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.

 

What's so hard about evolution?

page: 5
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 22 2014 @ 05:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

If these are common, observed, well known and documented processes, but aren't specifically mentioned in evolutionary theory, wouldn't that imply (as I have been saying over and over) that Evolutionary theory as it currently exists, is incomplete?



Evolutionary Theory, in its current form, is indeed incomplete, I agree with that.
What Astyanax is referring to, I believe, is the Hologenome. Which is the relationship between the organism and its microbial communities. The theory of Evolution as presently constructed does not account for this, as far as I know. This new theory, in a nutshell, proposes that the genomes of host-dwelling microbes must be taken into account along with that of the host when evaluating environmental selection pressures. So essentially, natural selection acts on the entirety of the genetic material between the billions and billions of microbes in and on an organism plus those of the host organism.

Read about it here-- if more research shows this to bet the case, it will have far reaching implications on the current theory of natural selection...
microbewiki.kenyon.edu...




posted on May, 23 2014 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: greavsie1971

I think you're confusing evolution with abiogenisis. Evolution only explains the diversity of life on the planet, not how it started. As of right now science says that it doesn't know how life began. There are several ideas floating around, but on the whole we do not know, but that doesn't mean that we will never know. It's not logical to say that just because we don't know that god did it.

When animals make changes such as wings to legs and visa versa these changes happen over a very long period of time. We can actually look at the fossil record and see those changes take place. Google that stuff man. I bet you find a ton of info on it. Watch which sources you read though. Make sure that they are legit scientific journals or from legit scientists or science organizations.

good luck on your journey



edit on 23-5-2014 by moresco because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-5-2014 by moresco because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2014 @ 07:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: jjkenobi

originally posted by: MarsIsRed
Two parents conceive a child. The child is different. It's not a perfect copy of either/or both parents. This sums up evolution.

What part of this is difficult to understand?



This is a real question.


Do you really think humans reproducing is evolution? That's pretty funny. But in reality everything in existence is declining. Getting worse. Breaking down. Second law of thermodynamics. Except of course for evolution right? I guess if you choose to believe that, it is your choice.


That's exactly what evolution is! Good on your for getting it,.



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 07:55 PM
link   
I apologise for creating this thread, but I posted It when inebriate. However, I'm shocked at what's been said in the interim...

edit on 24-5-2014 by MarsIsRed because: (no reason given)

This thread was created because of randy's nosense....
edit on 24-5-2014 by MarsIsRed because: (no reason given)


either way, I apologise!
edit on 24-5-2014 by MarsIsRed because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 08:49 PM
link   
a reply to: MarsIsRed

I know people gave you a hard time, but essentially you were correct in the OP. Genetic mutations happen every time a child is born, and that basic fact is the very foundation that the theory of evolution rests on. Simple yet effective, IMO.



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 09:17 PM
link   
Imperfect copy MUST result in evolution. There is no other outcome. Why do the 'others' believe otherwise?



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 09:21 PM
link   
How is instinct encoded into genes?



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 11:56 PM
link   
a reply to: PhotonEffect

How is it not? Various instinctual behaviors are primary survival mechanism for thousands of species.

Instinct is what tells a cat to hide its pain rather than to cry or limp. The reason for this is because cats that did not hide their pain in the wild often died before passing down genes if they got injured. An injured animal attracts predators, especially weaker ones that would normally stay away. Since more of the cats that hid their pain survived, it led to a population of cats that mostly did the same. The trait became dominant.

Some instincts could also just be basic logic to the cat, so it comes down to intelligence. One example is how a cat walks placing the back foot directly where the front foot was. A cat cannot survive in the wild without doing this. Many domesticated cats can't walk like that, but when they are born in the wilderness it seems to come naturally.

Are goosebumps encoded into the DNA? Yes indeed. Everything about every thing about your body is encoded into the DNA, including mental capability, and ancient instincts from the past.
edit on 25-5-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 01:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

You've only explained what an instinctual behavior is. You've not explained how an acquired behavior, specific to a species, can become hard wired into its DNA to be passed down to offspring.



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 01:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Barcs

You've only explained what an instinctual behavior is. You've not explained how an acquired behavior, specific to a species, can become hard wired into its DNA to be passed down to offspring.



As if you really care about the science..Lol..

This is a standard misconception that you're trying to set up, stemming out of creationist's fallacious arguments against evolution.
A complex instinct didn't just randomly spring into existence in a couple of individuals after which those individuals were selected, but the instinct itself gradually evolved from simpler behaviors, each of the steps being favorable for the individuals survival in question.

Nice try though..



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: flyingfish

It's an honest question that has nothing to do with being a creationist. There's not a need to resort to ignorant labeling.

