Intelligent Design; Does Modern Genetic Research Mean Darwin's THEORY of Evolution Belongs In The..

Xcalibur254

DNA related science that reveals no source of new genetic material ever being evidenced in species' genetic structure.

Well your video is wrong right there. We have seen a number a mutations that add "information" into DNA. For example insertion and duplication. If we've never seen genetic material added to DNA please explain Down's syndrome.

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.

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.

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.

reply to post by Ghost147



It is Science based. Check out what is discussed there.

It is a collection of material from different programs and scientists relating to different scientific disciplines. It is an amateur video edited roughly, but very well.

It's not NASA who made the video. I love people documentaries. I like it when normal people like you and me go to the trouble of pulling a modern argument together and does a good job of it.

His video has 716,000 hits. I think that says a lot about what the humble amateur editor achieved. I really appreciate this stuff when it is done by an intelligent person.

reply to post by Ghost147


Life had to start somewhere at sometime, abiogenesis is very important to understanding evolution is it not? In order for things to evolve the environment had to supportive of changes. I understand the arguments about genetic drift natural selection etc etc, however, I do not see how one species changed from one to a completely different species as some have tried to push on me. I really do remain skeptical, All i can do is provide what arguments from either side I find the most compelling. I understand that to understand alot more we cannot cherry pick one thing or another as people will use only fossil records when those have issues I need to look at all the evidence the problem is, is that I usually run into the self belief bias I have a hard time finding neutral information and by using sources that claim it is neutral when in fact there funding is in support one way or another creates the same balance swing. It is frustrating at times to get a clear side of both arguing sides presenting the evidence from both sides from all the differing sciences and disciplines. You can consider me on the fence however as a personal belief I sway towards some form of creationism versus evolution, a belief is one thing so I remain open to information as it comes.

reply to post by Xcalibur254

You have to read the material

The Anthropic principle somewhat confirms ID, the scientists hate it because it goes against their biases for Darwinevolutionarydesign.blogspot.com...
Read here on it above

science.howstuffworks.com...
Here's another example that Stenger reminds us of: A vacuum in the universe is a lot less dense than we previously thought (139 times less dense, in fact). That's significant because if the original higher estimates had been correct, the universe would have blown apart eons ago. So if certain conditions in our universe were just a little off, life would have never evolved. Just how is it that we're so fortunate? Of all possible universes, why did ours turn out like it did? In 1974, astronomer Brandon Carter tackled this quandary by introducing the anthropic principle. Carter hypothesized that anthropic coincidences are part of the universe's very structure and that chance has nothing to do with it. He proposed two variants:

Revolution9
reply to post by Ghost147

 

It is Science based. Check out what is discussed there.

I'm currently at 6 minutes in the video. So far, the entire thing has consisted solely for the purpose of accusing science and scientists of attempting to kill off religion. It appears as if the first 6 minutes are purely a smear campaign.

It would be incredibly ironic if they were to then use scientific methods to disprove the people who they claim are using science to destroy ideologies.

Revolution9
reply to post by Ghost147

 

His video has 716,000 hits. I think that says a lot about what the humble amateur editor achieved. I really appreciate this stuff when it is done by an intelligent person.

edit on 28-12-2013 by Revolution9 because: typo.

No. If anyone makes any half decent looking video, with length, and some minor context, when the title is "The signs of God's Existence, it will inevitably get that many views. The number of views does not constitute valid arguments, however. Nor does a populous.

Even if we found the equivalent of Alien Barcode, or a company Logo on our DNA, it doesn't discount or defeat evolution at all.

Most of "Our" DNA is also a mixture of Homosapiens, Neanderthal, Denisova, and another as of yet unknown archaic hominid.

We also have access to unaltered Homo Sap DNA with some insular populations in Subsaharan Africa that never left, or had genetic contact with with anyone else that left.
Thus, we have "pure" human DNA in Africa which we can trace back to Homo Erectus, and in turn through comparative osteoanthropogy then trace back several generations and millions of years to Australopithecus.

That's our Hominid Heritage.

As far as evolution goes, please look at the Whale:



That's just the Whale.

We've quite wonderful and complete records of many several species of animal like, for instance, also, the horse:


We know how most animals, including us, are related, what/who our evolutionary progenitors were, our closest 'relatives', so forth and so on.

