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: 3
12
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 04:47 PM
link   

AliceBleachWhite

Brotherman

Is it a mixture? Or are there similar parts? How is this proven? Or is this just theory? For all the million fruit flies that have been experimented with genetically (over the course of 120 years or so encompassing millions of generations) Why is it that there has been no evidence of a fruit fly change into another organism entirely and then been deemed related out of the same breeding population? Why is it that the minor genetic variants of these flies was also conduced by an experimenter? There is much yet to understand as this topic is entirely fascinating to me, I am not fast to pull the gawd trigger but at the same time I can't help but think there is some form of external force one that which we do not understand making all this happen. How does this all apply to the simplest blocks of our structure in the atomic and quantum areas do you have any info regarding this I would be interested in looking into this if it is available?


I commented on your social wall on ATS lol


All those fruit fly farms? Those are typically demonstrators for HEREDITY.
The environmental conditions for the fruit flies never changes.
They're essentially bred like pedigree cats and dogs. You then get 'breeds', but, not, yet speciation.

Try altering the environmental pressures in your next fruit fly endeavor. Introduce a mild toxin into the fruit fly atmosphere. Many will die, and some will adapt.
Feed them an extremely specialized food mix which is only obtainable to those with longer probiscuses.
tune the environment to be extremely hot and dry.
Put them through extremes in environmental pressures.

The dinosaurs, for instance, had sufficient oxygen and atmospheric pressure to support their great sizes and even dragonflies with 3' wingspans.
After the KT Event blew a giant chunk of our atmosphere out into space, oxygen and air pressure was rarer, the air thinner.

If you could time travel back some 65 Million years, you and I would suffer from Oxygen Toxicity due too much oxy compared to what we're adapted for. The air chemistry itself was different too with these elevated levels of oxygen, other products like sulphur due active volcanism were present too, and may have been entirely deadly poisonous to us.

We don't know everything, but, there's no question about evolution. We know it happens and we've a wonderful record of transition from one successful adaptation expression to the next.


I think you are exaggerating with your conclusion here. I would argue that we don't KNOW it happens. We know that species adapt and can see that the strongest survive. 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.

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

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.




posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Revolution9
reply to post by Woodcarver
 


There are plenty of scientists you have already quoted there who you are rubbishing. Darwin is also quoted but you did not mention him and he is just another Victorian scientist with a theory.

It's not an official video. It is an ATS style video, yes, but it is using science. I think it did a good job at introducing scientific arguments to people who are not too clued up on it all. I have a stance, too, that I am much more swayed to the process of Intelligent Design.

I wish some scientists would write here. It all fascinates me and I like to learn.

The Golden Ratio is scientifically demonstrable. It is also true that genetics can find no mechanism or code in DNA that is the Darwin Mecca of species diversification. To date science has not observed this theoretical process.

I'm sorry if the video was not good enough for you. It was helpful to me at getting the old cogs going.

darwins theories are like basic biology, but he did not fully understand genetics so his theories are incomplete

All theories are incomplete as they are ever expanding in observations.

The golden ratio and other observations of patterns do not point at intelligent design. They are observations of patterns so they only describe that the universe produces events that we can notice a pattern.

To point at intelligent design, we would have to stumble upon the actual designer. You would have to present a god that can be studied. Not just point at patterns and claim that it could only have been designed by a deity (again this is the classic argument from ignorance ; you dont know how it happened but it must have been an intelligent designer. Again you are missing the part where when you make claims you have to demonstrate how you came to that point. That is causation the most important part of real science. ). This is a huge jump from the scientific method which requires that you show causation. You would have to not only explain but demonstrate how a god could make a universe. This is basic science.



posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Revolution9

I think you are exaggerating with your conclusion here. I would argue that we don't KNOW it happens. We know that species adapt and can see that the strongest survive. 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.

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

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.



You're still Arguing from Incredulity.




posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 05:07 PM
link   

AliceBleachWhite

Revolution9

I think you are exaggerating with your conclusion here. I would argue that we don't KNOW it happens. We know that species adapt and can see that the strongest survive. 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.

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

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.



You're still Arguing from Incredulity.





I'm sorry but I am not. I am arguing because I do not agree with you, lol!

Present to me here if you can one scientific demonstration of one species changing into another and assuming a new chromosome make up. I would ask that of you. I'm looking for the right answers. If tomorrow the geneticists located the Darwin gene then I would have some verified evidence.

You know how far we have come with unravelling the structure of DNA. I am suggesting to you at least be open to the possibility that there may be another explanation for the generation of diverse species.

I'm still where I was at the beginning of this thread. I am expected to accept Darwin's Theory of Evolution as science when science cannot prove it.

Science can prove Einstein's Theory of Relativity. It is demonstrable as an equation E=MC2. It is a law of the universe.

