It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Historically, one of the most controversial aspects of Darwinian evolution has been the prominent role that randomness and random change play in it. Most biologists agree that mutations in DNA have random effects on fitness. However, fitness is a highly simplified scalar representation of an enormously complex phenotype. Challenges to Darwinian thinking have focused on such complex phenotypes. Whether mutations affect such complex phenotypes randomly is ill understood. Here I discuss three very different classes of well-studied molecular phenotypes in which mutations cause nonrandom changes, based on our current knowledge. What is more, this nonrandomness facilitates evolutionary adaptation. Thus, living beings may translate DNA change into nonrandom phenotypic change that facilitates Darwinian evolution.
It's statistically obvious that intelligent agency is more likely to create ordered systems than by random chance.
originally posted by: Phantom423
So what's the fundamental difference between an "ordered system" and "random chance"? How did you calculate those "statistics"? Where's your model? Where's your numbers? Where's the math?
Here I discuss three very different classes of well-studied molecular phenotypes in which mutations cause nonrandom changes, based on our current knowledge. What is more, this nonrandomness facilitates evolutionary adaptation.
You are purposefully ambiguating obvious concepts. Ordered systems are put in order by intelligent agencies. Ask Ford, ask Tesla, ask Edison, ask any inventor. And you want proof that machines need a creator? Or that coding needs a coder? Does an automobile assemble itself? Do robots assemble themselves? Humans are organic robots, and we replicate with the genetic code. It's called code for a reason. If you want to purposefully avoid the obvious answer that's ok. Every computer I have ever used required a programmer - including my body.
Of course adaptation mechanisms are non-random. Don't you see the obsessive compulsion to try to make it seem like evolution did it? These adaptation mechanisms are tightly-knit homeostatic mechanisms that ensure organisms can adapt to extreme environments. Again, does a thermostat self-assemble? No, it require an intelligent electrician to hook it up to the electrical mainframe.
Humans are organic robots, and we replicate with the genetic code. It's called code for a reason. If you want to purposefully avoid the obvious answer that's ok. Every computer I have ever used required a programmer - including my body.
originally posted by: Phantom423
A scientist doesn't relegate what he/she doesn't understand or can't figure out to an outside force that can't be proven. A scientist continues to accumulate information in the hope of adding more knowledge to the database of existing knowledge.
originally posted by: Akragon
plus i can't say i've ever seen an athiest that denies sciences.
Certainly, and I think the data has been demonstrating for a long time that organisms, solar systems, and physical forces are meticulously designed systems that act according to very particular laws to maintain their equilibrium. Science grants us the empirical evidence to make our conclusions on the world view. I am only presenting the information that insists on an intelligent force responsible for the creation of the world we see around us. Because of the inherent short-comings of scientific observation - epitomized by the observer effect - we are left to use our deduction ability to interpret the data in an all-encompassing manner. A theory of everything if you will. For me, evolutionary theory was a dead end, and I could no longer reconcile various observable phenomenon with its various postulates. My biggest quom with zealous adherents to evolutionary theory is that they do not leave room for more comprehensive ideas to be conceived, because they hold evolutionary theory as dogmatic truth. When in actuality, Lamarckism has more credibility that Darwinian evolution at this point. I did not come to these conclusions through blind zeal for any religious belief, I came to my current belief system by critically analyzing empirical observations without bias.