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: 16
12
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 07:47 AM
link   
reply to post by boniknik
 


Once again. They are all changeing and adding things to your genome.

And all fossils are transitional fossils. Did you watch the video of jack horner explaing what atavisms are?

Sheesh there are millions of examples of fossilized skeletons that clearly show the changes of fingers into wings, arms into fins, scales into feathers, teeth into beaks, brain size expanding, bones in hands changing for better manipulation of tools.

Plus. Just because some thing seems more complex doesnt mean it has a longer genome. There are bacteria with more genetic info in them than what you would find in ours. It seems that a lot of times there is unused info that gets booted from the system entirely.


edit on 3-1-2014 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Woodcarver
reply to post by Logarock
 


So your reasoning is that you dont understand how evolution works and because science disagrees with the bible.

That is all you got?



If that is your deduction from what I said then you just prove the case. Evolution will never be able to demonstrate an evolution of the intellect and spirit of man, which are the higher questions, through genetic science. They don't even claim this as a goal or claim an explanation exists in a genetic solution to the question.

So birds at one time had claws.......oh wow that's really going to answer the more pressing questions. Questions like how has man emerged as primary earth spices when even science and geology show that all serious competitors were wiped out by catastrophic destructive events.



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 08:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 


Look man. All of these things have been answered right here in this thread. The problem has to be that you are either not reading these links or your not understanding them. As for why we are the dominant species here ? I can refer you to brotherman's post earlier from v.s. Ramachandran. It is right here in this thread. Plus he has tons of amazing lectures. These processes are are well understood by the people who apply them to the real world. If your not reading what they have to say, then your listening to the wrong folks.



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Woodcarver
 


Surly you jest? This thread had done little to nothing in answer to these questions. On the contrary seeks to bury the true nature of man in the genetic code. You have got to be as blind as a bat.
edit on 3-1-2014 by Logarock because: n



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Logarock
reply to [url= by Prezbo369[/url]
 



Dude try reading or rather comprehending. I am all for science and have not defended the opposite opinion.


.....'oppusite opinion'? what are you talking about?



What you are doing is trying to defend your lovely evolution ideas from science, so you muddy the waters by dragging in the church. Are the church a bunch of scientists? We are talking science here. Science is challenging the ape man stupidity here not the church.

You must be having a hard time dealing with the fact that science is no longer being friendly to your ape man mythology. Of course the church will cheer them on. You may have to deal with that aspect without letting it cloud your acceptance of modern scientific conclusions.


You're either lying or delusional, as it's not wholly possible for someone to be so wrong if they've approached and researched the topic from a neutral standpoint.

Or maybe you could show me where 'Science is challenging the ape man stupidity' or 'science is no longer being friendly to your ape man mythology'....



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 


You are moving into troll territory.

The true nature of man is his genetic code.

Explain for us just what you think genetic code is?
edit on 3-1-2014 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Logarock

Woodcarver
reply to post by Logarock
 


So your reasoning is that you dont understand how evolution works and because science disagrees with the bible.

That is all you got?



If that is your deduction from what I said then you just prove the case. Evolution will never be able to demonstrate an evolution of the intellect and spirit of man, which are the higher questions, through genetic science. They don't even claim this as a goal or claim an explanation exists in a genetic solution to the question.

So birds at one time had claws.......oh wow that's really going to answer the more pressing questions. Questions like how has man emerged as primary earth spices when even science and geology show that all serious competitors were wiped out by catastrophic destructive events.



29+ evidences of Macro Evolution

Source was borrowed from Skeptic Overlord in another thread, I found it worthwhile this should help you if you decide to read understand macroevolution. I was under the impression that the last ELE happened before mankind arose but I could be missing something. Either way check out some of the links in here it is worth your time!



