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.
originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: WarminIndy
Again, like I said, all open to interpretation according to the filters you choose to use.
Filters don't have anything to do with it; these are Scientific Papers, not Editorial Opinions.
A Scientific Paper discusses exactly what it says it discusses, no more. When a paper is discussing the RATE of mutations occurring, it is NOT debating whether the mutation itself random or not random.
Suppose we do an experiment: we put a monkey into a room with a piano, wait for him/her to figure out that the piano can make an interesting noise when the keys are pressed, and record the results. Now lets analyze the results to determine if the monkey has any concept of rhythm.
Clearly in order to answer that problem, we are not interested in whether the monkey has any artistic intentions behind his choice of WHICH notes to play, we only want to know whether there is a discernible rhythm in his key presses. The notes may or may not be random, for THIS study we don't care, and we are not going to make any conclusions about them one way or another.
In the same way, those two papers are referring to the rate of the mutation, not the mutation itself.
The mutation caused by the cancer cell is (in my opinion pending further study) probably just happenstance of the chemistry of how that virus works. Different cancers work in different ways - some destroy the lungs, some the liver, some are apparently benign parasites - it would appear this one affects the reproductive cells as part of its life cycle.
Until it can be shown that the cancer cell itself gets some benefit from causing a mutation in the offspring of its host, it cannot be said that the cancer cell has any 'information' about that mutation anyway - anymore than a cosmic ray has any information when it zaps some gene. The fact that it is 'caused' by the cancer makes it non-random, but that doesn't mean that the cancer has some 'ulterior motive'; most cancers cause sickness of one kind or another, this is just a variation on a theme.
The mutation caused by the cancer cell is (in my opinion pending further study) probably just happenstance of the chemistry of how that virus works.
As you have thrown in the statement (in my opinion) and that you need further study, what are you waiting for the study to validate?
But through the filter of my worldview, I am capable of reconciling that if evolution is merely the process of passing inherited traits and mutation, then that is what I already understand.
I will now say that for my side, and my opinion is just as valid, that this demonstrates what our side already believes, that since the first human couple, there was an environmental change and this led to mutations that caused certain behaviors in the individuals and the resulting mutations were passed down through descendants.
But as the last link indicated, epigenetics demonstrates that even if mutations are passed to descendants, by changing behaviors or environment, those negative mutations can be changed, leading to better behavior.
originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: WarminIndy
But through the filter of my worldview, I am capable of reconciling that if evolution is merely the process of passing inherited traits and mutation, then that is what I already understand.
You understand it incorrectly.
The word "evolution" means "change over time". Nothing more, nothing less.
That means anything that changes over time, whether it be the entire cosmos or the biosphere, is evolving. Of course we are specifically discussing biological evolution here, not cosmological, not geological, not meteorological, and not psychological or any thing else; just biological.
Biological evolution is not 'merely the process of passing inherited traits and mutation'.
Evolution is the change that occurs in populations as one generation produces the next. Unless a species reproduces by cloning, every generation is different from its parents in some way. That CHANGE is evolution. All populations of all organisms are evolving all the time. Change over time.
The differences between generations are caused by the mixing of DNA from the female and the male and by mistakes that occur during that mixing. The normal mixing of DNA is called sexual reproduction. The reproductive mistakes are known as MUTATIONS. Mutations may be caused by chemical accidents, cosmic rays, terrestrial radiation, possibly even viruses, whatever. There is no way to predict when a mutation will occur, where in the DNA it will occur, or whether the mutation is good, bad, or neutral, until after it has occurred. Mutations are random. Change over time.
In every generation, some siblings reproduce better than other siblings. It may be that they are harder to spot by predators and live longer, it may be that they are more attractive to mates, it may be that they can digest a less nourishing but more abundant food source, it may be that their siblings received a disadvantageous mutation, whatever. If the difference is a significant advantage, the trait that provided that advantage will come to dominate the population. THAT is natural selection.
Everything that lives, evolves, generation after generation after generation (except that it is not accurate to say that individuals evolve; populations evolve). Every individual that exists today is the *end point* of its personal evolution. Change over time. Its immediate children will be evolved differently. Change over time. Every generation has some changes that the previous generation did not have. Change over time. Every organism that has ever existed is in a 'transitional' state; every individual that has been fossilized is a 'transitional fossil'. Every single one of them. Change over time.
