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.

 

Intelligent Design; Does Modern Genetic Research Mean Darwin's THEORY of Evolution Belongs In The..

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

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I'm not sure if you watched the video in the OP or not, but I did want to point out that a good portion of the beginning quarter and more is all about space, the big bang, and science. Just in case a mod that didn't watch the video thinks all this is off topic. Anyways back to the vid in the OP if you were to watch the first 15 minutes of it, it has a reoccuring theme about how mathematics only describes things and does not create them, what is your take on that?

They even cite from Carrolls "Miracles" publication in regards to his money analogy if that helps understanding the argument they present. They then apply the same reasoning towards before the Big Bang
edit on 29-12-2013 by Brotherman because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Brotherman
 




Anyways back to the vid in the OP if you were to watch the first 15 minutes of it, it has a reoccuring theme about how mathematics only describes things and does not create them, what is your take on that?

I agree. Our world is not math. Math is a tool which helps us understand our world.


They then apply the same reasoning towards before the Big Bang
"Before" the big bang is beyond math and beyond reason.
edit on 12/29/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Phage
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 

No. Redshift is well understood. Ever since Christian Doppler. It's what waves do.

edit on 12/29/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)


Ummm yes . . .

I thought we were talking about its implications in regards to this;


The expansion of the Universe causes light to "stretch" (redshift), to increase its wavelength (reduce its frequency), and thus reduce its energy level. Since its wavelength is increased the question becomes what happens to the energy it carried at shorter wavelengths.


What is causing the expansion and where is energy going? Math makes me giddy and I admit to getting easily distracted after I start thinking about it.

Seriously did I just get totally lost there?

-FBB



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Does this mean you would agree that a mathematical explaination of pre big bang is not possible then? The reason I ask even though I know you have explained to me before on a similar train of information pre big bang is that after reading a bit more of Hawkings work in the lecture I sourced earlier, and it is also parroted in the video that hawking more or less says it is physics that created the universe I have a really hard time swallowing this pill because I am not sure how it is meant to be interpreted, I am not a scientist I'm a welder and a former Marine protective services agent/0311 so I'm a bit behind on a lot of academia and want to reiterate my appreciation for you and other members help with information.



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Brotherman
 


What hawkings is saying is that the universe is bound by physical laws. When he says that physics created the universe he is alluding to these laws and that watever caused the start is also bound by some kind of laws. We just cant observe the act so we cannot say what these laws were.



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 





Before the big bang is beyond math and beyond reason.


I can understand beyond math, is that why you consider beyond reason? and I didn't catch your edit before I posted my last.



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Brotherman
 

I thought I said that. There can be no rational explanation of "pre big bang", only pure speculation.

There is a difference between the mathematics of physics and "physics". "Physics" would be the rules that determine reality. We use mathematics to describe those rules but those rules are not determined by mathematics.

I don't think Hawking said that physics created the Universe. I think a more accurate description is that the Universe created physics. Even more accurately, physics came into being simultaneously with the Universe. Without the Universe there could be no physics. Physics are a property of the Universe in the way that inertia is a property of matter, but on an even more basic level.


edit on 12/29/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Woodcarver
reply to post by Brotherman
 


What hawkings is saying is that the universe is bound by physical laws. When he says that physics created the universe he is alluding to these laws and that watever caused the start is also bound by some kind of laws. We just cant observe the act so we cannot say what these laws were.


In the vid if I heard/read them correctly, they pretty much literally say Hawking says that the universe is a result of physics literally not that he is asserting that the rules are bound. This is backed up in his lecture I sourced earlier in which it describes certain "agents" the problem is, is that I am not sure I read the lecture correctly or the video is just spinning what is actually published out of conext, or I am just wrong.


Give me a minute I will go back to the video and get the exact time what I am talking about is talked about
edit on 29-12-2013 by Brotherman because: (no reason given)



At 12:49 in regards to Hawking and "M theory" also at 9:20 is an interesting read about this "primordial fireball" what ever the hell that's supposed to be.
edit on 29-12-2013 by Brotherman because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 09:59 PM
link   
Hers another mark on the evolution dogma

Why did sex develop since sex has slowed down evolution and asexual reproduction is more efficient.

