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.

 

Step aside Darwinism, say hello to "Dissipation-driven adaptive organization"

page: 10
18
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 09:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: soficrow


I flagged MSF's pleas for help when the epidemic first started

You also did you best to convince people that ebola was airborne, or about to become airbone

You can say what you like, but the truth is right here on ATS and you can't change it.

your signature, ...references several of those threads, with titles like 'Ebola Epidemic Could Become Global Crisis'. Why put them in your signature if you're not proud of them?




You're not only indulging in fallacious ad hominem attacks, you're twisting things you didn't read (or maybe, didn't understand). fyi - you have to read the actual text, not just the headlines. also fyi - I was trying to mitigate the rampant false claims that Ebola is airborne with a few actual facts:


Ebola Airborne? The Truth.

The scientific definition for "airborne transmission" is very specific: "Airborne spread among humans implies inhalation of an infectious dose of virus from a suspended cloud of small dried droplets."

In contrast, Ebola and flu spread in the air via moist -not dried- particles, but definitely have the ability to spread via aerosol transmission - the moist droplets just do not hang out in the air for very long and aerosol transmission is not efficient. ....


Highlighting solid information and trying to prompt action is not a 'pride' thing. As I already explained, I tried to generate public awareness and then backed off when the issue was appropriated for political purpose. btw - There is a real risk the world is facing an endless Ebola epidemic.


ETA, re projections. Have you even followed ikonoklast's projections?


Back on topic - There are a number of good links in this thread, including to the original research: Is It Really Genetic? ….Should Your Bloodline End Now?







ETA PS. Euuwww. Just noticed this thread is in "Origins and Creationsism," a forum I usually avoid like the plague. Why is it here? ....The hypothesis has nothing to do with creationism.












edit on 16/12/14 by soficrow because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 10:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

No it doesn't.


Of course not. Otherwise PhotonEffect would support the ludicrous notions they're trotting out as though it were a forgone conclusion. Instead all you get is the same tripe repeated over and over with no references, citations or even actual rebuttals for the most part. All I've seen over and over is an attack. Te premise or the poster but not an ounce of science or even a counter hypothesis. Its like looking at the same sky as everyone else and insisting its mauve. At that point there is clearly a glitch in the matrix and that person isn't a line wolf academic saving us from ourselves and the faulty science.





Chemistry's foundations are rooted in Alchemy, but I don't see anyone going around calling Chemists, Alchemists.


This is just another example of someone nit picking the living hell out of something because it disagrees with their personal philosophy or theosophy. They don't look at the picture as a whole. Its like walking up to a Matisse and saying he spelled his name wrong when signing it because there is a chip in the paint and ignoring the whole of the piece. Without context, there is no understanding and without that understanding there is no grasping that so much of modern science in general and biology soecifically as well as the minutae of more specific applications like genetics, that all hinge on having their basis in what became MES 80 years ago. Just because Darwin didnt have it all worked out with the limits of his era doesn't mean you throw the baby out with the bath water and dismiss everything he was correct about. You confirm what works and is supported and include it in the updated synthesis. Hence why Darwinism is an anachronism yet Natural Selection is not. If it were PhotonEffect would support his contention with facts as opposed to hyperbole. And that's all there was for multiple posts in a row.



posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 01:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: funkadeliaaaa
It is also impossible to have a genetic transformation (evolution) without replication. In abiogenesis, non-biological the same evolutionary principles do apply. Namely self replication, and adapting to the environment. Therefore, Abiogenesis is very much bout evolution, even if it doesn't apply to the biological definitions of evolution in modern synthesis. -- Did you notice how im having to paraphrase my own words from just one post ago?


*sigh*

No kidding you can't have genetic mutations without genes that replicate, repeating that statement doesn't change anything about the argument. Abiogenesis is not part of evolution, nor do any modern synthesis principles apply to it. Self replication is NOT part of abiogenesis and if you knew anything about evolution or abiogenesis, you wouldn't be so stubborn in this point.

