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.

 

We may need to re-evaluate how we think about evolution!

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 10:54 AM
link   
A new study from the university of Cambridge suggests that microbe genes have slipped into human DNA. The horizontal gene transfer may be more common than previously thought of. Fascinating!


Source: www.cnn.com...




posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 10:57 AM
link   
Thought I was on twitter for a moment.

I read this yesterday.

Interesting.



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 10:58 AM
link   
a reply to: AllIsOne

Yes the microbiome. It's thought to play a significant role in how organisms evolve, even influencing their selections of mates. Take a look into the hologenome theory of evolution.

Here's some more reading that may interest you:
femsre.oxfordjournals.org...
blogs.discovermagazine.com...
link.springer.com...-1


Cool stuff indeed

edit on 15-3-2015 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: AllIsOne

As Muary Povich would say, we are the Virus !



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 11:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: AllIsOne
A new study from the university of Cambridge suggests that microbe genes have slipped into human DNA. The horizontal gene transfer may be more common than previously thought of. Fascinating!

Source: www.cnn.com...


Laughable. Horizontal gene transfer has been 'on the books' for decades.

There is a major push to sink evolution into everyone's mind. Maybe we ought to start asking why that is.

The day Evolution is 'proven' in a laboratory environment ... I'm all ears. Until that day, it's just another belief.



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 11:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Snarl
I'm all ears.


You've had evidence presented to you on many occasions. Every time, you just hand wave it away. Forgive me for being deeply skeptical of your intellectual honesty to be "all ears".



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 11:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: Snarl
I'm all ears.


You've had evidence presented to you on many occasions. Every time, you just hand wave it away. Forgive me for being deeply skeptical of your intellectual honesty to be "all ears".


Having spent four decades in the field ... a very short period of time mind you ... I'd have to say my skepticism has matured. You can call it a loss of scientific faith. LOL



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 11:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Snarl

Out of curiousity, what field?

What did you work on that turned you away from evolution?
edit on 15-3-2015 by PhotonEffect because: spelling



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 11:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Snarl

Our of curiousity, what field?

What did you work on that turned you away from evolution?


Microbiology.

I firmly believe in the evolutionary process. What I don't believe is that SCIENTIFIC proof exists.



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Snarl

Hmm. Scientific proof of what exactly? The LUCA perhaps?

Not looking to debate you, btw, just curious about how you think the evolutionary process works.

Thanks,
PE



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 11:47 AM
link   
a reply to: PhotonEffect

Well, thanks for not inviting debate. We'd make no progress, between the two of us, I'm sure.

My personal thoughts on evolution would relate to an environment susceptible to change. We're talking about a low impact which would end life as we know it. Significant alteration of atmospheric conditions, radiation levels, etc. Lifeforms favorable to genetic shift (most likely/though doubtful amphibians) or ocean dwellers (difficult to study in a lab) would adapt and 'evolve'.

No petri dish conceived could accomplish this. Arguments are moot. This is why you rarely see 'real' scientists involved in this debate. The ones who are, are paid to do it with tax dollars, or aren't very busy.



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 02:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: AllIsOne
A new study from the university of Cambridge suggests that microbe genes have slipped into human DNA. The horizontal gene transfer may be more common than previously thought of. Fascinating!


Source: www.cnn.com...


I have been suggesting, in a number of posts, that horizontal gene transfer is the major process behind observed genetic change and have been pointing out instances where major components of the processes of modern evolutionary theory are simply impossible or missing under specific observed change.

  1. Either there is no time for gradualism to operate (you know, the "over thousands/millions/billions of generations" stuff).
  2. or pro-evolutionists assume that genetic changes (like mutation) do not occur in individuals but are statistical issues in populations (when you point out that a 'speciating' change would make the mutant unable to breed).
  3. or there are often no observable "barriers" to divide one mutated population from an unchanged one (yet pro-evolutionists use that to try and explain changes leading to speciation in one species compared to its parent species).
  4. or that observed rates of change (in populations) do not agree with calculated mutation rates and in all cases are significantly faster (and which is inexplicable by calling upon natural selection).
  5. or that the mathematical probabilities are immaterial because somehow the "rules of evolution" apply even if they have ridiculously low probability, are non-functional or non-present.

