining the observed rate of genetic change. Not only in this case, but in many other circumstances.

In all observed cases of genetic change (that I know of) the rate of change is faster than the mutation rates for the species allow.

Do some research to disprove me with actual facts and figures, please.



posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperFrog
 


Glad to see you have me all figured out, from the handful of posts I have made.

You think my arguments are sad? Listen to yourself. You only entertain ideas that others have presented to you, and you look to a child for confirmation. You can't seem to understand that a person can see problems with explaining everything through Darwin's observations, so you tell yourself I must be trying to push a religious explanation.

Condescension from someone more educated than oneself may be irritating, but when it comes from someone with a plebian understanding it's downright ugly.

I applaud you for instilling values of independent thought in your child. I urge you to add to it the notion that no matter how much it may seem like it, we do not have everything figured out.

About the crocodiles, I do not see where you are going with this. It seems totally irrelevant to the topic at hand. And the dog breeds...your first post about dogs was a good point (though to your chagrin it demonstrated intelligent design rather than Darwinian mechanisms). The rest of your statements about dogs have been speculation at best.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join