So there has to be an original, right? I mean if every species that is "evolved" must come from a previous one that has all the functions of ability to thrive.
The fossil record tells us that new species have evolved from pre-existing ones.
No one has seen a new species form in ecological time,
sci·ence
ˈsīəns/Submit
noun
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
In fact, then, both biologists and paleontologists must infer what happens, and it is very difficult to sort out where fact ends and where interpretation begins.
Notice that since biologists have not seen a speciation event that everyone would believe, biologists are driven to theory-heavy models of speciation, rather than a rich store of observational evidence. Even so, there are cases of near-speciation in the biological world, and many of them have been ignored because they suggested the "wrong" answer!
originally posted by: WarminIndy
I am sorry again, but what is the definition of faith?
originally posted by: Prezbo369
originally posted by: WarminIndy
I am sorry again, but what is the definition of faith?
Believing in something for no good reason....(gods, ghouls and ghosts etc).
originally posted by: WarminIndy
I am back, have been very busy.
When you say change, you mean adaptation, right? Species "adapt" to their environment, correct?
Adaptation is not complete change of the entire genome to accommodate a new genome. I just saw a video of a biology professor who couldn't explain KINDS and said that people are fish.
Would you care to elaborate on how humans are fish? This was a biology professor in a secular setting. If you want me to believe your side, show me the evidence that humans are fish.
Yes, you say it is for populations and yet can only say that for recent populations you have observed, but you still can't show evolution of one kind to another. Macro evolution has never been observed by anyone, and yet it is still being taught and all of this what you say is mere semantics.
When you say "kind" "species" "evolve" and all the catchwords, what you really are in essence merely saying is that every species adapts to their environment, because if you move individuals away from that environment, they can adapt to a new one. Isn't that what you are really saying?
But let's say this, if an individual did not adapt to the environment, what would happen? They would die. Therefore adaptation is at the individual level, because the ones who died don't breed and therefore no population.
OK, let's go through this...
Speciation from UC Davis
So there has to be an original, right? I mean if every species that is "evolved" must come from a previous one that has all the functions of ability to thrive.
OK, you have not seen it, it has never been observed, it can't even be calculated, so how should I trust your scientific methods when science is....
For it to be science, it must be practically observed.
Observation consists of receiving knowledge of the outside world through our senses, or recording information using scientific tools and instruments. Any data recorded during an experiment can be called an observation.
Given that explanation, it would seem apparent then that what I have said is correct all along. You are basing your belief through interpretation, not facts. No one has scientifically observed species changing from one to another.
It's not been observed, just heavily theorized and inferred, and you would say to me that everyone must believe it, and then people on your side demand observed evidence of our side.
So, the question is, have YOU seen and observed it?
I am sorry again, but what is the definition of faith?
Again, has it ever been observed that change in species led to any higher form of life?
Any data recorded during an experiment can be called an observation.
Based on these findings, we propose that dietary restriction by bacterial deprivation increases longevity in C. elegans by a combination of reduced food consumption and decreased food sensing.
Scientists claim that xenophyophores are the largest cells in existence on this planet; preliminary research shows that they trap particles of water, absorbing high levels of lead, uranium and mercury, and thus are highly resistant to these heavy metals. They are also perfectly adapted to live in huge pressures, low temperatures, and darkness.
originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Does E. Coli become something else?
But the question remains, can you demonstrate or provide evidence of observation of organisms that change into completely other higher orders of life?
Your definitionAgain, has it ever been observed that change in species led to any higher form of life?
Any data recorded during an experiment can be called an observation.
In other words, did a fish become man so that man is still a fish? You wouldn't like the video anyway, because the "experts" couldn't answer the simple questions. The thing about all of this is that we choose what we believe because we think it is reasonable to believe. And it becomes a sticky point when one side or another says that everyone MUST believe something.
Have I at one time demanded that everyone on this thread believe the same way as I do? There is a huge difference in saying "we think it does" as opposed to "It absolutely does". OK, so apples fall. But time is relative. If you and the apple were dropped at the same exact time, the apple is still relative to you and doesn't appear to be moving, but you both hit the ground at the same time.