A lot can even be traced back to the Permian Triassic Extinction Event which wiped out about 96% of all living species at the time, leaving us with a fantastic bottle neck of remaining species like

Lystrosaurus, a pig-sized herbivorous dicynodont therapsid, constituted as much as 90% of some earliest Triassic land vertebrate faunas. Smaller carnivorous cynodont therapsids also survived, including the ancestors of mammals.

These Therapsids gave rise to the dinosaurs; all of them, which includes our modern Bird population.
These Therapsids gave rise to mammals; all of them, including dogs, cats, horses, kangaroos, bats, bunnies, and even us.

Brotherman

I found this video interesting as well, I have not had the opportunity to view your video but I will and wanted to add this one as well. I would like at some point to Take all the claims Trey makes write them down and see if I get similar answers as well as counter answers just to satisfy my own suspicions and skepticism. Either way great post and this is a very interesting and hotly debated topic. I hope this thread turns out to be very condusive into some form of understanding. Thanks for posting!

I watched the video. He presents a great knowledge of his subject. He's fast and expresses the facts in a very cohesive way.

Now that would be one very cool guy to reason with and fly off in to blue skies of hypotheses.

Brotherman
reply to post by Ghost147

 

Life had to start somewhere at sometime, abiogenesis is very important to understanding evolution is it not? In order for things to evolve the environment had to supportive of changes.

Not necessarily, no. If you are studying evolution, you are studying the variation within a species and beyond that. The functions are already there that determine the presence of variation. We do not need to know how that presence came to exist if we are only studying how it functions, there for an evolutionary biologist does not require the knowledge of an individual who studies Abiogenesis.

Brotherman
reply to post by Ghost147

 

I understand the arguments about genetic drift natural selection etc etc, however, I do not see how one species changed from one to a completely different species as some have tried to push on me.

You cannot possibly understand the concept of genetic drift and natural selection and then not understand how new species can arise through these elements. If you don't understand the later, then you don't understand the latter, then you didn't comprehend the former elements.

They coexist intrinsically, not independently.

Brotherman
reply to post by Ghost147

 

It is frustrating at times to get a clear side of both arguing sides presenting the evidence from both sides from all the differing sciences and disciplines. You can consider me on the fence however as a personal belief I sway towards some form of creationism versus evolution, a belief is one thing so I remain open to information as it comes.

I'm not quite sure I understand. You believe parts of creatonism, and accept parts of evolution? May I ask which parts of the Theory of Evolution, precisely?

It is to my personal belief that you are simply not comprehending the information within the theory to make a definitive assessment on it. (That's not meant to be insulting, just an observation)

reply to post by AliceBleachWhite

Most of "Our" DNA is also a mixture of Homosapiens, Neanderthal, Denisova, and another as of yet unknown archaic hominid.

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

reply to post by Ghost147


Source

I have a favorite definition of evolution [What Is Evolution?]. It's a definition based on population genetics and it helps us to decide on what counts as evolution and what doesn't. It's a minimal definition. There's more to evolution than that but you have to establish a boundary.

When you start discussing evolution you have to begin by establishing your definitions and declaring what version of evolutionary theory you support. This is especially important if you are debating extensions of evolutionary theory and it's even more important if you are debating a creationist. Creationists need to understand that evolution is both a Fact and a Theory, for example. If they don't understand that then they don't understand anything about evolution.

I find this best explains my sentiments, I told you before it is very groggy evolution has tons of definition it has tons of theory mixed with fact, I admitted my confusion as it is difficult to find the core value of either side of the argument.

Brotherman
reply to post by Ghost147

 

Source

I have a favorite definition of evolution [What Is Evolution?]. It's a definition based on population genetics and it helps us to decide on what counts as evolution and what doesn't. It's a minimal definition. There's more to evolution than that but you have to establish a boundary.

When you start discussing evolution you have to begin by establishing your definitions and declaring what version of evolutionary theory you support. This is especially important if you are debating extensions of evolutionary theory and it's even more important if you are debating a creationist. Creationists need to understand that evolution is both a Fact and a Theory, for example. If they don't understand that then they don't understand anything about evolution.

I find this best explains my sentiments, I told you before it is very groggy evolution has tons of definition it has tons of theory mixed with fact, I admitted my confusion as it is difficult to find the core value of either side of the argument.

Evolution actually has only one official definition.

Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.

And that's from the Wikipedia page on it. It seems to me that you've picked up some misinformation that you need to clear out.

reply to post by AliceBleachWhite


To me what you posted is like Victorian science. All your wonderful diagrams actually explain nothing.