Abiogensis is not self replication. It is the natural process of life arising from non-living matter. It's about how the organic compounds first came together to create a living cell. Replication did not occur until AFTER life had already originated. Once again, you are dead wrong here. Gene replication can't happen without genes, therefor there are no evolutionary principles that apply to abiogenesis, except in extremely generalizing statements about complexity increasing (which isn't even always the case with evolution).


Thank you, but I am pointing out corrections. Mutation and Adaptation different concepts. Adaptation refers to the causality, mutation implies a the adaptation is unpredictable and random... this is bad science, based on a lack of insight about the epigenetic processes behind every genetic adaptation.


Adaption is not a cause, it is a result. Mutation doesn't imply it is unpredictable and random. Many gene mutations can be predicted. This concept is actively applied in modern medicine. The only thing random about the mutations is which particular genes are affected. That is not bad science in the least as we can measure and map entire genomes now. You only call it bad science because you don't understand it and have some kind of bone to pick with evolution and it is clear as day now.

Can you prove that genes "adapt" rather than mutate? I don't think you can.


Actually yes, all organisms including single celled amoeba have "skin". This adapts to the radiation levels in the environment, in order to protect the organism.

The "skin" adapts or the genes adapt? Remember, we are talking about genes here and not all radiation is harmful. Some of it comes from the sun and passes through us on a daily basis. Many mutations are caused by this. Denial that genetic mutations happen is ludicrous, no offense. It's beyond proven in science right now. Short term adaptation is not the same thing as evolution, despite your misconceptions.


the drive to replicate seen in both biological and non biologicaal matter

Um, please demonstrate self replication of non biological matter. It may change over time, but it doesn't replicate itself.


is what leads to this adaptation to the suns rays, not random mutation as you call it... there's no such thing... its a pseudo-scientific word parading as science. the reality of change in the universe is adaptation through and through.

Prove anything you just said. Sorry but genetic mutations are slam dunk proven in science right now. We may not know every single cause but if you actually look at genetics and study the type of mutations and what is meant by them, you'll better understand it.



"""In abiogenesis, non-biological evolutionary principles do apply. Namely self replication, and adapting to the environment. Therefore, DDAO is very much bout evolution, even if it doesn't apply to the strict definitions of evolution in modern synthesis.


Now if only you could prove that non biological matter can self replicate or "adapt" to an environment, you'd have a point. The concepts you invoke to make this claim are not the same concepts in biological evolution.



There is no non-biological evolutionary principles when referencing modern synthesis. If you are not talking about genetic mutations sorted by natural selection, you aren't talking about modern synthesis, you are simply talking about the layman's definition of the word "evolution" which can also mean simply change over time and can apply to almost anything.It isn't the same as biological evolution and cannot be compared. Abiogenesis has absolutely zero to do with modern synthesis, and none of its principles apply to abiogenesis. It is only your misunderstanding of it that leads you to believe this.




Well, now youre just turning into a very bad liar which is below par. I know, and can name two principles that apply to both modern synthesis & abiogenesis, adaptation, and replication


Well, considering I already debunked replication, all you have is adaptation, and even that doesn't mean the same thing as it does in evolution. You are taking 2 extremely generalizing principles of modern synthesis and very loosely applying them to abiogenesis when 1. Self replication is NOT part of abiogenesis and 2. Adaptation is completely different in either one. Sorry, but your attempt to change evolution into your straw man definitions is not working. Claiming that abiogenesis is part of evolution is one of the most common misunderstandings.


edit on 16-12-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 02:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Barcs
It's not that big of a deal and there's no real need to refer to neo-darwinism as a derogatory or insulting term. It means nothing other than to identify someone who adheres to the modern synthesis and its perspective of evolution. Which you seemingly do, judging by your writings on the subject. Im not at all interested in the creationist debate since it has no place in an evolutionary discussion. Which I know we can agree on at least that.