It is obvious that something else is going on in biological diversity but some people are so immersed in their dogma that they cannot see the woods for the trees.



edit on 15/3/2015 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: AllIsOne

When we humans do any genetic engineering, we use natural processes that are actually quite simple.

The processes ALL occur in nature. We are just copying them to achieve a directed outcome.

The question is, why do people hang on to something that has not been observed (and cannot be observed on human time-frames) when a simple, observed and repeatable mechanism has been in front of them for nearly a decade.

... and it is a more valid explanation of biodiversity, especially in the cases that pro-evolutionists tout as 'proof' of their theory.


edit on 15/3/2015 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Snarl




I firmly believe in the evolutionary process. What I don't believe is that SCIENTIFIC proof exists.


I agree there is no such thing as scientific proof it works through falstification. I tend to look at evolution in terms of intelligence. It is intelligent unto itself. The biodivrsity around us are expresions of thought. Not from a man in the sky but from the earth and life itself.

thanks for info on genes op

sf

purp..



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 04:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: Snarl
I'm all ears.


You've had evidence presented to you on many occasions. Every time, you just hand wave it away. Forgive me for being deeply skeptical of your intellectual honesty to be "all ears".


Having spent four decades in the field ... a very short period of time mind you ... I'd have to say my skepticism has matured. You can call it a loss of scientific faith. LOL


I can relate!

I taught Research Methods in university. After doing that I lost my faith in 99% of all scientific research.

It is way too easy to twist "results" to get the desired outcome.

Also, peer review tends to mean very little. I also spent time working as an Editor for College Textbooks. Peer review often meant it was sent to a friend who "you rubber stamp mine and I'll rubber stamp yours"

Only when a "result" is repeated over and over, with similar results,
AND
scientists actually set out to disprove the theory
and come up with mildly conflicting data
do I believe there may be something there worth believing.

No theory should only have other researchers coming up with the exact same data.
Without may attempts at trying to disprove it aggressively
one should be highly skeptical of believing the "theory".

No matter what the theory is or how politically incorrect it is to attempt to disprove it.

Evolution is one of the theories that has been too widely accepted as truth
and any attempts at disproving it are called unscientific and too religious
and thrown out by evolutionists.
Because of the intense bias that says it must be accurate
and the final truth, that alone makes it suspect.

Regardless of if the "other side" might just help religionists in their view point.
All that proves is scientific bigotry and prejudice are alive and well.

Global warming is another suspect theory in my mind for very similar reasons.
When attempting to disprove it becomes so politically incorrect
as to end up in mocking those who do question it, the theory must be questioned.

Rubber stamping of "studies" is way too common in both Global Warming and Evolution.

Look into epigenetics, it just might help to explain some changes that take place.
Epigenetics explains how the genetic code is changed by the environment
and then gets passed on in heredity form.
Different from, yet similar to evolution.
You might want to explore that.
Epigenetics does seem to have a decent chance
of assisting with explaining the "great leap forward" theories.


That is my opinion.



edit on 5Sun, 15 Mar 2015 17:11:34 -0500pm31503pmk150 by grandmakdw because: addition format



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 05:11 PM
link   
From the OP article:



Humans may have as many as hundreds of so-called foreign genes they picked up from microbes.

"Surprisingly, far from being a rare occurrence, it appears that (horizontal gene transfer) has contributed to the evolution of many, perhaps all, animals and that the process is ongoing, meaning that we may need to re-evaluate how we think about evolution," Crisp said.


As noted, gene transfer is a fairly well understood process. Why again would this new research change our ideas about evolution?

Here's a link to the actual article on the research at Cambridge.

May I suggest that we utilize that reference rather than the book report version at CNN?

As far as the pontificating about supposed flaws in science ...

Honestly, I'll take half-hearted scientific research done for hire any day over the growing numbers of insipid folk trying to justify their own backward beliefs with meaningless, sweeping generalizations, fake statistics, and worse than anything else ... pretending that personal opinions are equivalent to actual established fact.

All of you who have had any real scientific training, earned your living through any scientific, technological or educational field, or who have benefited in your life from advances in medicine or technology brought about by that same science that you now "don't trust" should be very proud that you're very likely contributing in your own minuscule way to helping humanity (or at least the United States) slip into another ignorant period glorifying beliefs (particularly religious beliefs) over knowledge.