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 11:49 AM
link   
I do think there is a design mechanism of some kind for this universe. And I think that at some point, either pre big bang or just a nano-second after it, the laws/constants/forces, their values and the rules buy which they'll interact with each other were determined by something. Now scientists have injected the theory of inflation to account for this. To me it seems pretty convenient, so they can have their String theories and such..

I'm not so sure I can buy into this all happening (the creation of our universe) just by happenstance, but alas, that is a leap of faith. Point is, it seems to me that a lot of different ingredients in just the right amounts had to be mixed and cooked just right to get the loaf of bread we have now...

With that said, if you don't like the theory of evolution then you should try to explain what it is that Darwin and all of those who followed him have observed, tested, and confirmed. There is clearly a process of some kind that is taking place. It can not be ignored or written off as rubbish. Because for all the evidence that one may think doesn't exist for evolution, there seems to be just as much that shows something is indeed occurring... So what is it, if you don't like the theory that's been presented?

I'm sorry, but I can't buy into the biblical explanations of creation in the most literal sense. I think that's fair. However, if what we read in the Bible and elsewhere is a symbolic account of our creation, and not to be taken literally, then I'm more open to hear the interpretations of those accounts.

The fact remains that there was indeed a creator of this universe. So at least the Bible is correct in that regard. But to assume this creator is a human entity is not fair, especially to those beings who may very well exist on other planets. Now if the creator is some yet unknown force or "insert your own theory here" then let's hear it and judge it on it's own merit...

I never understood this Evolution vs Intelligent Design argument. To me it's a false premise...
Evolution, or whatever you want to call the process of change and adaptation of life, is part of the grand scheme. It's not separate from the design, but a by product of it. They go hand in hand...


edit on 3-1-2014 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by boniknik
 




"Can you give an example of a genetic mutation or evolutionary process that seem to increase the information in the genome?"


If an organism is successful in its everyday functions and is surviving in its ecosystem, why would its natural function want to alter its state of being on a gamble? More information would not necessarily make it more superior in regards to its genetics, or at least from what I understand, something like an extra chromosome in human dna inevitably results in down syndrome. The strange part about the question coming from ID or Creation stand point is why even question this as they cannot provide the creator much less the "apparent" time it would take to see organisms evolve into the forms that we see, in my opinion perhaps creatures evolved to their current state because this is the fine line between success and failure of a species and any more or less would be devastating to the life form in question. Perhaps this so called "junk DNA" is extra storage to allow for an innovation in adaption or reboot information an atavism in case the environment reverts to a state similar to what it was when modern humans first developed and then evolved away from those conditions to meet these new conditions therefore letting the same idea that their is no natural need for more information. Again this is not "proof" there is not a creator however it is IMO a viable answer to why things do not REQUIRE new genetic information. Again just my opinion and to add levity below is a link to a counter thesis to Dawkins in regards to the question asked (To be clear this is not linked to support my views it is linked so you can see the counter arguments as I have looked into both sides and developed my thoughts through this study):

www.discovery.org...



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to Brotherman

You are correct. My meaning is that is was quite quant that the table was cleared to a more manageable arrangement with the introduction of the age of mammals.

A few pages back someone posted a vid introducing an effort to remove a genetic barrier in modern birds in order to grow a claw that was there anyway but inhibited. The assumption I suppose is that it was inhibited during some developmental stage for unknown reasons but could possibly be reactivated. Anyway I am looking at this with perplexity simply because the condition itself, regardless if science can reverse it, just freekin reeks of an intelligent intervention......the same sort if you will that now seeks to open it back up. To me it shows that if intelligent men can and are required to go back in an reverse the condition then another mind in another time and place could have closed it. These men are simply demonstrating the higher god nature to comprehend on that level that they posses. They never will be able to go into an ape and flip the "man" switch if you will.