Find me a single evolutionary biologist that refers to himself as a neo-darwinist. You don't "adhere" to scientific theories as if they are dogma. Sorry, it just doesn't work that way. If you adhere to gravity are you a Newtonist? If you adhere to atomic theory are you an Einsteinist? Unbelievable all those Neo-Edisonists that use electricity in their homes. Sorry, neo-darwinist is never used in science and neither is darwinism.



Well maybe to you I guess. But not everyone who disagrees with the "darwinian" view, as subsumed by the MS, is a creationist thinker. You would be severely misguided to think that.

The vast majority of them do. You don't hear scientists calling themselves Darwinists. It is a label given to them by others that do not understand the theory. End of story.



There is nothing metaphorical about better adapted organisms being more likely to survive a given environment. You are getting hung up on the terminology, not the actual meaning.



There is nothing explanatory about it either. It's the same as saying that generally a faster runner will have a better chance at crossing the finish line first, thus winning the race according to the law of winning races. Where's the explanatory power in that?


You might want to read about natural selection beyond one line, as you clearly don't seem to understand it. There is way more involved than simply the faster creature winning because he's faster, although it's true. A faster runner will be favored to win a footrace with a slower runner. No metaphors needed. Do you deny this very obvious principle? You don't need a magical selecting force. It's obvious. 2 species competing over the same food source is natural selection. The best adapted creature for that environment will be favored to get the food source. The other species will have to find a new food source or die out. That isn't explanatory?

What about sexual selection? Male peacocks have extremely feathery beautiful tails because females are attracted to that. Therefor the males with the prettiest feathers pass down more genes. That is a perfectly valid and legitimate explanation as to why male peacocks have such big feathery tails. I could go on for hours listing more examples that offer a valid explanations for other traits, but hopefully you get the idea now.

Of course, natural selection offers explanations, you just have to look at it beyond the general concept.


And if you are talking about genetic mutations sorted by natural selection, while you may be talking about modern synthesis, you are not talking about real evolution.


Please list the differences between "real evolution" and modern synthesis. Stop using metaphors. I'm pretty sure you and I have discussed this exact topic on more than one occasion, and I have given you similar explanations for natural selection. You are acting as if those conversations never happened and that natural selection requires an intelligent selector, when all it means at its core is that creatures follow the environment. Competition is constant in nature and the environment changes over time. There's nothing magical, metaphorical, or difficult to understand about that.


edit on 16-12-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs


Um, please demonstrate self replication of non biological matter. It may change over time, but it doesn't replicate itself.

Proof that you didnt read the article, or other posts in this thread provinding evidence for that.



posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 03:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: funkadeliaaaa
a reply to: Barcs


Um, please demonstrate self replication of non biological matter. It may change over time, but it doesn't replicate itself.

Proof that you didnt read the article, or other posts in this thread provinding evidence for that.


Nice one liner. DDAO is a hypothesis, therefor it's not proven. Good to know that you ignored the majority of my response for that. That's generally how it works when somebody gets debunked. Points are ignored rather than addressed.


Self-replication is any behavior of a dynamical system that yields construction of an identical copy of itself.


Please give me a single example of any non biological inorganic matter creating an identical copy of itself, other than computer software that is programmed by us to do so. Good luck.


edit on 16-12-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs



Scientists have already observed self-replication in nonliving systems. According to new research led by Philip Marcus of the University of California, Berkeley, and reported in Physical Review Letters in August, vortices in turbulent fluids spontaneously replicate themselves by drawing energy from shear in the surrounding fluid. And in a paper in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Michael Brenner, a professor of applied mathematics and physics at Harvard, and his collaborators present theoretical models and simulations of microstructures that self-replicate. These clusters of specially coated microspheres dissipate energy by roping nearby spheres into forming identical clusters. “This connects very much to what Jeremy is saying,” Brenner said.