But observing you and the apple falling is from my perspective, so it is different relatively and also time is slightly slower at higher elevations than lower. So, if you and the apple drop from the height of Mt. Everest, at first there would be an initially slower time but as you go lower, you then speed up, reaching maximum velocity, but it depends on mass as to how long it would take you to stop, therefore, if your weight were compared to the apple's weight, you would bounce differently, because you are comprised of more empty space.
So, it's all relative. And how does this play out in evolution? Given the fact that time is measured by linear standards, and evolution is considered linear, it takes no account of life and death cycles within lower forms of species. Hence, the life of the fruit fly is very short, it does not take 150 years to have 150 generations compared to the life of humans. And if you must account for the differences in life spans, then some life forms would be born and die out before any evolutionary change from one species to a higher form can occur.
Age- and calorie-independent life span extension from dietary restriction by bacterial deprivation in Caenorhabditis elegans
Does it happen in nature that dietary restrictions are placed on bacteria? If that is the case, then it is still dependent upon environment.
Based on these findings, we propose that dietary restriction by bacterial deprivation increases longevity in C. elegans by a combination of reduced food consumption and decreased food sensing.
But those bacteria never become a higher order organism, they remain as bacteria. And if the scientists could influence it from the outside, then it is not random.
Moss is also a species. But given the fact that moss has been around for a very long time, neither moss nor grass evolved into a higher order. Yes, some grasses are bamboo but all grasses are found in biological biomes. They are environment specific organisms, because apparently they learned to photosynthesize, but there are some types of mosses that are found in deep oceans. Algae never become something else.
But now, there has been single cell organisms still in the ocean, six miles below. They didn't need to photosynthesize but remain the same as what they have for millions of years. But as life, they have all the fundamentals for their life spans.
Single cell organisms at bottom of sea
Scientists claim that xenophyophores are the largest cells in existence on this planet; preliminary research shows that they trap particles of water, absorbing high levels of lead, uranium and mercury, and thus are highly resistant to these heavy metals. They are also perfectly adapted to live in huge pressures, low temperatures, and darkness.
They are adapted, but never to become something else. For something to become something else, it must have genetic information to do so, and where does the information come from if it isn't already in the organism? Outside. So it is not random.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Are you going to explain to me why you don't think that many micro evolution processes can't total up to macro evolution? Again I say that they are the same fundamental processes, the scales are just different. Like I said, I can start stacking dirt to make a dirt mound and knowing this, I could continually stack dirt until I had a mountain. But I don't need to observe this happening to know that it is the result of stacking all that dirt. So explain to me why micro to macro evolution can't work the same way.
originally posted by: WarminIndyPunctuated Equilibrium is still just a theory and one hotly debated among scientists. Some say it is possible and some say it is not the answer.
originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Punctuated Equilibrium is still just a theory and one hotly debated among scientists. Some say it is possible and some say it is not the answer.
The assistant professor says it is not testable over time. OK, so if it is not testable over time, then how can it be observed? In the fossil record?
While you might think this video is simply a method of Creationist debate, this is one person asking the simple questions that can't be answered. I think that you only hold to Punctuated Equilibrium because to you it makes sense. But even Punctuated Equilibrium isn't random, it still would be dependent upon environmental factors.
Listen, we get adaptation, there is no debate with that. What we are asking is what are the changes that cause one organism to become another higher order organism. That has never been observed nor is it testable.
So when genetics are studied, and it is shown through testing that mutations are guided by environmental factors, then how is it random? And the UCLA assistant professor says they can teach anything they want. So why isn't ID allowed? Because the schools are getting federal aid and federal funding, to teach something not observable and not testable. How is that science?
Stick with apples falling, at least that is observable and testable.
originally posted by: Barcs
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Are you going to explain to me why you don't think that many micro evolution processes can't total up to macro evolution? Again I say that they are the same fundamental processes, the scales are just different. Like I said, I can start stacking dirt to make a dirt mound and knowing this, I could continually stack dirt until I had a mountain. But I don't need to observe this happening to know that it is the result of stacking all that dirt. So explain to me why micro to macro evolution can't work the same way.
