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.
EnPassant
There is no burden of proof on me because my main point, in this thread, is the way science is being dishonestly presented. I never meant my first post to this thread to lead into a debate on evolution - my concern is the rhetoric being used.
The appearance of design is evidence enough. OK, materialists will argue that intelligence is not necessary to explain the appearance of design but for me the appearance of design is a strong point in my argument and, for me, constitutes evidence (evidence, on both sides of the argument is, of course, subjective)
My evidence would be the usual arguments from spirituality - you would have heard these already? But belief in God is not just a way of explaining physical things or answering scientific questions, it is far more than this and it is for these more diverse reasons that I would argue for the existence of a creator. But it is big subject...
No scientific hypothesis but a thesis concerning consciousness and awareness of God - you wouldn't like to hear it though.
I am. It is wrong to pretend that a theory is a theorem and this is what Dawkins does. I am quite entitled to criticize him (a theorem is a proved theory).
EnPassant
There is no burden of proof on me because my main point, in this thread, is the way science is being dishonestly presented. I never meant my first post to this thread to lead into a debate on evolution - my concern is the rhetoric being used.
SuperFrog
EnPassant
There is no burden of proof on me because my main point, in this thread, is the way science is being dishonestly presented. I never meant my first post to this thread to lead into a debate on evolution - my concern is the rhetoric being used.
Only dishonestly presented thing is someones view of world begging, documented in fictional book of folklore called Bible (or any holy book for that mater). Things that are 'written' without single evidence or proof. It is above my capacity of understanding that after many thing are proven not being right, people still believe in those 'gods words'.
EnPassant
I am waiting for science to come up with a worthwhile theory of evolution. The current ToE is so speculative I will withhold comment until there is real evidence that genes do all the stuff they are supposed to do. ALL that has been shown is that they make proteins and scientists are saying to me "We think these protein makers code for cell growth, organ development, growth, form and a whole host of stuff. We even think they develop consciousness itself" ok, I'm saying, show me the evidence that these protein makers do all this. The evidence is not forthcoming, but scientists have faith in their theory. It is an article of faith.
They have provided me with no reason to believe mutations etc. drive evolution. The evidence is just not there. No doubt genes are involved and so is natural selection as an automatic effect of nature as a whole*. Natural selection exists in many different aspects of the world. If they could show me the gene that makes me sceptical of the whole thing - now, that would be impressive...
*Automatic Selection is a better expression. By the way, natural selection does not support the idea that mutations drive evolution. N.S. is going to happen any way. Don't let Dawkins lead you into believing that demonstrations of natural selection support the current ToE. Evidence for Natural selection supports the idea of natural selection, that is all.
GargIndia
"Genes make proteins"?
Can genes make proteins? If yes, then why no proteins are made in a dead body?
The science fails miserably in explaining two very basic facts - birth and death. So much for "scientific knowledge".
Yes Science is true to a good degree as far as knowledge of material world is concerned - that is non-living objects. Science does not answer the question of "creation" as well as "life" to any convincing degree.
The failure of science is directly related to its ignorance of 'soul' or 'spirit' (different people use different words. We use Sanskrit word 'atma').
No scientific instrument can see a soul because soul exists in a different dimension (or made from a finer material) than body and earth and heavens that are visible to humans.
A soul has much greater powers than a human body; but these powers can only be activated by spirituality and spiritual progress. So soul is imprisoned in a human body or an animal body and is subject to the limitations of that body.
GargIndia
A society without spirituality is a society of animals; where humans live to eat, sleep, and enjoy bodily pleasures and pain. There is no higher purpose. Such a society is increasingly enmeshed in prostitution and slavery, and eventually collapses. No knowledge of science can save such a society.
GargIndia
A human is unable to see the soul of self or others because the 'karmas' blind a soul and limit it to the faculties that a body possesses.
As spiritual progress is achieved by a human, he/she starts to possess qualities beyond the capabilities of human body - for example reading thoughts of other person, knowing inner state (like health issues) of another person etc.
A society without spirituality is a society of animals; where humans live to eat, sleep, and enjoy bodily pleasures and pain. There is no higher purpose. Such a society is increasingly enmeshed in prostitution and slavery, and eventually collapses. No knowledge of science can save such a society.
I wasn't asking for your evaluation of the current theory of evolution. My question is whether you accept it as possible that evolution is not guided by an intelligence.
EnPassant
I wasn't asking for your evaluation of the current theory of evolution. My question is whether you accept it as possible that evolution is not guided by an intelligence.
No, I don't think consciousness or evolved beings can come from chance mutations.
Does natural selection require genetic variation?
In nature we are no more important than amoebas.
EnPassant
In nature we are no more important than amoebas.
I find statements like this, and statements that humanity is only an insignificant speck in a vast universe, demeaning to humanity and completely unrealistic and superficial. Humans are, as far as we know, the most developed physical beings in the universe. We should not use these expressions to belittle humanity. Nor should we inflate ourselves with arrogance.
You seemed to have missed this question: [Does natural selection require genetic variation?]
EnPassant
I find statements like this, and statements that humanity is only an insignificant speck in a vast universe, demeaning to humanity and completely unrealistic and superficial. Humans are, as far as we know, the most developed physical beings in the universe. We should not use these expressions to belittle humanity. Nor should we inflate ourselves with arrogance.
EnPassant
Seemingly it does. I have no doubt that genes are an important part of the whole scheme of things.
My problem is that claims are being made for genes that are not supported by evidence. Nor do I have any doubt that small changes in species are required for Natural Selection to weed out the less fit, but what is causing these changes? I don't believe it is the genome although the genome is also changed.
If a new species is to emerge the protein makers would also have to keep pace with those changes but that does not mean the protein makers are responsible for the changes.
So if we agree that natural selection requires genetic variation, where does this variation come from?
Are you denying that changes in the genes cause changes in the species? There's an entire biotech industry that would tend to disagree (hint: it wouldn't exist if you were correct).
I have no idea what this means. What is keeping pace with what?
EnPassant
From whatever drives evolution.
No, if genes are changed there must be a knock on effect but that does not mean genes drive evolution.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, intelligence drives evolution. If a species is changed then genetic changes would be part of that change, since they are part of the whole system.
But that does not mean genes are responsible for the change.
If species are to evolve their genes must be changed as well, because changes would require that many things in the organism must change to keep pace with the evolving organisms.
Biochemistry, for example, might need to change but that does not mean bio chemistry initiated the change. Hormones might be changed but that does not mean hormones initiated the change. Likewise with genes.
Could it be mutations? If not, why not?
No, if genes are changed there must be a knock on effect but that does not mean genes drive evolution.
How do you differentiate between a "change" and a "knock on effect"? How is a "knock on effect" not evolution?
How do you define change in a species?
If a specific change in a species is always accompanied by a specific change in a gene and reversing the change in the gene also reverses this specific change in the species, would you say it's possible that the change in the gene is causing the change in the species? If not, why not?
If species are to evolve their genes must be changed as well, because changes would require that many things in the organism must change to keep pace with the evolving organisms.
So the changes in the genes cause changes in the organism? Why are these changes not evolution?
Would you say changes in proteins could result in changes in biochemistry? If not, why not?