edit on 3-1-2014 by Logarock because: n



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 


Yes I posted those links that is in regards to Jack Horner that was highly suggested by member Woodcarver. It is an interesting thought is it not? The most interesting implication to me, was the idea that the idea of evolutionary science has in this case, its mind made up to such a degree that they can actually de-evolutionize a creature back to its former genetic state. This to me is quite interesting because if done, it reasserts another idea of mine involving why genes don't require more or "newer" information in the sense that what was there from the past is locked there in the event of need again in the future and vice versa. This idea came to me reading the rebuttal from R. Dawkings and his (or Shannon) definition of information and redundancy applied to the sentiments involving "psuedo" and "junk dna" I don't think they are junk. There is a whole lot more to it I do not fully grasp yet at this time but it is all so interesting, I haven't been able to get enough.



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Woodcarver
reply to post by Logarock
 


You are moving into troll territory.

The true nature of man is his genetic code.

Explain for us just what you think genetic code is?
edit on 3-1-2014 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)


Not really trying to troll. Just don't believe that genetics is more than a structural growth code for the formation of organic matter in this material world. I believe the spirit, that animating force within say man or birds is something attached outside the genetic.



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Brotherman
 


You know I must say that a passage out of one of the old books, Jubilees or Asher its been so long, only made any sense until this day and age. Its a passage that suggests fairly plainly that at a point back in time someone one on the earth was altering the genetics of certain animals, putting wings on animals that never had wings, or couldn't support wings, for example. This action was said to be provocative to the code maker.



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Woodcarver
reply to post by boniknik
 

Sheesh there are millions of examples of fossilized skeletons that clearly show the changes of fingers into wings, arms into fins, scales into feathers, teeth into beaks, brain size expanding, bones in hands changing for better manipulation of tools.


Where can I find these "transitional" fossilized skeletons? So some scientists who are religiously dead set in the theory of evolution found some skeletons similar to another's specie's skeleton and boom a story is created. Even on wikipedia and scientific articles this isn't claimed as fact, they say "this skeleton is BELIEVED to be the ancestor of this other skeleton".

The criticism about evolution is not an attack to science nor proof of God's existence but merely a proposition that life as we know it may have not occurred through this process.

It is claimed that the universe is 13.8 billion years old. Our planet 4.54 billion years old. And the total atoms in existence in this universe is about 10^80. Yet the probability of a protein forming is about 1 in 10^150 and DNA is about 1 in 10^39970. How are these numbers possible in a universe that's only 13.8 billion years old? It's like winning the powerball EVERY SINGLE day for thousands and thousands of years.

Last but not the least, if evolution by mutation is real, based on that same theory, it would take at least tens of thousands of years and usually millions of years for 1 non harmful if not beneficial mutation to occur. Do the math again, calculate how old is our planet, and calculate the probability of protein to occur by chance which is about 10^150. Is it unreasonable then to consider that life may have not occurred in this proposed process? Is it unreasonable to consider that life may have existed outside this universe prior to Big Bang? And since this mathematical impossibility have occurred, Is it unreasonable to consider that there maybe an Existence older than this Universe that may have deliberately created or designed this Universe that we know now?



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by boniknik
 




It is claimed that the universe is 13.8 billion years old. Our planet 4.54 billion years old. And the total atoms in existence in this universe is about 10^80. Yet the probability of a protein forming is about 1 in 10^150 and DNA is about 1 in 10^39970. How are these numbers possible in a universe that's only 13.8 billion years old? It's like winning the powerball EVERY SINGLE day for thousands and thousands of years.



This comes almost directly from Trey Smiths video I linked on the first page of this thread almost word for word. I am going to ask you like I asked him,"Where did you get these figures?" I thought that Treys video was interesting even though it has a religious slant to it I also found it informative and telling.