Not everyone who asks a question about evolution is a creationist.

Instinctual behavior we can agree is not learned. It's already pre-programmed into an organism's DNA. At the outset of a new species with completely different behaviors then its ancestors, the basis of its instincts must have have been acquired at some point. How does this acquired behavior get encoded into DNA. Is a novel behavior the result of a mutation, that would then be "favored"? Or are instincts not all evolved from acquired behaviors?



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: PhotonEffect


Your not a creationist? It's odd your trying to learn about Instinctual behavior in a such a silly none scientific thread. Seems to me you would look it up in scientific journals and not be on some conspiracy site constantly blurting out misconceptions after misconceptions that can be readily found on any creationist propaganda forum.
You must forget any one can read your past posts, and see you come off as a creationist no matter what flavor you call yourself.

Learned Instinctual behavior is a gray area, behaviors that at first glance might appear purely instinctive can be shown to have an experiential component. In the case of imprinting, or a learning behavior such as in newly hatched geese learning to fallow their parents. If they are removed from their parents they will imprint on another moving object, including humans.

If a particular behavior helps foster the survival of a species, natural selection favors it. There is no "pre-programming" involved, being "encoded" into an organism's DNA. It simply survived long enough to pass it's traits/DNA on to it's offspring.
A novel behavior can result from a mutation, if that mutation is passed on due to that organism surviving cause of it's changed behavior. For instance, ancestral pocket mice had light-colored coats that blended in with the regions sandy soil, helping the mice survive their owl predators. At about 1.7 million years ago, a series of volcanic eruptions spewed out wide trails of black lava that wove right through the middle of pocket-mouse territory. Today there are two forms of pocket mice: light-colored mice that live on sandy soil, and dark-colored mice that live on black lava rock.
You tell me.. do the dark colored mice stay away from the sandy terrain?



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 10:46 PM
link   
a reply to: PhotonEffect


What Astyanax is referring to, I believe, is the Hologenome. The theory of Evolution as presently constructed does not account for this, as far as I know.

No, I am referring to simple evolution by natural selection. Heredity is a very well-understood mechanism of gene transportation, but there are others, and natural selection works on them all.

Here's a short list.
  1. Horizontal gene transfer between prokaryotes, which is a well-studied phenomenon because it is what gives rise to antibiotic resistance in bacteria:

    Adaptive Plasmid Evolution Results in Host-Range Expansion of a Broad-Host-Range Plasmid

    Fight evolution with evolution: plasmid-dependent phages with a wide host range prevent the spread of antibiotic resistance

  2. Horizontal gene transfer between prokaryotes and eukaryotes:

    Horizontal gene transfer in eukaryotic evolution.

    Horizontal gene transfer in evolution: facts and challenges

  3. Prokaryote-eukaryote symbiosis, which may redirect the course of evolution for both parties; the classic case here, of course, is mitochondria:

    Evolutionary Origin of Mitochondria

    Mitochondrial DNA Clarifies Human Evolution

    If you wanted to give that a fancy name, you could call it 'hologenomics' — but mitochondrial symbiosis has been a well-studied subject since at least the early Eighties.

  4. Gene transfer between viruses and their hosts:

    Ancient human virus resurrected

    8 Percent of Human Genome Was Inserted By Virus, and May Cause Schizophrenia

    Genes from Ebola Virus Family Found in Human Genome

The theory of evolution is agnostic about gene transport mechanisms; as many here know, Darwin hadn't yet heard about genes when he wrote The Origin of Species, and his theory of evolution by natural selection is completely independent of the technical question of how traits are inherited. The point about the above mechanisms is that they all result in heritable genomic changes, and are therefore grist to the mill of natural selection.


How is instinct encoded into genes? Instinctual behavior we can agree is not learned. It's already pre-programmed into an organism's DNA. At the outset of a new species with completely different behaviors then its ancestors, the basis of its instincts must have have been acquired at some point.

Yes, it was acquired the same way any other heritable change is acquired — genetically.


At the outset of a new species with completely different behaviors then its ancestors, the basis of its instincts must have have been acquired at some point. How does this acquired behavior get encoded into DNA.

You seem to be assuming that the behaviour originated from some decision made by the animal, which then got encoded into the genes somehow. This is back to front. The mutation occurs first, giving rise to the behaviour. If the behaviour helps the organism in the competition to survive and reproduce, the mutation is passed on; if it prevents successful reproduction or makes it more difficult, it will soon disappear from the gene pool, along with the behaviour it causes.


Not everyone who asks a question about evolution is a creationist.

Agreed. It is the answers that determine whether the answerer is a creationist or an evolutionist.