Brenner said he hopes to connect England’s theory to his own microsphere constructions and determine whether the theory correctly predicts which self-replication and self-assembly processes can occur — “a fundamental question in science,” he said.





posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 03:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

You sir are a fraud. I may have ignored some points in your reply, but you ignored the majority of the article the thread is based on!



posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 04:07 PM
link   
LMAO. This required a second response from you just to insult me? Grow up.

How are you going to call me a fraud when it has been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that you understand virtually nothing about evolution, abiogenesis, natural selection, and even this hypothesis that you hold in such high regard, yet you constantly make claims about evolution that are invalid. You have ignored the MAJORITY of my points in this thread, and this is the first statement you have made that you have actually backed up. Congratulations. 1 point for you, which only puts you down 20-1 now.

I could just ignore your point as you have done with dozens of mine that have proven you wrong, but I have no problem admitting when I am wrong. You on the other hand have a major ego problem and obviously just want evolution to be wrong which is why you embraced and championed this hypothesis as fact despite being unable to explain it yourself.


Three-Dimensional Vortices Generated by Self-Replication in Stably Stratified Rotating Shear Flows


I'm going to do some more research into this paper and get back to you. In the meantime can you explain that title in layman's terms? What exactly self replicated and what exactly are they studying? The title is confusing.

And just an FYI, that still does not prove that abiogenesis is part of evolution or that it uses evolutionary principles. Self replication is not part of abiogenesis. Bottom line. Genetic replication is not even close to the same thing as that paper describes. It seems to be more about spontaneous generation, but I'll let you break it down for me since you are such an expert on the subject lol.
edit on 16-12-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 04:12 PM
link   
Sorry double post. Can't remove the italics from the post above either despite removing all BBC code and italic references.
edit on 16-12-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 04:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

A previously unknown instability creates space-filling lattices of 3D vortices in linearly stable, rotating, stratified shear flows. The instability starts from an easily excited critical layer. The layer intensifies by drawing energy from the background shear and rolls up into vortices that excite new critical layers and vortices. The vortices self-similarly replicate to create lattices of turbulent vortices. The vortices persist for all time. This self-replication occurs in stratified Couette flows and in the dead zones of protoplanetary disks where it can destabilize Keplerian flows.
journals.aps.org...

One of the hallmarks of living systems is self-replication. Mimicking nature’s ability to self-replicate would not only give more insight into biological mechanisms of self-replication but also could potentially revolutionize material science and nanotechnology. Over the past 60 y, much research, both theoretical and experimental, has been focused on understanding and realizing self-replicating systems. However, artificial systems that efficiently self-replicate remained elusive. In this paper, we construct schemes for self-replication of small clusters of isotropic particles. By manipulating the energy landscape of the process, we show how exponential replication can be achieved. As a proof of principle, we show exponential self-replication of an octahedral cluster using finite-temperature computer simulations.
m.pnas.org...



posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 07:45 PM
link   
As I meant to reply to some of this Insanity yesterday but got sidetracked sorting photos of Tulum...



originally posted by: funkadeliaaaa
I understand evolution perfectly well... It is you who has misconceptions and they stem from your inability to comprehend what DDAO is.

Allow me to correct you on something you said:

Modern synthesis is about genetic mutations and natural selection causing the DIVERSITY of life on earth

Actually modern syntehsis is about genetic ADAPTATION and natural selection causing the increased chances of SURVIVAL (as well as the diversity) of life on this planet.


Your first error is in the insistence of the superiority of an unproven, untested hypothesis. While England's data may be solid, his interptetations of said data are still questionable and have yet to be reproduced by anyone else. That work certainly will be attempted by others as early as this summer but as of now, it is unproven. To demand that people bow down to the superiority of an unproven, if novel idea, over tested and repeated, proven data verifying natural selection is arrogance unparalleled outside of a Jesus freak on this board. I'm not saying you're coming from a brainwashed Christian background, just that your arrogance pales even the most rabid of their usual banter.