Here this below is relevant to your proposed numbers especially in regards to DNA:



DNA carries information in a very computer-like way, and we can measure the genome’s capacity in bits too, if we wish. DNA doesn’t use a binary code, but a quaternary one. Whereas the unit of information in the computer is a 1 or a 0, the unit in DNA can be T, A, C or G. If I tell you that a particular location in a DNA sequence is a T, how much information is conveyed from me to you? Begin by measuring the prior uncertainty. How many possibilities are open before the message “T” arrives? Four. How many possibilities remain after it has arrived? One. So you might think the information transferred is four bits, but actually it is two. Here’s why (assuming that the four letters are equally probable, like the four suits in a pack of cards). Remember that Shannon’s metric is concerned with the most economical way of conveying the message. Think of it as the number of yes/no questions that you’d have to ask in order to narrow down to certainty, from an initial uncertainty of four possibilities, assuming that you planned your questions in the most economical way. “Is the mystery letter before D in the alphabet?” No. That narrows it down to T or G, and now we need only one more question to clinch it. So, by this method of measuring, each “letter” of the DNA has an information capacity of 2 bits.




Shannon’s formula becomes a slightly more elaborate weighted average, but it is essentially similar. By the way, Shannon’s weighted average is the same formula as physicists have used, since the nineteenth century, for entropy. The point has interesting implications but I shall not pursue them here.


SOURCE
edit on 3-1-2014 by Brotherman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Willtell
Its too fine tuned to be random

If you hear the examples you would be convinced


This makes me wonder what find tuned means, as life on earth was wiped many times... We now know that even we, humans, were almost extinct thanks to 'not so fine tuning' of universe.

Please watch Animal Armageddon videos on youtube. I would not call it fine tuned..

edit on 8-1-2014 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Brotherman
 



Brotherman



Evolution:
Evolution consists of changes in the heritable traits of a population of organisms as successive generations replace one another. It is populations of organisms that evolve, not individual organisms.
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 

www.nas.edu...


Thats strange this definition looks quite a bit different


Actually, no it doesn't. It says exactly the same thing, in exactly the same words. The only difference is that it adds an explanatory sentence.

Here is the definition from your link:



Evolution: Evolution consists of changes in the heritable traits of a population of organisms as successive generations replace one another. It is populations of organisms that evolve, not individual organisms.


That last explanatory sentence describes a concept that many doubters fail to grasp. INDIVIDUALS do not evolve. POPULATIONS evolve.
edit on 12/1/2014 by rnaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 06:48 PM
link   

reply to post by Revolution9
 


I really do think that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is practically debunked by modern Science. There are so many holes in it and it cannot explain itself under modern scientific scrutiny.


Complete nonsense.

Evolution is accepted by an overwhelming majority of scientists, even more so in the biological sciences. Belief in creation, by contrast, is practically non-existent, statistically speaking.

The figures might be slightly lower in the backward countries like USA or Turkey, but I have heard anywhere between 97 and 99.9%..
edit on RAmerica/Chicago31uSun, 12 Jan 2014 18:49:03 -06001-0600fCST06 by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing because: .

edit on RAmerica/Chicago31uSun, 12 Jan 2014 18:49:50 -06001-0600fCST06 by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Revolution9
 





I really do think that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is practically debunked by modern Science.




Ahemm....

Walking Whale' Fossil Discovered In Peru May Be LINK Between Aquatic and Land Mammals

Reality is there is more evidence for evolution every day.



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Revolution9
 





I think you are exaggerating with your conclusion here. I would argue that we don't KNOW it happens.

You would argue in error, because we DO know that it happens.



We know that species adapt and can see that the strongest survive.


That is incorrect. The strongest do NOT survive. Those best able to procreate survive. It has nothing to do with strength. It has to do with fitness for the environment the population finds itself in.



We certainly do not know that species diversify enough to change their numbers of chromosomes to form entirely new species. To say that we do know is not scientific because we do not know.


Numbers of chromosomes is NOT the definition of different species. There are millions of species, there are not millions of different chromosome numbers.



We have NO record of an adaptation. That is not true either.