Rather than trying to discount the basis of scientific understanding and research methods, why aren't you working to help individuals become better critical thinkers? Eh? Instead, you just whine incessantly about your opinion about science and claim doubtful credentials in your baseless appeals to your own authority.

You should be so proud of yourselves, in my opinion.


edit on 17Sun, 15 Mar 2015 17:29:11 -050015p052015366 by Gryphon66 because: Citations noted



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 07:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
From the OP article:



Humans may have as many as hundreds of so-called foreign genes they picked up from microbes.

"Surprisingly, far from being a rare occurrence, it appears that (horizontal gene transfer) has contributed to the evolution of many, perhaps all, animals and that the process is ongoing, meaning that we may need to re-evaluate how we think about evolution," Crisp said.


As noted, gene transfer is a fairly well understood process. Why again would this new research change our ideas about evolution?

Here's a link to the actual article on the research at Cambridge.

May I suggest that we utilize that reference rather than the book report version at CNN?

As far as the pontificating about supposed flaws in science ...

Honestly, I'll take half-hearted scientific research done for hire any day over the growing numbers of insipid folk trying to justify their own backward beliefs with meaningless, sweeping generalizations, fake statistics, and worse than anything else ... pretending that personal opinions are equivalent to actual established fact.

All of you who have had any real scientific training, earned your living through any scientific, technological or educational field, or who have benefited in your life from advances in medicine or technology brought about by that same science that you now "don't trust" should be very proud that you're very likely contributing in your own minuscule way to helping humanity (or at least the United States) slip into another ignorant period glorifying beliefs (particularly religious beliefs) over knowledge.

Rather than trying to discount the basis of scientific understanding and research methods, why aren't you working to help individuals become better critical thinkers? Eh? Instead, you just whine incessantly about your opinion about science and claim doubtful credentials in your baseless appeals to your own authority.

You should be so proud of yourselves, in my opinion.



I believe that several contributors to this thread have spoken of their science based bona fides.

The issue, from the OP, is one of science. No-one else has mentioned anything to do with religion except for yourself.



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 07:27 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Several members referring to "science based bona fides" is a generally accepted form of an appeal to authority here.

Out of 243 words in my post, you want to focus on the word "religious" being used one time in one sentence.

I submit that for some reason, you want to ignore what I said in favor of a simplistic and incorrect attempt to invalidate my comment which focuses on BELIEF.

Belief and religion are not synonymous.

Next?



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 09:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: chr0naut

Several members referring to "science based bona fides" is a generally accepted form of an appeal to authority here.

Out of 243 words in my post, you want to focus on the word "religious" being used one time in one sentence.

I submit that for some reason, you want to ignore what I said in favor of a simplistic and incorrect attempt to invalidate my comment which focuses on BELIEF.

Belief and religion are not synonymous.

Next?


I suppose the fact that all the responders were human infers an appeal to anthropocentric authority, too.


The process of science is that new insights often contradict previously held beliefs. Accept it, because it happens.

Can you cite one actual instance of observed genetic change that cannot be better explained by a process of horizontal genetic transfer rather than vertical?

Do you think that an equally viable alternate theory is unlikely to "shake up" previous conventions?


edit on 15/3/2015 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 09:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: chr0naut

Several members referring to "science based bona fides" is a generally accepted form of an appeal to authority here.

Out of 243 words in my post, you want to focus on the word "religious" being used one time in one sentence.

I submit that for some reason, you want to ignore what I said in favor of a simplistic and incorrect attempt to invalidate my comment which focuses on BELIEF.

Belief and religion are not synonymous.

Next?


The process of science is that new insights often contradict previously held beliefs.

Can you cite one actual instance of observed genetic change that cannot be better explained by a process of horizontal genetic transfer rather than vertical?


Ummm ... Mutation through selective breeding?
. That might be a stretch as I'm not sure if by 'observed genetic change' you meant 'permanent'.

ETA: Permanent may be too subjective a term to use when discussing evolution as well. -Sigh
edit on 1532015 by Snarl because: ETA




top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join