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: 6
12
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 01:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Brotherman
 

It would be an assumption to believe that the animal was not unique, or that it could reproduce another like itself. Science is ongoing discovery and following lines of evidence, but truthfully there would not be enough time on Earth to evolve what we have on Earth today.




posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 01:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Brotherman
 


Kind of yes. He headed a massive team network of thousands of scientists around the world. He put together the technology used to map the human genome. Namely his. They have since then, completed thousands of peoples dna maps. And have also mapped hundreds of thousands of organisms from bacteria and fungus, to thousands of mammals, and all ranges of sea creatures. To have any understanding of biology you must study his work.



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 01:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Jim Scott
 

Same result.
Have at it.



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 01:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Brotherman
 

Every species can be considered "transitional". This isn't a matter of species though, but genus.


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



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 01:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Jim Scott
 


I had to ask because it made me curious to see if there are any birds today that have teeth like that (I know it might sound dumb) but I would like to think that more then one dominant characteristic physical feature would still exist. Really I been looking for a minute or two trying to find out if birds have teeth at all or other birds related to the one in the article that are smaller in size, with smaller knubby teeth. It really is quite interesting.



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 01:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Brotherman
 

You could say that but actually all species are transitional. Evry generation is a little different than its parent. Project these little differences over hundreds of thousands of years and you will get something that only slightly resembles its ancestors.



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 01:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Woodcarver
 

You may be interested in the work by Gentry on polonium halos at www.halos.com. His thesis attempts to prove that granite was formed and cooled in the time it takes to melt an ice cube. His opposition has not had a lot of luck disproving it, either. infidels.org...

If Gentry is right, and he is currently quite considered the authority on the science above, then the Earth would have had to cool quite fast, not obeying the natural laws of physics you mention.

I suppose that's why we call these things "miracles."



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 01:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Woodcarver
 
You may be assuming that things are moving forward successfully. However, they may be retrograde. Changes could easily be for the worse in most cases, as we seem to show that they are scientifically. Mutations are usually too small and inconsequential, or are not improvements. A successful mutation would be rare, and as I stated earlier, you would have to have one every year from year one, and add another 1.5 billion years to the Earth, before you could approach just one type of DNA being formed successfully.

In other words, it is impossible. A dream. A religious belief for atheists to cling to.



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 01:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Woodcarver
 

I think a major problem for people is that they see so much variation between different organisms when actuall we are all made from the same stuff. It is our dna which dictates our form. If you change the dna you get a change in form. If i changed your dna to match that of a chicken, you would be a chicken. If you change the dna of a chickens beak back into teeth you would have a chicken with teeth.



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 01:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Brotherman
 


Sorry, but I have to say this:

"They're as scarce as hen's teeth."



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 01:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 

Just curious, Phage. What is your educational degree or background?



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 01:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Jim Scott
 


Mutations are usually too small and inconsequential, or are not improvements.
Whether or not a mutation aids reproduction (which is what evolution is about) would depend on a number of factors. A small change could be quite consequential depending on the circumstances.



A successful mutation would be rare, and as I stated earlier, you would have to have one every year from year one
Because you state it does not make it a fact. After all, you aren't a paleontologist are you? Or a geneticist I take it?

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



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 01:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Jim Scott
 


Its very interesting you brought that up my friend and I were talking about that the other day, if things cooled alot faster then thought it would distort everything we thought we know. I am a welder usually on oil and natural gas pipes. Everything is linear if I were to measure 1/8in off at the kickoff then if not corrected a mile down the right of way the pipe would no longer be in the ditch, if time is linear and we are so many years off would the same effect be plausible and the theories be "out of the ditch" so to speak?



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 01:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Jim Scott
 

Irrelevant.
And you have no right to ask.



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 01:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Jim Scott
 


You seem to think that these changes in dna are random. But they are not. They are following a set of rules. Sure not every mutation is benificial. But you seem to be saying that beneficial changes are rare. What formula are you using to come to the conclusions that you would have to add another billion years or so?



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 01:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Woodcarver
 

It would be far more than a billion or so. We do not reproduce that fast, as our lifespans are long. Something as simple as adding a new base pair every generation would take hundreds of billions of years. We have 6 billion, so it's simple math. I mentioned this earlier. To add to this difficulty, DNA is tasked with preventing mutation. en.wikipedia.org...

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



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 01:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Brotherman
 




Its very interesting you brought that up my friend and I were talking about that the other day, if things cooled alot faster then thought it would distort everything we thought we know.

Except that talking about how fast granite cools is somewhat ridiculous. The age of granite varies widely since it is a metamorphic rock.



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Willtell
reply to post by Ghost147
 


One thing the video points out that the universe is fine tuned for life
And that HAS to be by design.

Many of the known scientific facts of the universe if off by I percent would destroy life.

Its too fine tuned to be random


What if there are infinite universes going in and out of existence and ours just happens to be one that supports life. When we look from within we see "fine tuned" but it can be just random too.

You are also suggesting that the universe was fine tuned for life and not the other way around in life just happens to be a result of the properties of our universe. We are the Effect and not the Cause.
edit on 29-12-2013 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Jim Scott
reply to post by Woodcarver
 

You may be interested in the work by Gentry on polonium halos at www.halos.com. His thesis attempts to prove that granite was formed and cooled in the time it takes to melt an ice cube. His opposition has not had a lot of luck disproving it, either. infidels.org...

If Gentry is right, and he is currently quite considered the authority on the science above, then the Earth would have had to cool quite fast, not obeying the natural laws of physics you mention.

I suppose that's why we call these things "miracles."

this post is a refutation of gentries work. This is a guy explaing why gentry is wrong.

Another miracle bites the dust.



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 01:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Jim Scott
 


We have 6 billion, so it's simple math. I mentioned this earlier.
Not that it's actually relevant but we actually have closer to 3 billion base pairs.

The human genome contains approximately 3 billion of these base pairs, which reside in the 23 pairs of chromosomes within the nucleus of all our cells.

www.genome.gov...



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join