Your second error is in your correction and insistence the MES is Indeed based on, in your own words, "genetic ADAPTATION and natural selection causing the increased chances of SURVIVAL (as well as the diversity) of life on this planet. "

I'm sorry, but you clearly don't truly understand MES to the extent you have convinced yourself. You can not have a 'genetic ADAPTATION' without the genes first mutating to adapt the host organism. Much in the way HNS had an adapted physiology to a colder, European environment during high glaciation and colder temps such as shorter stature, heavier muscle etc. we know this to be true because we have mapped their entire genome and can trace what genes changed and when they did so as well as when we shared a common ancestor with them. Its not even a matter of discussion and debate at this point. Its fact.


It is also impossible to have a genetic transformation without replication.

Nobody has insinuated that was the case. But its a mutation that comes with the replication process, it seems as if you're attempting to use semantics to distance yourself from the reality of the process.


In abiogenesis, non-biological evolutionary principles do apply. Namely self replication, and adapting to the environment.


Please explain how so then. Abiogenesis, from the Greek roots is quite simply about the point of origin of biological processes. Its not about replication nor adaptation. Its only about the origin of biochemical processes. The adaptation aspect is where evolution comes into play. Abiogenesis- chemical process. Evo,union- biological process. Two seperate things and areas of study.



Therefore, DDAO is very much bout evolution, even if it doesn't apply to the strict definitions of evolution in modern synthesis. Essentially Abiogenesis, and the fundamental PROCESSES in the modern synthesis model, are according to the DDAO driven by the same underlying universal principle of mechanics, the second law of thermodynamic radiation.


Not according to the paper I read last night and today. England would like to conflate the two aspects into a unified theorem but more so because that's what physicists like to do than because its a truism. He's pretty clear that it is not a replacement of MES so I'm not so sure why you're trying to make that the case.



posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 08:40 PM
link   
a reply to: funkadeliaaaa


but, survival i dont think is what drives the adaptation still.

Adaptation is not a good word to use, precisely because it is anthropomorphic. Organisms don't adapt; phenotypes are sculpted by natural forces just as a rock is sculpted by them.

Yes, selectively fit (that's a technical term) organisms are 'adapted' to their environment, in the sense that they are capable of surviving and reproducing within that environment. But this is the result of selection, not something the organism did for itself.



posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 08:54 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar


Instead all you get is the same tripe repeated over and over with no references, citations or even actual rebuttals for the most part. All I've seen over and over is an attack. The premise or the poster but not an ounce of science or even a counter hypothesis. Its like looking at the same sky as everyone else and insisting its mauve.

That is the reason why I no longer engage with this poster. But I can sum up his argument for you easily enough:
  1. A selection process involves a selector. This is implicit in the word itself.

  2. However, natural processes occur naturally, without the intervention of any selecting entity.

  3. Therefore what is happening is not selection.

  4. Ergo natural selection doesn't exist.

How then to account for specific variation? He will never tell us. But he doesn't need to, does he?

'Just-so stories' indeed.


edit on 16/12/14 by Astyanax because: of a typo.



posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 10:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

So you are saying during reproduction, the genetic resequencing that takes place results in a organism better adapted to the environment in which the reproduction process takes place. And it's not the organism itself that produces a better adapted offspring (apart from during the act of reproduction), its purely as simple as something called natural selection working to keeping a species well adapted and on its toes (so to speak), and not anything additional outside of that small insight?

What I mean is, during natural selection, you believe that absolutely nothing else is going on except selection..... Hahahahah how anthropomorphous can we get?
A lot is going on BEYOND the drive of natural selection, that directly influences the outcome of that selection I think. We just see it from different points of view
Imagine if you will a ball park. A game is going on inside the ball park, let's say we dont know what it is, it could be baseball, it could be cricket, but lets also say, that during the game, it starts raining. Now the object of the game is to hit the ball as far as possible and score runs around the field. As many as possible before the opposing team brings the ball back to their base. You know the rules. And we know the rest, right? The rain comes down, the filed, the players, the ball, the bat, they all get wet. The game is the same game, but with a different set variables. The field is now wet. Everything is wet. The player keep playing but they now have to adapt to a wetter playingfield, which involves a direct change in the internal dynamics of the game, even though the rules are not changed. Something external came into the game and changed the way the game was played, without changing the game itself. Do you get me? The point is, everything has a field of influence. No phenomena exists without other phenomena influencing its own existence continually.
edit on 16 12 14 by funkadeliaaaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 11:25 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar




You can not have a 'genetic ADAPTATION' without the genes first mutating 
You mean genetic resequencing, to prodocue an entirely new better adapted set of genes, amirite?
Well in that case adaptation is precisely as i said it was. Something that described every single change in the entire universe. Nothing in the universe is accidental or chance. Using words like mutation and chance implies the universe is imperfect. No, just because a mistake cannot be explained, by our current level of scientific understanding, it does not mean that no explanation exists outside of anthropomorphistic interpretation such calling something "random".



posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 11:37 PM
link   
a reply to: funkadeliaaaa

And likewise, just because you think it's a certain way or part of gods plan doesn't make it so. All data currently points to a combination of randomness and environmental influence. If you want to provide an alternate methodology you need to support it with the appropriate data. You can't just insist something could be a certain way and not support it. Science follows the data and the evidence. Support your thesis and make a case. An open mind is great but nothing if it can't support its hypothetical notions.



posted on Dec, 17 2014 @ 12:46 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar
Your logic is flawed. Scientific inquiry is the act of intelligently persuing an idea even if it contradicts an existing thesis with or without data to base the inquiry on. Without inquiry there is no discovery.


 All data currently points to a combination of randomness and environmental influence. 


You mean all the data we have. Using words like randomness and chance is against science. It does the very act of inquiry a disservice by falsely assuming no such data exists. Allow me to highlight a recent example i read.

WHAT CAUSES MUTATIONS?

Mutations can be

INDUCED - produced by mutagens (either intentionally or unintentionally)

SPONTANEOUS - arising apparently in the absence of known mutagens.

SPONTANEOUS MUTATIONS are obviously caused by something, but they are what could also be termed "natural" mutations, which occur at a relatively constant rate in natural situations due to naturally occuring mutagenesis.

INDUCED MUTATIONS can be caused by a variety of different mutagens, and many mutagens cause specific mutations at special DNA "hot spots."
These are useful in the laboratory.


The use of the word spontaneous to describe causality that cannot be specified from known parameters due to lack of data is I find counter-productive, and it something that happens all too often, and particularly in this field for some enigmatic reason. The so called sponatneous mutation is clearly classified as being caused by an unknown mutagen, but instead of labelling it as unknown, they call it by a name that is scientifically misleading. Another example was when I learned genetics in high school (I got an A in science btw), we were taught to refer to the unknown strands of the genome as "junk" DNA. I'm 22, so I don't know if the syllabus has changed since then, six years ago, but if it hasn't it should, because lo and behold that so called "junk" DNA might not be so useless after all. The reason why we called it junk DNA in the first place? We didn't understand what it was. Pitiful, and absurd!
edit on 17 12 14 by funkadeliaaaa because: (no reason given)

edit on 17 12 14 by funkadeliaaaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2014 @ 07:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: funkadeliaaaa
a reply to: peter vlar
Your logic is flawed. Scientific inquiry is the act of intelligently persuing an idea even if it contradicts an existing thesis with or without data to base the inquiry on. Without inquiry there is no discovery.

As cute as it probably sounded in your head when you were typing it, your statement suffers from some of the same detriments as I find in Dr. English's hypothesis (as well as the majority of religious based arguments). You can read the data or in this case the statement, just fine. It's how you interpret and process the information that is flawed. What you stated is a dumbed down version of what I originally wrote. In science, WE FOLLOW THE DATA OR EVIDENCE. it doesn't matter if we like it or if it agrees with current paradigms. It's quite simple actually. What it doesn't mean is that we as you imply, pursue any notion just because it's there. if you're onto something and can support it then present it.