On the present evidence are you really willing to do science the disservice of Darwin's Theory being a law without being proven?



posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 05:18 PM
link   
The theory of random mutations by evolutionary biologist ( Darwinism) is unprovable, they are being like dogmatic religionists.

Natural selection is based on an unprovable phenomenon. They can’t conclusively prove random mutations drive change.
That’s the bottom line folks



posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Brotherman
reply to post by Ghost147
 


I sway towards some form of creationism versus evolution, a belief is one thing so I remain open to information as it comes.


Most people do, but the two sit side by side, especially if you consider say, The Bible also as a book of lessons.
The thing is, we are only in the here and now, and in a very limited time span. My guess is that ID is an attempt, by scientists who may have a religious bent, to rationalise the whole ethos of life and the whole point of it, a bit like a baby's dummy, a comforter, that's a little scary to me as it needs an end game, which is actually no ending.
Science in itself, and on its own, has improved our lives dramatically, and exponentially in a few centuries, compared to all that came before, (at least as we know it) however in science there is no ending either, so Touche'.


edit on 28-12-2013 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Revolution9
Science can prove Einstein's Theory of Relativity. It is demonstrable as an equation E=MC2. It is a law of the universe.

On the present evidence are you really willing to do science the disservice of Darwin's Theory being a law without being proven?



Ironically, The Theory of Relativity is already being replaced, because it's severely flawed. Also, if it has "Theory" in it's title, it is not a "law" of the universe. Otherwise, it would be called the Law of Relativity.

I'm sorry, but in this entire topic you've only demonstrated your serious lack of knowledge with anything that pertains to any science at all. Which is also why you side with Intelligent design, seeing as they too possess the same amount of ignorance on the subject. I highly suggest you read up on science from a website/book that isn't run by ID'ers.

Also, The Theory Of Evolution is not a law either. It will never be a law, it is merely a description of a naturally occurring phenomenon called Evolution. Much as the Theory of Relativity attempts to describe how Gravity functions. Both theories attempt to describe a function of a natural Phenomenon.

I find the fact that so many people are unaware of this immensely simple concept, and refuse to acknowledge the concept, mind boggling.
edit on 28/12/13 by Ghost147 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Ghost147
 


I dont understand how you dont understand the things that have been explained over and over again.

In the fossil record there are thousands of examples of animals that have "changed from one species to another" avian dinosaurs are now modern birds. They have shown this to be a definite fact. They have shown how the creatures that we now call whales have lost their legs and changed their arms into flippers, how hands and fingers have changed into wings, how scales have changed into feathers, how photo sensitive cells have progressed step by step into what we now call eyes.

Your ignorance shows when you say things like darwins gene. Really?

Do some research. There is lots of info out there. Start with craig venter. And look at the ted talks. There is lots of stuff out there im not kidding. You just have to look.



posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Willtell
 


Natural selection is a very proven phenomenon.



posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Revolution9 Present to me here if you can one scientific demonstration of one species changing into another and assuming a new chromosome make up. I would ask that of you. I'm looking for the right answers.


evolution.berkeley.edu...

www.pnas.org...

biologie-lernprogramme.de...

genome.cshlp.org...

www.jstor.org...

www.sciencenews.org...


If tomorrow the geneticists located the Darwin gene then I would have some verified evidence.


Just what exactly is the Darwin gene?


You know how far we have come with unravelling the structure of DNA. I am suggesting to you at least be open to the possibility that there may be another explanation for the generation of diverse species.


And equally so, you should be open to the possibility that you're wrong and the evidence supporting evolutionary theory is extensive.


I'm still where I was at the beginning of this thread. I am expected to accept Darwin's Theory of Evolution as science when science cannot prove it.


Ill refer you to the links I posted above.



Science can prove Einstein's Theory of Relativity. It is demonstrable as an equation E=MC2. It is a law of the universe.


Einstein came up with the math behind it but relativity and published it n 1905 but it wasnt considered proven until 1919 when the RAS was able to verify the calculations when observing a solar eclipse. Evolution isn't different. While Darwin popularized the concept, he was not the first to postulate it and many people who have come after him have verified and independently reproduced the results.


On the present evidence are you really willing to do science the disservice of Darwin's Theory being a law without being proven?


Do you know the difference between a hypothesis and a theory? It looks as if there is so,e confusion here.



posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Revolution9
 


I honestly do not understand the mentality in this age that for some reason an ID would take such interest in this tiny blue planet. That thought process belongs in the era when people still believed the universe revolved around us. I am not ruling out the possibility that there is some omnipotent being just the idea that being would care about us in the way theology books describe and until there is evidence proving an ID exists there is no reason to believe one does. We are not the center of the universe and there is no reason why we should consider ourselves to be.

Are we still special.....sure. But just how special? Click on the link to get some perspective. Otherwise here is a visual aid that may help.