By the theory of Darwinian evolution sex shouldn’t even be here!.

This is another conundrum for the dogma of Darwinian evolution.


www.nhm.ac.uk...
sexual reproduction is more efficient Bacteria multiply rapidly by asexual reproduction. In many ways asexual reproduction is the better evolutionary strategy: only one parent is needed and all of their genes are passed on to the next generation. All bacteria, most plants and even some animals reproduce asexually at least some of the time. Sex is less efficient. Finding a mate can take time and energy, and any gametes that aren’t fertilised go to waste. Plus, each parent only passes half of its genes to the offspring. But despite these drawbacks, sexual reproduction evolved and is abundant within the animal world. Why?Text



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Willtell
 




Why did sex develop since sex has slowed down evolution and asexual reproduction is more efficient.

Evolution is not about speed. It's about competition and the ability to reproduce.
Sex allows for more efficient transfer of beneficial mutations by the combination of traits of two individuals.
That's why amoebas are still amoebas.

edit on 12/29/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Willtell
 


Sex is fun and obvoiously Darwin didn't know anything about it, it just feels good
that was only kidding around and on a more serious note IDK why



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Woodcarver
 


12:49 is where or look at the above post amended with an edit.



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Willtell
Hers another mark on the evolution dogma

Why did sex develop since sex has slowed down evolution and asexual reproduction is more efficient.

By the theory of Darwinian evolution sex shouldn’t even be here!.

This is another conundrum for the dogma of Darwinian evolution.


www.nhm.ac.uk...
sexual reproduction is more efficient Bacteria multiply rapidly by asexual reproduction. In many ways asexual reproduction is the better evolutionary strategy: only one parent is needed and all of their genes are passed on to the next generation. All bacteria, most plants and even some animals reproduce asexually at least some of the time. Sex is less efficient. Finding a mate can take time and energy, and any gametes that aren’t fertilised go to waste. Plus, each parent only passes half of its genes to the offspring. But despite these drawbacks, sexual reproduction evolved and is abundant within the animal world. Why?Text



Asexual reproduction does not drive evolution as quickly as sexual reproduction as it trends strongly towards being merely clones of clones with little genetic variation which leaves the entire population vulnerable to the same threats.

An example would be a single bacteria being able to wipe out an entire species. A similar case is occurring with bananas which have been genetically homogenized in manner similar to creatures of asexual reproduction (though they are not asexual).

The theory of evolution being determinate strictly on reproduction is at the same time strong and weak. It is thought of as the ultimate goal but the efficiency of reproduction is not necessarily a driver of evolution.

Life seems to be driven towards increasing complexity rather than simplistic efficiency. You would have a much less daunting task by challenging evolution in this manner.

-FBB



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Brotherman
 


If I could make a suggestion, this book was recommended to me by Dr. Robert Fuller who once upon a time was a physics professor at Columbia. I think he was tired of my incessant questions and told me to check it out and I highly recommend it.



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by peter vlar
 


Next time I go on a book Hiatus I will include this on my list of $hit I need



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 



Xcalibur254
reply to post by Willtell
 


Fine tuned for life? The vast majority of the universe is a vaccuum. The harshest of environments.


We're not talking about life that exists in the vacuum of space, per se. Life (like ours) would most likely require a planet of some sort, or a moon with the suitable conditions to evolve into intelligent/conscious forms. With trillions and trillions upon trillions of planets in the universe- I'd say there is most likely an abundance of life out there. You only need to base it off one planet per galaxy to get trillions of planets with intelligent life on them. Is that not a big enough number to consider our universe as being fine tuned for life?

Also, it has been shown that certain life forms can survive the harsh conditions of space, so your point is moot. Life is not as fragile and weak as people may think.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Ghost147
 



One could also argue why life is an apparent rarity in the cosmos, if it is indeed fine-tuned for it.


How could one go about arguing the "apparent rarity" of life in the cosmos based on our limited perspective?


Lastly, as should be obvious, why would a god - who is all powerful - need to wait for billions of years to create life on this planet?

Is this a typical argument against ID?

If you're invoking God, a supernatural entity of some sort, then time would not apply. And from my limited understanding, time is relative to those of us who are bound by it. Not to mention that there are some who believe time may not even exist at all.