That is a contradictory claim. Why do you assert we have no record and then say that it is not true? I think you made a typo error there. The sense of your overall argument seems to be that you are actually trying to assert the first sentence, then your typo actually got the answer right.

Non-scientists often have a murky understanding about what they mean by adaption and evolution; they seem to think that an adaption is less than evolution and had nothing to do with a change in the organism - like a rabbit that changes its fur color according to season.

On the other hand, scientists know exactly what they mean by 'adaption'. From the NAS link provided above:



Adaptation:
The adjustment or changes in behavior, physiology, and structure of an organism to become more suited to an environment.


That is to say an adaption is an evolutionary response to an environmental change or opportunity. The adaption in the rabbit, is the ability to change color with the season, not the actual instance of changing color. The population has the ability, the individual expresses that ability. The rabbit individual is still the same rabbit individual whether it has brown fur in summer or white fur in winter. Repeat for emphasis: SEASONAL COLOR CHANGE is not adaption; ACQUIRING THE ABILITY to change color is adaption and is therefore evolution.

In fact we have many examples of 'adaption'. Here's just one famous example: 'Instant' Evolution Seen in Darwin's Finches



Evolution may sometimes happen so fast that it's hard to catch in action, a new study of Galápagos finches suggests.

Researchers from New Jersey's Princeton University have observed a species of finch in Ecuador's Galápagos Islands that evolved to have a smaller beak within a mere two decades.

Surprisingly, most of the shift happened within just one generation, the scientists say.

In 1982 the large ground finch arrived on the tiny Galápagos island of Daphne, just east of the island of San Salvador.

Since then the medium ground finch, a long-time Daphne resident, has evolved to have a smaller beak—apparently as a result of direct competition with the larger bird for food.


The 'Medium Ground Finch' has responded to an environmental change (competition from the newly arrived Large Ground Finch')



You have completely ignored the Science of DNA here that is central to proving Darwin's Theory. Only when we can locate this mechanism (which has to be there if Darwin is to be PROVEN correct) can we view Darwin's Theory as a scientific fact.


Biologists certainly do not ignore DNA. It is, as you say, vital to their everyday work. Everyday. All the time. To understand how DNA works is to understand how evolution is driven. Evolution depends on mutations to provide the 'tool chest' of adaptions possible when the environment changes. Mutations are changes in DNA. Some mutations are damaging to the individual and that individual does not successfully pass the mutation into the population. Some mutations are immediately beneficial to the individual and the mutation does pass into the population and spread quickly. Most mutation are totally neutral, and just sort of 'hang around'.

Most likely the small beak mutation of the Medium Ground Finch (MGF) was in the population for many generations, but before the arrival of the Large Ground Finch (LGF), it didn't make a difference, no advantage or disadvantage either way, just there. Some MGF's were born with big beaks (BBMGF) and some were born with little beaks (LBMGF). When the LGF arrived, they out competed the BBMGF's for their food, but the LBMGF's could find food that neither LGF and the BBMGF could get to. So as the individual BBMGF's weakened and produced fewer young, the LBMGF's thrived. It might well take only a generation or two for this to occur.

I emphasize that this is a change in the POPULATION, not the individuals. Individuals with big beaks didn't wake up one morning with little beaks. The POPULATION of mostly BB individuals changed to mostly LB individuals in a very short period of time as the BB individuals did not reproduce while the LB's did. On other islands, where the LGF does not occur, the MGF populations would not undergo this change. Thus two different species.

But, but, but, you say, can't individual MGF birds from two islands still breed? Isn't that the definition of a species?

After just one or two generations? Most likely they can breed. Biologists do not use that definition of a species anymore, there were just two may exceptions to the rule, and there isn't a 'quantum of DNA change' to use as a guide either. For that reason they don't really like to talk about species in a formal way, 'species' is, in general, a very informal concept these days. Two closely related animals (or plants) are just closely related animals (or plants).
edit on 12/1/2014 by rnaa because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
12
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join