As far as trying to disprove evolution with a flimsy video against the mountains of evidence for it...well that's pretty egotistical.



posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Woodcarver
 


Natural selection comes into play after the “random” mutation, something that is NOT proven.
That’s my point
Random mutations are what in theory drive evolution



posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Willtell
 


And why dont you believe in mutations? There is also an ocean of evidence for this. Not all mutations are beneficial so they dont always fair well for the enviroment.

Again, listen to some lectures from Dr Craig Venter. There are a few on youtube. He is very knowledgable and was a key researcher on the human genome project, which has actually grown way past its original plans. They now have the genome maps for thousands of organisms.

How do you think all of the gmo food was developed? There is extensive knowledge in these areas. All you have to do is look.

Peter vlar has so graciously laid out a path to true knowledge for you. Those links are the start of a new wonderful world for you. You dont have to be in awe of the world around you. You can understand it too. All you have to do is look for it. Also you must be able to discern people who are spouting opinion from people who are presenting facts.


edit on 28-12-2013 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Revolution9
 


If the concept of evolution via natural selection is inherently wrong, how does it open more doors? It has only advanced our knowledge of ecological systems because the observations and conclusions have only been reinforced over time



posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Revolution9

Hi.

Yes the video I posted explores that. Really the conclusion I have come to is that mutations are damage related. The human who has down syndrome is the result of genetic damage. I call it damage and not mutation.

I cannot perceive that this is the process by which all these species through all the ages have come and gone.


Doesnt matter how you want to label it; genetic change is genetic change. Mutations occur and change to genetic structure and genes determine an organisms characteristics. That genetic material is passed on from one generation to the next. This is known whether you understand it or not.



If you think about it it is just not rational to think that some mysterious source of reprogramming our DNA to diversify into entirely new species in a chaotic fashion is a genetic law. Nothing in this universe is chaotic. It works according to laws that we do discover in science. Where is this reprogramming mechanism in our DNA? It's not there because that is not the way it works.


And where does anything in dna break known natural laws? Dna operates according to them. Chemistry and Biological systems operate according to them. Any form of ID/creationism would be what breaks the laws of nature.



Darwin's was a theoretical model. I just consider that it is now becoming of little use in explaining the Genesis process of all life and species on earth.


Evolution doesnt try to explain how biological systems arise. It only attempts to explains how ljfe changes over time. The prinicple of natural selection still holds true today.

edit on 28-12-2013 by Cypress because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-12-2013 by Cypress because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-12-2013 by Cypress because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Woodcarver
 


The is no proof ALL mutations are random.
That's my point. If you research this you will come up with that.

That fact doesn't mean evolution is all wrong but the fact that it isn't proven still means evolution is still an abstract theory.



posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Cypress
 





Evolution doesnt try to explain how biological systems arise. It only attempts to explains how ljfe changes over time. The prinicple of natural selection still holds true today.


You would think that the first biological systems and the environment that happened to be perfect to allow life symbiotically to exist would be important. I guess after life was created we can skip that part and get right to comparative morphology and embryonics and all its flaws. I think the beginning of life is actually the most important part as if we truly knew how it began we wouldn't have much of an argument would we?



posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Willtell
 


I'll go one further and say that no mutations are random. They all have a cause. Sometimes its a reaction to enviromental stimuli, sometimes its from improper cell replication, sometimes its impropoer chromosome match up. But it always has a reason. Nothing about evolution has been random. And it is not an abstract theory it is a well documented,tested and has NEVER been falsified. If you have never studied biology then you shouldnt be making these weird comments.



posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Brotherman
 


Symbiotically? That means two organisms that are mutually beneficial to eachothers well being. I dont know what you mean using that term in the context that you did.

The rest of what you are talking about is called abiogenesis. A fascinating theory. ( with lots of professionals working out the mechanics and getting better results all the time).

The idea that life is a natural occurance based on what we have come to expect from every day chemistry. Basically that life is a natural product of chemistry. There is lots of published work on the subject and again Dr. Craig Venter is at the hub of this type of work but there are thousands of scientists who are making progress everyday to show how this is a real probability. He actually can show with out a doubt that there are several different times where life has developed independently on this planet.

They have made computer models of new species. And have even made new species of bacteria using the base components from other species. To even discuss this topic any further you should do some research at least on his work. Its all documented and peer tested and open source. if you can understand it, its very complicated as it is advanced biology. But they teach classes in almost every major university.
edit on 28-12-2013 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Woodcarver
 


Symbiotic in context it means that for any life to exist whether created or evolved had to have a condition within its environment to allow it to survive. Life had to have the right conditions from the beginning to have life our planet is symbiotic so what came first plants or animal life forms? I would be making a wild guess to say that plants started first because plants are what made the o2 without that then animal life of anykind could not have existed first. I could throw out some wild ideas of my own but this isn't the place for that, and I am understanding of abiogenesis I find it odd that evolution theory does not begin there but hey it is just a theory so skipping the origin to explain the origins of species is fair I guess.
edit on 28-12-2013 by Brotherman because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join