The Primary Axiom or Evolution is just a lie and should be replaced by Intelligent Design

a reply to: Praetorius

Makes a lot of sense actually.

I've always wondered what we will eventually evolve into or what traits we will evolve in the future.

Will we end up being a pure energy or will be still have a physical body?

Who knows.

a reply to: neoholographic

So that would be a yes on some form of learning disability then? Because I surely have posted evidence. I can only conclude you can not see it, due to some issue with you.

Read the papers I posted. Then talk to me.

a reply to: TerryDon79
Good questions. If we can continue our current course without obliterating ourselves, I'll admit I expect most of it to be willfully managed and quite interesting ("the singularity" and futurism/biohacking. Check out Ray Kurzweil). We might all offload from out local & expiring terminals to the Cloud and become ghosts in the machine, if we don't go completely cyborg/etc. instead. Entirely possible (Kurzweil's already said as much) we'll see the end of death (as we know it) in our present lifetimes.

As far as naturalistically - I don't expect much PERSONALLY. I like to point to crocodiles and great white sharks (amongst others) to support my view here. IF it happens, evolution appears to be quite happy to finally say "eh, good enough. There is ZERO way for any further mutations to improve this creature" and so they go on unchanged since even as far back as the cretaceous period.

Then there's the other ("woo") side of the equation, which could apply to a few scenarios, but tl;dr: our understanding of life is *incredibly* shortsighted and wrong, and it does not end at clinical death. Check out the (excellent) work of Ian Stevenson on "reincarnation". SOMETHING interesting is going on beyond the presently-understood naturalistic scenes.

Enjoy.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Praetorius

They are some very valid points your being up.

Ultimately neither the science side or he religion side have an answer for the beginning of life (Genesis/abiogenesis and others). That's what this thread is boiling down to, the beginning of life.

Science isn't sure. There's plenty of hypothesis and a couple of theories, but not a single answer and science admits that.

Religion says "Goddidit". Again, they don't know if God, aliens, spaghetti monster, turtles or pure luck did it, but they stand fast on "Goddidit".

Who else could have done it?

If aliens, who created them?

It's the tired argument of "but they don't know either"!

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Praetorius

They are some very valid points your being up.

Ultimately neither the science side or he religion side have an answer for the beginning of life (Genesis/abiogenesis and others). That's what this thread is boiling down to, the beginning of life.

Science isn't sure. There's plenty of hypothesis and a couple of theories, but not a single answer and science admits that.

Religion says "Goddidit". Again, they don't know if God, aliens, spaghetti monster, turtles or pure luck did it, but they stand fast on "Goddidit".

Who else could have done it?

If aliens, who created them?

It's the tired argument of "but they don't know either"!

That's the thing, nobody really knows. We might have an idea (science-big bang religion-God), but we might never know.

It could be we are part of another universe that collapsed and we formed from that collapse ad infinitum.

It could be a Devine being.

It could be white mice conducting an experiment.

Lots of could be's, but still no one knows.

a reply to: Noinden

The papers regarding TRIM5-CypA were quite clear regarding the new protein that results from the mutation and confers immunological protection against Lentiviruses such as HIV. It was also clear that this mutation is only in some Asian Macaques and in no closely related monkey species. When you include the fact that an extremely similar mutation, Trim-Cyp, in completely separate new world Owl Monkeys which confers the same immunity by creating the same protein via convergent evolution, I'm just not sure where the confusion comes into play here. It also demonstrates that Lentiviruses have plagued primates for far longer than most immunologists thought just 20 years ago.

a reply to: peter vlar

Did you read what you quoted?

The gene, called TRIM5-CypA, well characterized elsewhere (AIDS, 2007; PNAS, 2008), is a hybrid of two existing cellular genes

This is not new information or a new function but it's the convergence of two gene sequences that already exist which is a rare event according to the source you quoted.

