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.
originally posted by: pheonix358
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb
No one is saying we have all of the answers.
But to use this as an excuse to push creation is just pure BS.
Science is still looking for answers.
So, how about you prove God did it all. All you have is belief and while it may be your cup of tea, it is not mine.
Science will continue to unravel these and many more mysteries. 100 years ago we had absolutely no idea that DNA, Genes and a whole lot of other goodies even existed.
We are getting there. In 2000 years, no one has been able to prove that God exists.
Really, God is all loving, he loves each and every one of us, ........ now ......... get ready for Armageddon!
No thanks.
P
originally posted by: bottleslingguy
this is a perfect example of what I mean by not having all the pieces of the puzzle. www.bbc.com...
a reply to: Barcs
Myth 1. Mutations provide the raw materials needed to create new species
here is a test that was conducted in the late 1930s. they where trying to prove that fact above and failed. Lonnig was one of the scientists who had spent 30 years studying mutations. they used a number of techniques in order to show the sped up evolution in they way of mutations accumulating. the result was that after 40 years of research almost all results where fails and the number of new mutations declined and the same one began to occur with no new types of mutations proving my point that you can only use the already there genetic genes etc.
this shows that mutations can not lead to evolution, there is only so many mutations that can become about. its like the codons that make amino acids in deoxyribonucleic acid, lots of different sequences but only so many proteins that can end up being made in the end. And no new proteins are ever made over time is there???
Myth 2. Natural selection led to the creation of new species.
In the 1970’s, a research group led by Peter R. and B. Rosemary Grant of Princeton University began studying these finches and discovered that after a year of drought on the islands, finches that had slightly bigger beaks survived more readily than those with smaller beaks. Since observing the size and shape of the beaks is one of the primary ways of determining the 13 species of finches, these findings were assumed to be significant. “The Grants have estimated,” continues the NAS brochure, “that if droughts occur about once every 10 years on the islands, a new species of finch might arise in only about 200 years.”24
However, the NAS brochure neglects to mention that in the years following the drought, finches with smaller beaks again dominated the population. The researchers found that as the climatic conditions on the island changed, finches with longer beaks were dominant one year, but later those with smaller beaks were dominant. They also noticed that some of the different “species” of finches were interbreeding and producing offspring that survived better than the parents. They concluded that if the interbreeding continued, it could result in the fusion of two “species” into just one.
i think i have answered that to a degree if you are still not convinced please just say so and i can go on.
originally posted by: bottleslingguy
I think you are the one who actually has to go back and reread something: I said 100,000+ years ago not 10,000. big difference and if you can't see the implications of that then you can go back to sleep.
a reply to: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: johnwick
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb
My main problem is that slow mutation of just say the eye, doesn't seem possible.
Because it would require it to be formed not just the eye, but the nerves and the processing centers of the brain in tandem.
Otherwise it gives no advantage and takes energy away from the body.
That is a hinderence, not an advantage.
And until such a time as it was functional it would only be a drain.
Not to mention a hole host of other issues I have with it.
But it our best guess ATM..... Silly humans, we believe some of the funniest things.
originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
Now from the research I have done there is no type of mutation that adds new genetic information into the genome.
originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Revolution9
I defined information I just didn't specifically state it.
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.
I am asking if there is a mutation type that adds new base pairs to the genome. Its not some vague definition. I mean Genetic Information is the Information in DNA which is base pairs. Its not really that hard. I am not saying there is not one out there, but I haven't found any research providing one. I am not asking for particular experiments. I am asking for a mutation type i.e. Substitution. Duplication. ect that doesn't just take the base pairs that exist and move them elsewhere.
I did not copy past
and was surprised you found my source.
I do not advertise the fact I use ifermation from groups so as not to sound unscientific.
I like they way you word things and how you give productive feed back. I will consider my fact and come up with more soon. You are an u argumentative and scientific person. Thank you for that