What you state is not actually evidenced in DNA. That is the whole basis of my argument.

I am saying that Darwin's Theory is just not answering any questions. Your diagrams have no real proof.

There is no mechanism we have discovered in DNA to make something as central as the genesis of diverse species a possibility.

How often has Darwin been used as the science of explaining away Creationism? Yet now in the dock of modern science it just is not making sense anymore.

Evolution has never been witnessed in any organism. Just because species look alike does not make them the same as you know. Each species has differing chromosome structure and how if all creatures are related can there be so little possibility for cross breeding of species?

How can in the space of one generation a species make a chromosome structure leap? It is not science to suggest that magically this can happen. It can't have 23 and a bit chromosomes until after several generations it grows a whole new chromosome.

That is why I am saying The Theory of Evolution is starting to look more and more medieval as a modern theory of species genesis. That is what his theory was all about; the genesis of species. It is not living up to its job as far as I can see.

It certainly does not satisfy me as a suitable modern explanation.

Evolution:
Evolution consists of changes in the heritable traits of a population of organisms as successive generations replace one another. It is populations of organisms that evolve, not individual organisms.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

www.nas.edu...


Thats strange this definition looks quite a bit different

reply to post by Revolution9


Ok i am 20minutes in and i have taken notes. First thing i should point out is that not even 1 scientist has spoken yet. But they have called out prominent scientists like einstien, hawking, and bertrand russel, and have not only misquoted them out of context but basically stated that they were missing the greatest tool of all; faith.

The first 4 min. Is random preachers who are prob famous but i did not recognize any of them. Then they jump into the worst explanation of the big bang i have ever heard. They keep stating that all matter was created in the big bang but this is not a claim of conventional science. The point being that we do not know what caused the big bang and we do not know what matter was before the process that put the universe in motion. However they keep claiming that only god could have done this.

Then more preaching

And more bad explanations of the big bang

Then they go on a spree of logical fallacies as if they havent been told this before. Such as the watchmakers fallacy, but with a jet engine, ( we know that watches dont reproduce themselves, but we know that life does) argument from ignorance( i dont know how it could have happened so it must have been god)

Then they keep stating that the laws of physics themselves dont create anything. (Duh, they are just descriptions of what has been observed)

Then they quote sir arthur eddington 1882-1944 "the beggining of the universe presents insuperable difficulties unless we agree to look at it as frankly supernatural"
Again this is the classic argument from ignorance. We dont understand so it must be god.

Then another quote from allan sandage 1926-2010. Basically the same as the other quote.

Then william lane craig ( hahahahaha) states that when confronted with the question of "if god created the universe then where did god come from?" That no explanation is needed because then you would just have to answer the question of "what caused the cause of god?" And then "what caused the cause of the cause of god?" As if those arent also good questions.

Then another guy who is also not a scientist just repeats william lane craig.
My synopsis is that this is rubbish with absolutly no basis in science and no explanations. And actually states that no explanations are necessary for the existance of a god.

Im tired of these apologists looking from their armchairs at what reals scientists are doing and jumping up at every new discovery and saying "theres god right there" it is dishonest and frankly it hinders the rest of the populations ability to discern the truth from mere fundy bs. Your video is crap.

Brotherman
reply to post by AliceBleachWhite

 

Most of "Our" DNA is also a mixture of Homosapiens, Neanderthal, Denisova, and another as of yet unknown archaic hominid.

Is it a mixture? Or are there similar parts? How is this proven? Or is this just theory?

It is a mixture. There are no "Similar Parts" it is an exact copy of DNA from our ancestral background. We can prove this by looking at our DNA, the DNA of our known ancestors, and seeing the same genetic coding they had in our DNA (although most of it is just there, and has no other function, because it would "cost" more energy to remove that specific coding from ours, it is easier for nature to leave it without function, than to delete it. Just like how males have nipples. They are residual, but have no function in males. This is due to the fact that all human embryos start out female, and then change later to a male (if it ever does change))

Brotherman
reply to post by AliceBleachWhite

 

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?

Evolution has time-scales. One is Macro-evolution the other is Micro-evolution. They have the exact same properties, they occur the exact same way. They are the exact same thing, except for they describe different time scales.

The fruit fly example, is that of micro evolution. We can see various changes to their DNA, and even mutations in a relatively short period of time. Micro.