How does this answer the question:

Where's the evidence that random mutations and natural selection can give a DNA sequence meaning and function that regulates gene expression?

Where's the evidence that a new DNA sequence was created that regulates the expression of TRIM5-CypA?

Do you even know the DNA sequences that regulate TRIM5-CypA? Do you know the DNA sequences that regulate TRIM5? Do you know the DNA sequences that regulate CypA?

This answers nothing and like I said, there's zero evidence that random mutations and natural selection can give meaning or function to a sequence of DNA letters that regulate expression.

a reply to: peter vlar

Indeed they were. I've stopped linking to papers, as they are going to ignore them anyway (also they may not be free to Joe public, as opposed to my work access to the literature).

I can only conclude willful ignorance, or some sort of disability in recognizing that something has been posted!

a reply to: neoholographic

Do you not understand what is meant by "new function"? A lack of HIV/SIV resistance, replaced by resistance, due to a mutation. It IS a mutation as it involved a change to the code. Mutations take many forms. It can be a code change (as seen in HbS), it can be a insertion, deletion, etc None the less they are mutations.

Thus this resulted in new function (HIV/SIV resistence), and it occured several times in spatially remote locations. QED it is evidence of mutation providing nre function.

Oh and what is a non "cellular gene"? All DNA is kept in Cells. Be it nuclear DNA or mtDNA, it is in cells.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: peter vlar

Indeed they were. I've stopped linking to papers, as they are going to ignore them anyway (also they may not be free to Joe public, as opposed to my work access to the literature).

I can only conclude willful ignorance, or some sort of disability in recognizing that something has been posted!

Nobody ignores them, they're just not playing go fish. If you can't post revelent parts of a PDF or reference manuel and show how those parts relate to the questions being posed then frankly, you don't understand what's being said and you somehow think posting a link without any context or commentary is answering a question.

a reply to: neoholographic

They are evidence. They have been explained here multiple times over the years, and people ask for the citations. Thus I only provide the citations. The papers, being peer reviewed, do not require context.

SO I return to the fact, you are clearly willfully ignorant, or have a problem with reading them. WHich is it?

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: whereislogic

Funny that you used a religious site and not the dictionary.

..stop quoting purposely misleading things ... start using actual facts.

Please learn the difference... continuing your flawed argument.

These are all accusations or implied accusations (and twists of what I said considering what I didn't quote from you as well). You seem to be very experienced in this, since you formulated some of them in such a way to influence the thoughts and emotions of any of the readers here and even allowing an opening for yourself to excuse yourself that nothing was implied (especially the first sentence) and that you were just making observations, or some sort of excuse like that.

I try not to converse too much with people that are capable of that amount of deception and cunning debate games, searching for strife. But I do try to warn others when they're playing innocent and are saying things like you said:

The false accusation of what?

And then quickly switch to what I didn't quote now except for a mention of it in the first sentence, which was not the crux of any of the accusations or implied accusations intended to influence other readers regarding me.

a reply to: whereislogic

Lots of words with little meaning.

The accusations (as you call them) were me pointing out that your links were from a religious website on more than one occasion.

So, would you like to be honest and use links that are not inherently biased or are you just going to keep up the "Goddidit" game and link nothing apart from religious sites?

a reply to: Noinden

Of course they require context in a debate on a message board. Have you read any of the post on this thread or on this board for that matter?

Most people paste the relevent portion of the link that pertains to the thread and then they comment and put in context as it pertains to the thread. That's just basic common sense.

If I started a thread that said, Intelligent Design is true and then you clicked on the thread and just saw a link with no commentary or context, it would jusy look foolish and the thread would be canceled by the moderators.

