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.

 

Problems I have with evolution

page: 14
9
<< 11  12  13   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 23 2015 @ 11:13 PM
link   
... Continued from the previous page


originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Ghost147
Genetic engineering isn't necessarily preventing new mutations from occurring. It's an actual deliberate attempt to introduce new, beneficial traits into an organism.


I realize Genetic Engineering isn't about preventing new mutations from occurring, I was responding to the claim that you asked "When an organism alters it's own genetic material and that of other organisms - what is that? Hint: It's not abiogenesis."

You stated in an earlier post that we were in control of Evolution when we genetically modify ourselves. However, we are not in control of Evolution because we still reproduce with gene variation. So in my example that you quoted, I was stating the only way for us to control Evolution would be if we were to stop the addition of new genes from the natural process within reproduction.

Adding this or that gene isn't controlling Evolution because of the natural gene variation that still exists. That production of random genetic variation is what Evolution is. The adding another gene is simply a different action all together.


originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Ghost147
"Genetic augmentation" is not simply a prevention of new mutations as you keep stating. Not sure where you are getting that idea from.


Once again, you're misinterpreting what I am attempting to explain to you.


originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Ghost147
This is the crux of the matter, so pay attention very closely. Humans are organisms. Everything a human does is just as natural as any other organism. There is no difference. You need to be able to understand this. Just because we humans decided to create this delineation that anything we produce is "artificial" doesn't make it so in the grand scheme of things.


The thing is, we don't alter the biological makeup of other organisms naturally. The scientific procedure of adding and removing genetic codes is not natural to us. Sure, we created Science. Sure, we took a gene from this animal and spliced it into another. But we don't do that with as a means for survival. We don't do that from intrinsic biological features. We do this from external sources of nature. So no, it isn't natural.

A virus changes the genes of other organisms without any instruments. Without technology. Without having to build something that isn't organic in order to accomplish this feat. That is why when a virus changes the genes of another organism, it is a natural process. And when a Human changes the genes of another organism, it is an artificial process.


originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Ghost147
If we discovered a spider genetically engineering a fly's DNA, would this be considered artificial? No, we would see this as a natural occurrence.

When termites can construct these...
We say it's natural.

But when humans construct these...
We say it's artificial.

Why is that?


Hmmmm. Let's see. One does this by the means of it's own biological makeup. The other does it through external sources alone. That's why one is natural, the other is artificial.


originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Ghost147
Ghost147:"Again, you are reading my posts incorrectly."

Photon Effect: "Sure I am."


Do I really need to say it again? You're reading my posts incorrectly...

edit on 23/5/15 by Ghost147 because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 24 2015 @ 12:03 PM
link   
a reply to: PhotonEffect

The big issue with your posts is that you use the word intelligence but invoke it to mean multiple different things. There is nothing intelligent about a volcano suddenly erupting and causing a species to go extinct. Evolution is NOT intelligently driven, nor is it driven by behavior, it is environmentally driven. You seem to have trouble with this basic point. It's not about what a single creature does during its lifetime to survive. It's about long term changes to entire populations as a result of selection.

Your claim that plants have an intelligence is over the top. Yeah they react to the environment and have electrical networks that help, but they don't sit there and contemplate the ramifications of the volcano erupting and killing all life in the immediate area, nor do they have a means to stop it from happening. You see, nothing underlies natural selection, it simply follows the environment. Natural selection is a description for how traits become more frequent in a population, driven by the environment. It is absolutely not driven by intelligence or behavior. No, I'm not saying that intelligence doesn't play a role in survival. It does, but it doesn't drive the entire process. You are pretty much just saying that everything is intelligent and lumping it all under that one umbrella that controls everything in evolution. We all know it doesn't work like that, surely you understand that as well.


This is no way to deny evolution. Just to disagree with the prevailing view of how it happens.

Right. And in no way am I denying gravity, just the prevailing view of how objects fall. It is really guided by intelligence because any organism affected by gravity is intelligent so intelligence drives gravity.

Asking what ifs about how a species could completely control evolution, when it hasn't even happened yet, is just a giant red herring. Nobody cares what they would call a species controlling their own evolution. I'm sure it would have a name. I'd call it extremely smart. Asking that question NOW and expecting it to prove your point seems a little misguided to me because it hasn't happened.


edit on 24-5-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



new topics
 
9
<< 11  12  13   >>

log in

join