By the way, are we going to debate dualism versus materialism or are we not? I'm going to have to start that thread myself.


edit on 25/5/14 by Astyanax because: of grist in my eye.



posted on May, 26 2014 @ 11:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: gusdynamite

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: solomons path

Is the lung fish a living example of an intermediate form?




Dipterus valenciennesi

Infraphylum Gnathostomata, Superclass Osteichthyes, Class Sarcopterygii, Subclass Dipnoi, Family Dipteridae

Geological Time: Middle Devonian (385 Million Years Old) Size: 125 mm Fossil Site: Achanarras Slate Quarry, Caithness, Scotland


www.fossilmuseum.net...

Lungfish were here 385 million years ago. Guess what. They are still lung fish
why haven't they budged in the evolutionary process?


Did they need to?


I would say they wont budge. It obviously isnt intermediary if it has stayed the same....Evolutionist say its a living example of a transitional form. Obviously its just a type of animal. You do realize that if you could put the entire evolution timeline on a 24 hour clock most of the animals we see today would have came into existence within the first 90 seconds. That is a very small time scale, and the complete opposite of what is proposed by evolution.



posted on May, 26 2014 @ 11:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

The Institute of Creation Research??

Haha thanks for the laugh, I needed that!


How about you show me data that proves that what is stated in their articles is false?



posted on May, 26 2014 @ 11:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




DNA has shown that all life on the planet shares similar DNA thereby confirming evolution. I recognized how unlikely beneficial mutations are, not how ridiculous they are. Unlikely doesn't mean impossible.


This could also be evidence of a common designer. If God is a computer programmer of unmatched proportions and he wrote a computer code for lungs why would he change it for every living animal? A code for a heart? Hopefully, that make my point.




You are trying to argue statistical probability here. Even if the chances are ridiculously low but not 0, it will STILL happen eventually. THAT is how evolution works. Yes the odds of success are extremely low, that is why it takes millions of years for it to flesh out. You apparently can't conceptualize the amount of generations that are born and die within 1 million years, let alone millions of them. That is quite a bit of rolling the dice.


Lets say someone believes the earth will someday in the near future turn into a purple elephant.


Well it is very improbable that the earth will ever turn into a purple elephant, but according to your thinking I should take that as fact rather than something someone takes on faith. Nothing has a probability of 0. Everything is just very unlikely.



posted on May, 26 2014 @ 11:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Prezbo369
The funny thing about theists that reject evolution, is that they always pretend it's because of bad science and not because of their holy book/scripture based myths or that they hate the thought of themselves being Apes/primates...

Everybody's s*** stinks, we're all just animals that have learnt to walk upright (which is a really weird way of getting around).

We're not beings of light or souls from a heavenly realm, and the day that we drop such narcissistic indulgences will be a massive step in our development.






I am a theist and I do believe it is bad Science. I do not believe Macro-evolution disproves God in anyway. I just dont accept it because i think its statistically unlikely.



posted on May, 26 2014 @ 11:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: jjkenobi
Do you really think humans reproducing is evolution? That's pretty funny. But in reality everything in existence is declining. Getting worse. Breaking down. Second law of thermodynamics. Except of course for evolution right? I guess if you choose to believe that, it is your choice.


Another creationist error, using terms they've only heard from other creationists in the belief that it supports their claims.

The second law of thermodynamics does not refute evolution. Order can be produced by expending energy. Plants use energy from the sun to create sugar molecules and animals use energy stored in sugar molecules from food (plants etc).

The earth is not a closed system.....



Well you seem to know the food pyramid. It all relies on what? Plants. What happens when plants are no longer capable of surviving or lets say the sun burns out? It is a closed system your just not thinking big enough. As for evolution, it shows that species become "more specialized." What is the opposite of specificity? Variability. Wouldn't that mean things use to be much more durable to all types of environments and therefore much more likely to survive?



posted on May, 26 2014 @ 11:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

And can you show me what a mudskipper evolved from or was it always as it is?

Natural selection is not the problem creationist have with evolution. We do not believe it to be guided. I believe the problem you have is that you assume it creates things for a purpose. Natural selection cannot produce new data in DNA it can only select from what is produced.



posted on May, 26 2014 @ 11:56 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Don't you miss the days when you could manipulate the BBcode to reply to several people at once?

You're playing word games and debating tricks, but all you're really doing is kicking up as much noise as you can so you don't have to hear what people are saying. I invite you to try with genuine good will to understand and make reasonable reply. At the moment you are communicating nothing but your own distress.


edit on 26/5/14 by Astyanax because: of gremlins.




top topics



 
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join