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.
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: cooperton
I can guarantee that if you enjoy beef and milk, you seriously appreciated the genetic drift that animal husbandry created in the auroch
When you stack up the "intelligent designer" with "evolution", the only thing I can say for certain: one of the 2 arguments has at least evidence to support it. The other does not.
originally posted by: cooperton
I think this really digs deep into the low probability that evolutionary mechanisms would have to persist through:
originally posted by: cooperton
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: cooperton
I can guarantee that if you enjoy beef and milk, you seriously appreciated the genetic drift that animal husbandry created in the auroch
I wonder if digesting milk products past infancy was present before we started drinking milk during adulthood. I would assume epigenetic mechanisms were fine-tuned to be able to essentially say "ok, this milk stuff is coming back again, time to express lactase". Cooked meat is a different story. This may have been what the Hebrews were doing with burnt offerings, because surely cooked food is unique to the human experience (barring their pets).
When you stack up the "intelligent designer" with "evolution", the only thing I can say for certain: one of the 2 arguments has at least evidence to support it. The other does not.
I see a lot of people saying that certain observable concepts with genetics prove evolutionary theory. But an intuitive genetic code would be present with intelligent design. The greatest evidence I see for such design, besides the fact that we literally have intelligible coding within us, is our mathematical proportions that approximate phi; which is an irrational number, and therefor inherently harbors an infinitude of data. The phalanges and metacarpals in our hand, our hand to our forearm; the floor to our belly button to the top of our head, and much much more... All in phi proportions. Phi is everywhere, Plato loved this stuff, and attributed it to the Logos, or Reason
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: cooperton
That is a poor piece of evidence for intelligent design. Mostly because seeing phi encoded into various elements of humanity is wholly logical, given we are a product of a universe that seems to have found homeostasis within phi.
Things happen that, while apparently improbable, are not evidence of a hand of God.
That doesn't mean there is no God. Or that He wouldn't do His part to make sure the universe was set to run "just so". Only that there isn't anything that stands as evidence of such.
originally posted by: PhotonEffect
I suppose it could be helpful if we had some sort of scientific explanation for what god is, but this, I imagine, is not forthcoming anytime soon. Because, frankly, where would one begin? Do we look for a man in a bright white robe with a long white beard?
originally posted by: PhotonEffect
When someone invokes or "sees" god, or some other body part of his/hers, as the cause for all the order we see around us, what exactly are they invoking? Is there something tangible there?
originally posted by: PhotonEffect
With that said, I am convinced that there is something else that is currently not being accounted for through our current scientific exploration. To me, the fact that life actually works the way it does; that I can think the way I do; move around at will; and be aware of it all, is beyond logic. How in world can all of this work, and continue to do so? Why is life so ordered, and not just some blobby mess.
originally posted by: PhotonEffect
Where does the extreme fidelity come from? I mean, really, we're all just a bunch of cells all working together. But somehow this was all put together blindly and randomly, absent intelligence...
originally posted by: cooperton
I wonder if digesting milk products past infancy was present before we started drinking milk during adulthood. I would assume epigenetic mechanisms were fine-tuned to be able to essentially say "ok, this milk stuff is coming back again, time to express lactase". Cooked meat is a different story. This may have been what the Hebrews were doing with burnt offerings, because surely cooked food is unique to the human experience (barring their pets).
originally posted by: Ghost147
Science only deals with natural phenomena. Not supernatural. Considering Gods are supernatural, Science will never have a say on a general terminology of a god because gods do not exist in the natural realm
originally posted by: Ghost147
No, absolutely not. Subjective observation is inherently flawed because there are too many external factors that intrude on a person in order to process information.
originally posted by: Ghost147
Biology and Evolution explains how
originally posted by: Ghost147
Yes, and research in biology and biological evolution explains how such phenomena occur and originate
If you want to learn more about it you're free to inquire within this topic
originally posted by: PhotonEffect
But science comes from subjective observation, as long as humans and their instruments are involved. No scientific explanation is beyond that of a human derived one, which makes it inherently subjective.
originally posted by: PhotonEffect
Not adequately enough in my opinion. But this is only because we are still learning, and our current 'understanding" changing, as it always does.
originally posted by: PhotonEffect
Thanks for the invite, Ghost. I've been by there. Still not satisfied.
originally posted by: Ghost147
No, science is founded on objective observation.
Perhaps you only hold this opinion because you do not yet know enough about the subject (that's not meant to be insulting). Again, I can explain further in the previously linked thread that is more geared towards the validity and accuracy within the Theory of Evolution.
originally posted by: PhotonEffect
Ultimately, though, subjective entities must interpret the data acquired from said observation
originally posted by: PhotonEffect
We don't actually know what we are, objectively, so how could we know what everything else is, objectively, or simply beyond our own ascribed meaning to it?
originally posted by: PhotonEffect
I concede that this is entirely possible, but if you're referring to the Theory of Evolution, otherwise known as the Modern Synthesis, then I'm afraid we'll be starting from different sides of the field. But I'll find time to circle back to your thread for a more appropriate and on topic discussion. Cheers~
originally posted by: Raggedyman
Some branches of science are based on subjective observation
There is nothing objective about studying bones
Evolution has never been observed, maybe a fly turning into a fly is evolution but no different from a person overcoming lactose intolerance, something that has been observed
Evolution is not objective.
This thread goes some way to prove ir
The assumption made in the OP is made to answer an issue that causes an obstacle to the theory of evolution.
No direct evidence is observed
That is subjective
originally posted by: PhotonEffect
I would expect an answer like this from a person who regularly employs the scientific method.
Ultimately, though, subjective entities must interpret the data acquired from said observation - be it from the senses and/or instruments - and supply meaning to it. Human meaning. Remember, a human is only a term we've made for ourselves. We don't actually know what we are, objectively, so how could we know what everything else is, objectively, or simply beyond our own ascribed meaning to it?
originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Ghost147
No Ghost
They have not been addressed anywhere
You may have dabbled at an answer and tried to dazzle others with words but
Objectively you have never addressed these issues in any way shape or form
Smoke and mirrors, flash bangs are not answers. Multiple words and lengthy boring posts are not answers.
You might fool all the Clinton voters but the reality is these issues have not been addressed
originally posted by: peter vlar
There is no evidence at all of Lactase Persistence demonstrating an epigenetic association and plenty of evidence that it has instead appeared independently at least 4 times and is associated with specific alleles
originally posted by: Cypress
Phi is even more probable since it is a mathematical concept and it is not surprising to see it show up.