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: 14
12
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 02:01 PM
link   

tsingtao

you people default to science, but that is worse than religion, for facts or info.



Oh do please explain this rationale. How is science worse than religion to default to for the truth? That sounds like some idiocy that a priest from the 10th century would say right before locking someone up in an iron maiden. Science has provided us with literally EVERY SINGLE modern device you use. Your computer, television, cell phone, clothes, medicine, food, electrical power, EVERYTHING are all created using science or through applications of it. Religion didn't help create any of those things. Religion is absolutely the WORST thing to default to for truth. It is static in its teaching and fights tooth and nail in the face of overwhelming evidence against its teaching.




posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by tsingtao
 






Brotherman
reply to post by edmc^2



Although I agree abiogenesis is important to understand evolution in its differing forms whether cosmological or biological, does not exactly mean that there was a creator, I believe that there is some kind of creator but I can't really prove it kind of like science can't say for sure what caused the singularity in the big bang to occur either. Can I ask, Have you read this whole thread? Because this is covered quite extensively and most of the things have been a great help to my learning of all the sided arguments in a neutral manner? If not I would suggest going through and checking it all out.


you can't prove it, either way.

why try? why?

you people default to science, but that is worse than religion, for facts or info.




The topic of this thread:

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


Does modern genetic research mean Darwins theory of evolution belong in the museum?

Simple answer is no, it does not mean that. In fact not only does it not mean that but it also means that the OP of this thread also acknowledges the use of the scientific method and advancements onto the ongoing study of Biological evolutionary concepts and theories. Certainly Darwins "The Origins of Species" was not peer reviewed and had some flaws, but it also very clear that the methodology and ability of the time period did not really allow him and his colleagues at the time to really dig in like our scientists do today. On the adverse this also does not for sure mean that there was not a creator and as other members in other threads have pointed out that whos to say evolution was not the vehicle a creator chose to ensure life continues to get better. I am still not exactly sure where I sit on the fence in regards to ID, or Evolution, but I am certainly not a proponent of Young earth theory, or a strict proponent of Creationism as that would mean I have to admit to the refusal of overwhelming "scientific" discoveries.



posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Brotherman
 



Does modern genetic research mean Darwins theory of evolution belong in the museum?


If it does, then so do traditional creationist theories...not as references for modern science, but as exhibits of interest in the same style as Norse, Egyptian or Hindu mythology.
edit on 2-1-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Woodcarver
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Well. Why do you think that a rib would regenerate?

In the process of cloning, all we would need is one cell from any part of he animal. You could just draw some blood or scrape any part of the skin. (Alhough you would likely get 1 of the trillions of organisms that make up the system that we call he human body).

If some all knowing being went about the process of making a female mate for adam, why would he make any mistakes. Unless this is a story of genetic manipulation, in which trial and error would be expected in the process. Bu no major surgery would be needed. And ribs cerainly dont regenerate.


Well, the RIB has been documented, observed and duplicated to grow on its own. I'm quite surprised that you're not even aware of this since you're the enlightened one here.

Anyhow - for the records:


Q: When the ribs grow back after surgery, do they actually form new rib bone and reconnect to the spine, and how long does it take for this to happen?
A: Yes, the ribs do grow back, forming a new rib. This takes approximately two to three months.

Q: Is the new growth as strong as the original rib?
A: The new rib, once it is completely healed, will be as strong as the original rib.


www.scoliosis.org...


Yes, under some circumstances. It depends on how the surgery was performed. If the periosteum (a fibrous sheath which covers bones and contains the blood vessels and nerves that provide nourishment and sensation to them) is still intact, a new rib can form. In patients with scoliosis, for example, a deformed rib is shortened or removed, and a new one (that is not deformed) will grow back...


wiki.answers.com...=6

In short:

As long as the periosteum (note: this the membrane of connective tissue that covers the bone) is allowed to remain, a rib that has been removed will grow again, replacing itself.



edit on 2-1-2014 by edmc^2 because: oops -- wrong link

edit on 2-1-2014 by edmc^2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


What do you mean by "traditional creationist theories"?



posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


I noticed that nothing in what you posted said anything about a solitary rib regenerating an entire human being.



posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Brotherman
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


What do you mean by "traditional creationist theories"?


Any theory that relies upon a higher intelligence crafting this world and/or its inhabitants from base materials. A god, deity, alien lifeform or otherwise sentient and purposeful entity whose abilities greatly exceed our own making the world and putting us in it. That sort of thing.
edit on 2-1-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 02:34 PM
link   

AfterInfinity
reply to post by edmc^2
 


I noticed that nothing in what you posted said anything about a solitary rib regenerating an entire human being.


Well, if humans can RECREATE a new animal (say Dolly the sheep) from a donor cell, why is this hard or impossible for the Creator who who fully knows the human makeup and anatomy?

Of course not.



posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 02:34 PM
link   

AfterInfinity

Brotherman
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


What do you mean by "traditional creationist theories"?


