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.
originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
Darwinian evolution is based solely on natural selection and the addition of new morphological features over extended periods of time thru genetic mutations.
I don't think anyone can disagree that in order to get from single celled organism to any an animal is going to take the addition of new base pairs to the genome. Now from the research I have done there is no type of mutation that adds new genetic information into the genome. All mutations take the existing genome and sift it around. This means that a mutation always loses the information that it sifts.
The Human genome is 3 billion characters long. Lets equate that to a computer program that is 3 billion lines of code. If I give you that code and tell you that you can't type anything new all you can do is take whats there and move it around in anyway you like. You could never create a new piece of the program without destroying what was there. You could take one piece of the program and copy is somewhere else, but that would not be a new combination of base pairs either.
So the question is there a type of mutations, Substitution, insertion, duplication, ect.. that actually adds new genetic information into the genome? If not Darwinist got some splainin' to do
originally posted by: weirdguy
You can see here how many different species start of as squiggle things in the early embryo stage.
It seams that there would be a common ancestor to all of these creatures perhaps?
The exactness of Ernst Haeckel's drawings of embryos has caused much controversy among Intelligent Design proponents recently and Haeckel's intellectual opponents in the past. Although the early embryos of different species exhibit similarities, Haeckel apparently exaggerated these similarities in support of his Recapitulation theory, sometimes known as the Biogenetic Law or "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny". Furthermore, Haeckel even proposed theoretical life-forms to accommodate certain stages in embryogenesis. A recent review concluded that the "biogenetic law is supported by several recent studies - if applied to single characters only".
Critics in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Karl von Baer and Wilhelm His, did not believe that living embryos reproduce the evolutionary process and produced embryo drawings of their own which emphasized the differences in early embryological development. Late 20th and early 21st century critics Jonathan Wells and Stephen Jay Gould have objected to the continued use of Haeckel’s embryo drawings in textbooks.
On the other hand, Michael K. Richardson, Professor of Evolutionary Developmental Zoology, Leiden University, while recognizing that some criticisms of the drawings are legitimate (indeed, it was he and his co-workers who began the modern criticisms in 1998), has supported the drawings as teaching aids, and has said that "on a fundamental level, Haeckel was correct"
originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Do you have absolutely ANYTHING in your repertoire than an appeal to authority fallacy???
I'm sorry but your gods (scientists) are not the be all end all of knowledge, most of them are wrong as has been meted out throughout history..
The first step in acquiring real knowledge is acknowledging this fact, the modern paradigms are most certainly wrong. This is even more true now, (not less as likes to be portrayed) because of specialization within fields. No one wants to question anyone outside of their specialty, so instead they fudge (throw out outlier data) any numbers that don't fit establishment guidelines.
Multicellularity could have been achieved numerous times based on the premise that selection acts on phenotypes and how well certain combinations of traits work. In other words, even if cells adhere together using different mechanisms, or via different developmental pathways, if the results are cooperative aggregations of cells that function well and thus are able to survive better and, critically, produce more offspring than their unicellular counterparts, then these various evolutionary pathways could all be possible.
"The critical point," emphasizes Niklas, "is that the evolution of multicellular organisms occurred multiple times and involved different developmental 'motifs,' such as the chemistry of the 'glues' that allow cells to stick together."
However, there are certain sets of requirements that must be met in order for multicellularity to evolve. These include that cells must adhere to, communicate with, and cooperate with each other, and that cells must specialize in their functions (i.e., that not all cells do exactly the same thing, otherwise they would just be a group of cells or a colony). In order to make these things happen, cells must not reject each other. In other words, they must be genetically compatible to some extent--analogous to how our human bodies reject foreign items that are not recognized by our cells. This first step is termed "alignment-of-fitness."
Interestingly, this "alignment-of-fitness" requires a "bottleneck" or unicellular stage when the organism consists of just one cell--a spore, zygote, or uninucleate asexual propagule. This is necessary so that all subsequent cells share similar genetic material.
The "export-of-fitness" stage is the second step necessary to the evolutionary process of multicellularity. This requires that cells work together for a common goal of reproducing more cohesive units, or individuals, like themselves and thereby work in a concerted way toward increasing their fitness. Once this is achieved, a distinct phenotype, or form, of organism exists.
How exactly steps such as cell-to-cell adhesion or communication were achieved in plants, animals, fungi, and algae differs among the major eukaryotic clades, yet an important aspect is that these multicellular organisms all went through a similar series of steps on their way to becoming multicellular, functional organisms.
In a March 2000 issue of Natural History, Stephen Jay Gould argued that Haeckel “exaggerated the similarities by idealizations and omissions.” As well, Gould argued that Haeckel’s drawings are simply inaccurate and falsified. On the other hand, one of those who criticized Haeckel's drawings, Michael Richardson, has argued that "Haeckel's much-criticized drawings are important as phylogenetic hypotheses, teaching aids, and evidence for evolution". But even Richardson admitted in Science Magazine in 1997 that his team's investigation of Haeckel's drawings were showing them to be "one of the most famous fakes in biology."
Some version of Haeckel’s drawings can be found in many modern biology textbooks in discussions of the history of embryology, with clarification that these are no longer considered valid. Source
originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: RealTruthSeeker
...cool beans. now you prove a supernatural force (specifically the one you are advocating here) is/was responsible for the genesis and evolution of life on planet earth.
originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: RealTruthSeeker
So when you read an article that clearly states that the issue is controversial and opinion is divided (although "fundamentally correct", as one academic puts it), you conclude "its been proven that theyre frauds!". .
Motivated reasoning at its finest.
None of thid has anything to do with the mountain of evidence in favour of evolution or the deafening lack of evidence for creationism, though.