An example of Macro Evolution would be the accumulation of thos small mutations until a species can no longer breed with it's anscestor.

For example, if we took two fruit fly colonies, had one live in its natural environment, and the other colony we fed food that was completely different than what it naturally eats, it could eventually develop a mutation (coloration, alteration in digestion, ect) in order to process that new food more easily. If we alter more parts of the environment, there will eventually be more mutations. The more mutations that accumulate, the further that colony gets (genetically) from the controlled colony. Eventually, so, that they may not be able to breed with that control colony, thus becoming a different species (technically subspecies).

We could extrapolate the number of mutations further, and further, until the fly colony essentially becomes something else and would be classified a different species, or genus, or what have you.

Yet, the process to get to that stage is all the same. It's just a greater accumulation of mutations. Just as both Minutes and Seconds make up an hour.

You could say, conversely, that seconds (mutations) accumulate into minutes (new subspecies), then minutes can accumulate into Hours (new Species), and hours into days (new genus). Yet they are all the same thing, just different descriptions.

This is difficult to replicate in a lab, due to time constraints. However, we don't need to add more and more mutations to know that the foundation of the concept (the mutating itself), is there.

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.

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.

RE: GHOST AND ALICE

I don't the time at this moment to really get in depth with what it is I am trying to say, I have to finish this piece of commissioned art. That being said, when I get done with it for the evening I am going to take the time to plainly and as most concisely present my understanding and confusions of things and maybe you can help lay out a more organized model for my understanding as I know I am going back and forth and probably not making much sense which is, well it just isn't a good thing for me to do. Thus far I appreciate all the information that is provided and do not wish to come off as a one sided troll, if you give me some time I will take the time to lay out my skepticism on both sides and again thank you both for your contributions to my understanding. Looking forward to this discussion but for now I have to get back to work (Ill post a pic of the piece in another thread if you all are interested in art) but again thank you and looking forward to more discussion.

Brotherman
reply to post by Ghost147

 

Life had to start somewhere at sometime, abiogenesis is very important to understanding evolution is it not? In order for things to evolve the environment had to supportive of changes. I understand the arguments about genetic drift natural selection etc etc, however, I do not see how one species changed from one to a completely different species as some have tried to push on me. I really do remain skeptical, All i can do is provide what arguments from either side I find the most compelling. I understand that to understand alot more we cannot cherry pick one thing or another as people will use only fossil records when those have issues I need to look at all the evidence the problem is, is that I usually run into the self belief bias I have a hard time finding neutral information and by using sources that claim it is neutral when in fact there funding is in support one way or another creates the same balance swing. It is frustrating at times to get a clear side of both arguing sides presenting the evidence from both sides from all the differing sciences and disciplines. You can consider me on the fence however as a personal belief I sway towards some form of creationism versus evolution, a belief is one thing so I remain open to information as it comes.

No one will ever gain an understanding by listening to more people who dont understand it. If you want to understand that genetics is the engine of evolution then you will have to go to college and study it. It is a very sifficult course to follow and most who start, never finish. It is a lot of information. It takes years of study to even come to a real basic understanding. You have to understand what RNA is before you can see how it can become more and more complex.

What most do not understand is that patterns emerge from what seems like chaos. There is no chaos though, everything is following the path it is supposed too. When we observe chemical reactions we notice patterns. ( how certain chemicals react when in contact with other chemicals. These reactions are always the same and never deviate from the norms. Now we dont have a complete understanding of the entire universe so every now and again we are surprised when we figur something new about these reactions but then we add this new knowledge to our ever growing set of observations)

Just like mathematics, chemistry is the same everywhere.

reply to post by Revolution9


... and so, you don't understand, thus Intelligent Design?

Argument from Incredulity.

Anyone can dismissively sigh away claiming a Victorian parade of species progression, but, it's there.
We've a wonderful progression outlined in the record.

Give us a better model and we might just listen.

Magic Wands like "God", "Aliens", or any other magical "Intelligent Design" have zero flotation because there's no God, Alien, or any other Intelligent designer stepping up with a powerpoint presentation to claim their laurels. You can't give reasonable cause to something you've no means for proving.
In short, you can't just make up reasons for things.

We've been saying "It's Magic" for thousands of years.
It's only with the aid of rigorous objective Science we've gotten the level of technical sophistication we have.
Otherwise we'd still be stuck at "It's Magic" and we wouldn't have cell phones and computers.