Any theory that relies upon a higher intelligence crafting this world and/or its inhabitants from base materials. A god, deity, alien lifeform or otherwise sentient and purposeful entity whose abilities greatly exceed our own making the world and putting us in it. That sort of thing.
edit on 2-1-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



Their is no testable hypotheses to validate a creator therefore there is no "theory" in regards to creationism as far as I know scientifically. Have you ever read this paper?



Creationism

Jeffrey Koperski

From Science, Religion, and Society: History, Culture, and Controversy, Gary Laderman and Arri Eisen, eds. Armonk, NY: Sharpe Reference, 2006.


Creationism is usually paired these days with evolution, as in “The Creation vs. Evolution Debate.” Although there is something right about that, it is not the whole story. The controversy is older than Darwin and touches on far more than biological evolution. In this chapter, we consider broader questions about the origin of the universe and the relation between science and Scripture: How old is the universe? If God created it, how did he do so? How should we interpret the account of creation in the early chapters of Genesis? There are four main approaches to these questions. The first is naturalism: nothing exists beyond the realm of nature, material objects, and energy. Most naturalists consider religious beliefs to be purely matters of faith, making no contribution to history or science. Although naturalism and atheism are not synonymous, when it comes to matters of religion, they are essentially the same. The second view is young earth creationism (YEC), which takes a literal interpretation of Genesis and the six days of creation. The last two views, progressive creationism (PC) and theistic evolution (TE), reject this interpretation and agree with contemporary science about the age of the universe. The difference between PC and TE has to do with God’s activities after the initial creation of the cosmos. Although there are nonchristian theists in each camp, the debate is a much larger, defining issue among contemporary, Protestant Christians than it is in other religions. Let’s now consider the three theistic positions in more detail.



Source

This makes for an interesting read, I have not read this in its 100% entirety yet as I have going over elements of it along with other documents. I will say though that what I have read is quite interesting and you may also find the material contained within interesting as well.



posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Well i read up on your links and even went to further ones and it does seem that regeneration of an entire rib can happen. I apologise for my own ignorance.



posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Woodcarver
 


Dbl post
edit on 2-1-2014 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


My angle on this is that, why would a deity who can create an entire universe from nothing but his whims, have a problem creating a suitable female for his creation. Plus why would he need to use conventional modern medical processes to clone that mate.

Assuming said deity already made male and female forms of all the other animals here.



posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Woodcarver
reply to post by edmc^2
 


My angle on this is that, why would a deity who can create an entire universe from nothing but his whims, have a problem creating a suitable female for his creation. Plus why would he need to use conventional modern medical processes to clone that mate.

Assuming said deity already made male and female forms of all the other animals here.



Well although the Creator is not bound by laws of nature, he does though in many instances follow the laws of nature that he created to produce his creative works.

For instance:

E = mc2

It's very evident that creation of the material universe follow the principles laid out in that formula, that is,

that Matter can materialized from Energy or viceversa.

Yet, when it comes to the source of energy, scientists are at a lost as to its origin.

Laws of enthrophy is another law that's evident in nature.

The balance of universal forces is another.

Our own DNA code - requires great intelligence.

The universe is governed by fine tuning of fundamental forces.

I can name many more but the point is, if one knows how to manipulate matter and energy there's nothing one can achieve short of a miracle.

As for the female counterpart of man, Eve was a perfect mate for she is part of man. The bond between the two can't get any more closer than anything else for she was produced from deepest parts of man - the bone marrow.

Thus, Adam knew exactly what to say when he saw the most beautiful creation of all - a WOMAN (a man with a womb). He exclaimed:

[Gen 2:23 KJV]
"And Adam said, This [is] now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man."

Thus Eve was Adam's soul mate! If she was created like Adam, the bond between the two will not be as close as possible.

Thus a bond between a man and a woman should forever.

[Gen 2:24 KJV]
"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."



posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 03:32 PM
link   

edmc^2
Well, the RIB has been documented, observed and duplicated to grow on its own. I'm quite surprised that you're not even aware of this since you're the enlightened one here.

Anyhow - for the records:


Q: When the ribs grow back after surgery, do they actually form new rib bone and reconnect to the spine, and how long does it take for this to happen?
A: Yes, the ribs do grow back, forming a new rib. This takes approximately two to three months.

Q: Is the new growth as strong as the original rib?
A: The new rib, once it is completely healed, will be as strong as the original rib.


www.scoliosis.org...


This is a bit misleading as the method used by the surgeons who perform this procedure entails using a gel foam or scaffold in the rib bed to promote full rib regeneration and when it is not used bone growth is not total and is often times not in continuity with the remaining sections of rib.


It was observed that in the trial cases, (in which gel foam was used as a scaffold) the ribs regenerated faster and to near normal morphology. Almost all ribs in the trial group reached grade 4 or above at 6 months whereas in the control group the regenerate was poor with most regeneration falling below grade 4 at the same period. The data was analyzed using the Fischer exact test and was found to be statistically significant with P values of >0.0001 at 3 months, >0.0001 at 6 months and >0.0005 at 1 y.

...

Conclusions.

    •Ribs regenerate to a near normal radiological profile within 6 months of costectomy when gel foam scaffold is placed in the rib bed.

    •Rib regeneration in patients without gel foam scaffold is slower and poorer in quality.