Ironically, the Anthropic Principle is actually an argument against an all powerful deity.


How so?



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Brotherman
reply to post by Ghost147
 



Mirror Neuron Brain Evolution

From the majority of what I read about this I found to be one of the most insightful essays I have read in a while simply because I have never heard of this and I am very interested in proto-language and this essay kind of puts all kinds of concepts I am interested in, into a simple even for me to read and follow format.
edit on 29-12-2013 by Brotherman because: (no reason given)


I'm not quite sure what you're trying to point out with this?


FriedBabelBroccoli
reply to post by Ghost147
 


What is your definition of "sight?"

Are you only considering the physical process of light exciting receptors in the eye or are you talking about the translation into electrical signals which are interpreted by mechanisms within the brain?

What is vision?


Your bombardment of questions is irrelevant to the discussion as the perceived reality of the world around us is not at question, but what we can actually view and test, which is at question. You can go on and on saying "well how do you know that the computer you're typing on even exists! It's just how your brain is processing touch and sight! HAZZAH!"

You're free to produce some actual content towards this discussion any time you wish. My definitions of anything that a human body and brain can perform has nothing to do with the subject in the context you're asking in, unless of course you're attempting to question evolutionary involvement in those processes.




FriedBabelBroccoli
reply to post by Ghost147
 


Your argument essentially breaks down to the form of, "I don't understand, therefore it does not exist."


On the contrary, I don't see how anything I ever said was a statement of a lack of understanding, as I've been pointing out definitive facts, rather than speculation.




FriedBabelBroccoli
reply to post by Ghost147
 


Also your terminology such as 'need' or 'have to' demonstrates a lack of understanding of the nature of God as described by the book you are criticizing.


I believe you're misunderstanding why I used those words. If a god were to create the universe as is, instantly, then they would have to speed up light in order for us to see all the stars/universes/nebula. Why would that be necessary for us to view in the first place? If that god were to create the universe and let it run how it was "designed" to run, and everything took place how it appears naturally, then that NEED to speed up light would not exist.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 01:06 PM
link   

PhotonEffect
reply to post by Ghost147
 



One could also argue why life is an apparent rarity in the cosmos, if it is indeed fine-tuned for it.


How could one go about arguing the "apparent rarity" of life in the cosmos based on our limited perspective?



I was being ironic, in the fact that saying "fine tuned for life" is based solely on our limited perspective. Perhaps saying such things in the same mentality can make the opponent realize their own speculation.



PhotonEffect
reply to post by Ghost147
 



Lastly, as should be obvious, why would a god - who is all powerful - need to wait for billions of years to create life on this planet?

Is this a typical argument against ID?

If you're invoking God, a supernatural entity of some sort, then time would not apply. And from my limited understanding, time is relative to those of us who are bound by it. Not to mention that there are some who believe time may not even exist at all.



I'm invoking god because that's what the topic is about, god and evolution. Also, the speed of light is for us to be able to understand how light travels within a certain distance. It has nothing to do with a gods perspective of time, but rather, how fast light can travel from one point to another.



PhotonEffect
reply to post by Ghost147
 



Ironically, the Anthropic Principle is actually an argument against an all powerful deity.


How so?


Because it doesn't show the powers of an omnipotent creator at all. If anything, placing life inside a universe that is not capable of sustaining life, would be a demonstration of that omnipotence. The fact all the other issues with the Anthropic Principle are present, renders the principle flawed, and incorrect. Along side all the natural occurrences and areas within our own galaxy, alone, where life - as we know it - could potentially sustain itself. That leads us to a rational conclusion of a natural cause, rather than supernatural.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Ghost147
 





Brotherman
reply to post by Ghost147




Mirror Neuron Brain Evolution

From the majority of what I read about this I found to be one of the most insightful essays I have read in a while simply because I have never heard of this and I am very interested in proto-language and this essay kind of puts all kinds of concepts I am interested in, into a simple even for me to read and follow format.
edit on 29-12-2013 by Brotherman because: (no reason given)


I'm not quite sure what you're trying to point out with this?



It is an explanation of how humans apparently evolved from more or less being as unsophisticated as an ape to being intelligent more or less.




top topics



 
12
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join