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.
You mean genetic resequencing, to prodocue an entirely new better adapted set of genes, amirite?
originally posted by: Astyanax
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.
You dont follow the evidence, you interpret the evidence, and follow what the theoretical model for an interpretation. If the theory is flawed somehow, the interpretation is also going to be flawed. Simply following evidence is not the only thing that occurs when a scientist looks at data, they also follow theoretical interpretations, and the data or evidence can either prove or disprove the interpretations, or neither. Persuing any notion because its there is precisely what many scientists DO do, and its what all fields of science should be doing! Its called branching out and it happens all the time in science.
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.
originally posted by: funkadeliaaaa
a reply to: Astyanax
Actually no it is re-sequencing, because the specific set of codons that define the gene are literally re-sequenced, resulting in a new gene or a mutated gene, but it can also be called a re-sequenced gene, because that's what it is. A mutated gene, is a formerly healthy strand of genetic code or gene sequence, becoming damaged by a "mutagen" and is recoded differently. In other words the gene sequence gets damaged, resulting in a new variation, a re-sequenced gene. You cant deny the science. It is what it is.
originally posted by: funkadeliaaaa
a reply to: peter vlar
What I have said repeatedly is that while his data may have some validity, his interpretations of it are what I call into question.
Can you be more specific?
Yes potentially, because I agree with the model. The behaviour of molecules that we are composed of behave very differently according to different temperatures. The state of matter in a system affected by entropy in our case the entropy from the energy of the sun, changes according to the distance it has from the heat of the sun. Our planet is able to sustain biological self sentience (consciousness) as a result the way molecules have been able to behave on this planet given its distance from the sun. Water is able to be kept on the surface of the planet for most of the year at a a relatively even temperature, without freezing or boiling due to proximity. Therefore life that has evolved on the planet has been a direct result of these temperatures so England model may still apply even up to the most complex life. If you look at our body, we are the perfect models for a system designed for entropy as we match the thermodynamic principles in the way our body is designed.
It doesn't appear to actually be the case though. What do you think? Do you believe that the math he proposes is an across the spectrum solution and if so why?