    •It seems that the classification system allows an objective radiological assessment of the quality and quantity of rib regeneration.
source




edit on 2-1-2014 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer



posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 05:25 PM
link   

AugustusMasonicus

edmc^2
Well, the RIB has been documented, observed and duplicated to grow on its own. I'm quite surprised that you're not even aware of this since you're the enlightened one here.

Anyhow - for the records:


Q: When the ribs grow back after surgery, do they actually form new rib bone and reconnect to the spine, and how long does it take for this to happen?
A: Yes, the ribs do grow back, forming a new rib. This takes approximately two to three months.

Q: Is the new growth as strong as the original rib?
A: The new rib, once it is completely healed, will be as strong as the original rib.


www.scoliosis.org...


This is a bit misleading as the method used by the surgeons who perform this procedure entails using a gel foam or scaffold in the rib bed to promote full rib regeneration and when it is not used bone growth is not total and is often times not in continuity with the remaining sections of rib.


It was observed that in the trial cases, (in which gel foam was used as a scaffold) the ribs regenerated faster and to near normal morphology. Almost all ribs in the trial group reached grade 4 or above at 6 months whereas in the control group the regenerate was poor with most regeneration falling below grade 4 at the same period. The data was analyzed using the Fischer exact test and was found to be statistically significant with P values of >0.0001 at 3 months, >0.0001 at 6 months and >0.0005 at 1 y.

...

Conclusions.

    •Ribs regenerate to a near normal radiological profile within 6 months of costectomy when gel foam scaffold is placed in the rib bed.

    •Rib regeneration in patients without gel foam scaffold is slower and poorer in quality.

    •It seems that the classification system allows an objective radiological assessment of the quality and quantity of rib regeneration.
source




edit on 2-1-2014 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer


Missleading or not the point is the rib bone is the only skeletal part of the body that is capable of regrowing itself back.

Which makes the point that the creator knows what he was doing.

Which again confirms that there's indeed intelligence involve in the design and creation of man.

Nothing is wasted in the scriptures. Words have significant meaning scientifically or otherwise.



posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 05:36 PM
link   

edit on 2-1-2014 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Alright nope. You really dont have any idea what your talking about.

You are just making a lot of claims that you can't demonstrate.



Well although the Creator is not bound by laws of nature, he does though in many instances follow the laws of nature that he created to produce his creative works.


How can you demonstrate either one of these claims? You are claiming intimate knowledge of the properties of a god when you have never been able to study one up close.



Our own DNA code - requires great intelligence.


Can you demonstrate how you know this? Because no one else can seem too.



I can name many more but the point is, if one knows how to manipulate matter and energy there's nothing one can achieve short of a miracle.


I would wager if one knew how to manipulate matter and energy. You wouldn't need miracles. But please go on and list some more.



As for the female counterpart of man, Eve was a perfect mate for she is part of man. The bond between the two can't get any more closer than anything else for she was produced from deepest parts of man - the bone marrow.


Making statements does not demonstrate why someone should believe your claims. My knowledge of biology does not include any of these things you are claiming.



"And Adam said, This [is] now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man."

Thus Eve was Adam's soul mate! If she was created like Adam, the bond between the two will not be as close as possible.

Thus a bond between a man and a woman should forever.

[Gen 2:24 KJV]
"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."


Quoting from the bible to make a scientific point is very unscientific. I will ask again. What do these words demonstrate?

None of these claims can be proven until you present a deity to be studied so why are you making these claims?


edit on 2-1-2014 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-1-2014 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 05:49 PM
link   

edmc^2
Missleading or not the point is the rib bone is the only skeletal part of the body that is capable of regrowing itself back.


Did you read the medical results on that page? They conclusively show, with a extremely low margin of error, that rib regrowth is sporadic and typically incomplete unless it is accompanied by gel foam scaffolding. Without this the bones do not grow back complete and often times are not in continuity (read: not aligned) with the untouched rib bones.



posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 


So in other words this is more of a procedure then a naturally occurring phenomenon? If done unassisted I wonder if this will help or hurt the injured?



posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Woodcarver
 


Hey Hows it Going WoodCarver? Got a question for you, What do you make of this in regards to creationism? As you are well aware I am gathering what I consider the best credible/ compelling evidences from the conflicting sides and thought this article with sources from creation science institute was actually worth while.



About a dozen reports from the last half-decade have described original-tissue fossils, and 2013 added its fair share of finds. Experiments show the biochemicals, cells, and tissues within these fossils decay in far less time than their standard long age assignments require. And this year only saw the soft-tissue fossil challenge intensify.

Since 2005, when the journal Science published stunning photographs of Tyrannosaurus rex blood vessels, many secular scientists have remained skeptical, claiming the vessels were actually bacterial slime trails. They rightly understood that blood vessels do not last even one million years, so they speculated with an alternative explanation that fit their long-ages perspective. But bacteria do not make hollow tubes with red blood cells inside them. Subsequent research disproved the bacteria hypothesis by showing a close match between fossil proteins and modern proteins, and 2013 placed additional nails in the theory’s coffin.


(Snippet from source)




top topics



 
12
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join