This is the big question and no creationist ever answers it. Each time a population speciates, the new species is slightly different from the old one. Logic would say that if you did it a million times, the original species would be significantly more different when compared with the most recent. I've never seen this question even attempted to be answered, it usually follows with a change of subject or a rant about how nobody's seen long term evolution so it can't be verified. You're never going to see a creature speciate into a different order. The changes happen on the species level only, but add up over time.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: Barcs
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Are you going to explain to me why you don't think that many micro evolution processes can't total up to macro evolution? Again I say that they are the same fundamental processes, the scales are just different. Like I said, I can start stacking dirt to make a dirt mound and knowing this, I could continually stack dirt until I had a mountain. But I don't need to observe this happening to know that it is the result of stacking all that dirt. So explain to me why micro to macro evolution can't work the same way.
This is the big question and no creationist ever answers it. Each time a population speciates, the new species is slightly different from the old one. Logic would say that if you did it a million times, the original species would be significantly more different when compared with the most recent. I've never seen this question even attempted to be answered, it usually follows with a change of subject or a rant about how nobody's seen long term evolution so it can't be verified. You're never going to see a creature speciate into a different order. The changes happen on the species level only, but add up over time.
Pretty much what's happening to me. I've now asked the question three times. Let's see if she gets three strikes or not.
You're never going to see a creature speciate into a different order.
Why can't the culmination of many micro processes add up to the macro process
Genes are often called the blueprint for life, because they tell each of your cells what to do and when to do it: be a muscle, make bone, carry nerve signals, and so on. And how do genes orchestrate all this? They make proteins. In fact, each gene is really just a recipe for a making a certain protein.
But the genes in your DNA don't make protein directly. Instead, special proteins called enzymes read and copy (or "transcribe") the DNA code
But the genes in your DNA don't make protein directly. Instead, special proteins called enzymes read and copy (or "transcribe") the DNA code. The segment of DNA to be transcribed gets "unzipped" by an enzyme, which uses the DNA as a template to build a single-stranded molecule of RNA. Like DNA, RNA is a long strand of nucleotides.
Strome noted that the findings in this study of transmission of histone methylation in C. elegans have important implications in other organisms, even though different organisms use the repressive marker that was studied to regulate different genes during different aspects of development. All animals use the same enzyme to create the same methylation mark as a signal for gene repression, and her colleagues who study epigenetics in mice and humans are excited about the new findings, Strome said.
"Remarkably, when we watch the chromosomes through cell divisions, the marked chromosomes remain marked and stay bright, because the enzyme keeps restoring the mark, but the naked chromosomes stay naked, division after division," Strome said. "That shows that the pattern of marks that was inherited is being transmitted through multiple cell divisions."
originally posted by: Xtrozero
a reply to: WarminIndy
I have a hard time understanding the point to all this. If a person has faith then the question is "why" and not "how" that is important. When we talk evolution that is a"how", so if God snapped his fingers to make man or started a 4 billion year process to make man it is still God's work.
When we see that all living things share DNA there is a correlation. Just living on this planet is a correlation. We can even say that two eyes is a correlation since that is not some fixed requirement other than all this life that is related has basically two eyes.
So to say that evolution is Godless is just a simplistic view of it all in that for some reason to be the work of God it requires some stupid parlor trick to make man with a pull out of the hat rabbit trick.
spe·ci·a·tion
ˌspēSHēˈāSHən,ˌspēsē-/Submit
nounBIOLOGY
the formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution.
Dyer (1974:8) discusses early racial classifications such as the earliest
classification of Linnaeus, who recognized four human racial subspecies: Homo sapiens europaeus, Homo sapiens asiaticus, Homo sapiens ajer, and Homo sapiens americanus
originally posted by: WarminIndy
Thank you, that's all I was asking. You concede that it is not observable, therefore it is not testable, therefore it is not scientific method. That's what you concede.
I wanted you to show me that adaptation leads to higher order life. You can't demonstrate that, so you are only stuck at the variety level.
There is no evidence, no observation, nothing testable to support that claim. You tell me where the evidence is. But since it is supposed to a genetic change, then let's talk about genetics.