It makes no sense to post links without any context or commentary and simply say go fish. There should actually be a rule against that type of nonsense. Why should I dig through a link you posted with 4-5 pages looking for a response to a question?

a reply to: TerryDon79

hmmm, I wonder if Garak was right in Star Trek DS9 in his response to Dr. Bashir telling the story of 'the boy who cried wolf' when he gave his view on why someone should never tell the same lie twice:

something about it being recognized (I don't think he actually spelled it out, he just said that the moral of the story was that "you should never tell the same lie twice"). But perhaps his view was wrong as long as you phrase it differently and the lie is just a twist or other form of deception that someone can't even call a lie cause they won't be able to explain it to anyone believing the twist and distraction away from my friendly warning about how this mental game works, to all, including the one twisting things to pretend he's doing something he's not doing and not doing something that he IS doing (Isaiah 5:20).

a reply to: whereislogic

So now you're saying I'm lieing?

The site you have linked to, more than once, is a religious site. That is not a lie. That is a fact.

www.wol.jw.org is a religious site, therefore is biased.

a reply to: neoholographic

You seem very confused. This is not a debate forum. It is a discussion forum. There is a difference.

You don't even read the papers you have cited here (you actually cite the articles about the papers, rather than the papers). When I post the actual paper reference (in an actual reference style). I have posted evidence. I read each of those papers, to make sure they fit the discussion points. Rather than put MY spin on the paper, I am posting them, as the conclusions, made by the people who did the research, support what I am saying.

So I return to the fact that you do not seem to be able to recognize (either through willful ignorance, or some other factor) evidence when it is posted. I am leaning to the ignorance side, as if you went and looked, you would not be able to say half the things you do. Specifically "there is no evidence". When there clearly is.

SO to bring it back on topic.

Evidence regarding evolution (not a big lie) has been posted. Including evidence of new functions through mutation. This evidence has been from multiple posters, and from multiple sources. Quod erat demonstrandum, that evolution is not a big lie. It has also been demonstrated that you are also unwilling to read the evidence provided.

a reply to: Noinden

LOL, really?? You said:

You seem very confused. This is not a debate forum. It is a discussion forum. There is a difference.

It's a discussion forum where people debate different issues. I have been here over 5 years and every once in a blue moon someone pulls an ASININE argument like this one out of the hat.

Most people with common sense debate these issues by pasting relevent portions of an article or PDF then they comment and put the topic of the discussion in context. They just don't link to 10 pages and expect someone else to read through those pages. Again, that's just ASININE.

I looked at some of what you linked to and it answered nothing. Everyone would know this if you would have pasted the revelent portion of the link but you didn't because you couldn't.

If I say, this PDF shows that your argument is wrong and then I just post a link to a 20 page PDF, that wouldn't make any sense. Why should I expect the person I'm debating to look through a 10 page PDF to look for the revelent portions of the PDF that you can't find nor articulate?

a reply to: neoholographic

Debate has a very specific meaning neighbour. Indeed there is a debate forum in ATS. THUS the admins here understand what that meaning is.

I've looked at the videos you have posted, I've read the actual papers (rather than the links about the papers) you think support your argument. I took the time, and the effort to do that. To refute what you have said. I have done my due diligence.

You however, refuse to do due diligence. You go to Ad Hominem Arguments, Arguments from ignorance, Arguments from inertia, ang the big lie technique, just to name some of the logical fallacies which you are engaging in.

So I return. Based on the evidence provided here (articles posted, discussions made etc), by multiple posters. Your premise has been disproven. Your refusal to acknowledge the evidence, reflects on you, not on the evidence.

Slan lait

PS pick a paper, talk about it, I will return the favour. Otherwise there is no evidence you have read it. Rather you say "it proves nothing?" with out actually showing you read let alone understood it.

a reply to: neoholographic

But that's actually a very poor way to demonstrate evidence. It denies the reader proper context. In regard to citing peer reviewed papers, the entire paper is the relevant part. Otherwise we would all just publish abstracts and say the hell with due diligence and demonstrating all of the data utilized to achieve the conclusion presented in the paper. To present data in the format you prefer is the equivalent of quote mining. Without appropriate context, there's little point in posting anything period.