You mean all the data we have. Using words like randomness and chance is against science. It does the very act of inquiry a disservice by falsely assuming no such data exists. Allow me to highlight a recent example i read.


ummm... yes...that's what the qualifier CURRENTLY means. And as much as I appreciate the remediation, my background is in Anthropology. I'm quite familiar with mutations and the variety of causes for them.



The use of the word spontaneous to describe causality that cannot be specified from known parameters due to lack of data is I find counter-productive, and it something that happens all too often, and particularly in this field for some enigmatic reason. The so called sponatneous mutation is clearly classified as being caused by an unknown mutagen, but instead of labelling it as unknown, they call it by a name that is scientifically misleading.


if its misleading to you, perhaps its because as a lay person, you don't quite grasp the subtleties of how people in associated fields interpret the syntax. Sort of like how far too many people use the "It's only a theory" line because they seem to think a theory is the equivalent of a hunch in an episode of Scooby Doo as opposed to how those who work in science use the word Theory. I.E. A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. There's no guess work involved, the key phrase here is repeatedly confirmed.


Another example was when I learned genetics in high school (I got an A in science btw),


well color me impressed! We've got a high school science all star on our hands. but then again, as you point out....that was 6 years ago. If you haven't continued that particular line of education, and yes I'm being an educational elitist and snob, I'm not overly concerned with what you did several years ago when I was studying Levantine cohabitation of HNS and AMH. See what I did there? none of that is pertinent to the conversation. why include it?


we were taught to refer to the unknown strands of the genome as "junk" DNA. I'm 22, so I don't know if the syllabus has changed since then, six years ago, but if it hasn't it should, because lo and behold that so called "junk" DNA might not be so useless after all. The reason why we called it junk DNA in the first place? We didn't understand what it was. Pitiful, and absurd!


Look, I'm really sorry you had a lousy biology teacher but you can not fault science as a while because your personal education sucked. It was never a reference to, as you say, "unknown" strands of DNA. It was a reference to what was known then and still is today, as primarily noncoding DNA. See, gene duplication can alleviate the constraint imposed by natural selection on changes to important gene regions by allowing one copy to maintain the original function as the other undergoes mutation. Rarely, these mutations will turn out to be beneficial, and a new gene may arise (“neofunctionalization”) While the term "junk DNA" goes back about 50 years, its attributed to Susumu Ohno from his 1972 paper 'So much “junk” DNA in our genome'

In: Smith HH, editor. Evolution of Genetic Systems. New York: Gordon and Breach. pp. 366–370.


So again, please don't fault myself, other Anthropologists, any geneticists or anyone working in Biological Sciences for your poor luck of having a lazy teacher who hadn't updated their monologue since '67 or your school district for utilizing anachronistic materials as a cost cutting measure. That is what is pitiful and absurd. Go back to school and enjoy the benefits of secondary education and you will soon see that there is a world of difference between what you think you know and what is.
edit on 17-12-2014 by peter vlar because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2014 @ 09:10 AM
link   
a reply to: funkadeliaaaa


So you are saying during reproduction, the genetic resequencing that takes place results in a organism better adapted to the environment in which the reproduction process takes place.

No. I am not saying anything remotely like that.


ts purely as simple as something called natural selection working to keeping a species well adapted and on its toes (so to speak), and not anything additional outside of that small insight?

No. Natural selection is not some conscious entity, some kind of spirit. It's just the effect of environmental factors that act on organisms, causing some forms to survive and reproduce while other closely similar forms perish.


What I mean is, during natural selection, you believe that absolutely nothing else is going on except selection..... Hahahahah how anthropomorphous can we get?

I'm not even going to read the rest of your post, because you've made it plain that you don't understand. There's no point in arguing any further. You need to learn more. A good place to start would be from scratch. Forget everything you think you know about evolution and natural selection. Start again.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join