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.

 

Interesting article, Dawkins shocked! His face cracks me up.

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 02:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: chr0naut

So what you actually meant to say then, is that you 'personally' don't respect him as a scientist, or 'personally' agree with the officially accepted theory of all life forms originating from a common ancestor?



I don't (personally, if you will) acknowledge that life arose only once and that there was a single common ancestor. It is (still) valid as a theory, but what we have learned of genetics appears to have disproven it.

That's the way science goes. You find out that earlier ideas don't cut it. You learn and move on.




posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 02:27 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Nothing in genetics suggests there wasn't a common ancestor. Given your embarrassing performance in previous threads, I'm surprised you're back trying to keep up the farce that you're not a willfully ignorant creationist with an agenda.



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 02:52 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

So I guess you just abandoned your last failed thread in order to create this one? What gives? Why should any of us contribute to this one? Are you going to abandon this one as well as soon as the going gets rough?

edit on 19-8-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 03:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: DupontDeux

Also, what the article neglects to mention is that the geneticist dos not just shoot down the idea of the branching out of life (which is the point of the tree analogy). He clarifies and say that it is more like bushes of life, and his point is that there is a lot of lateral gene transfer and that it should be factored in.

You all know of bacterial antibiotic resistance, right? Well that is primarily due to this "sideways" DNA transfer. That is is point; that is why he sees bushes as a better analogy.

But somehow the article in OP's link forget to include that part.


Yes, but lateral gene transfer is NOT actually part of the modern evolutionary synthesis.



Why do you say that it's not included? It's listed on the main wiki page of modern evolutionary synthesis and scientists have been talking about it for decades.

And so much for Dawkins not being a real scientist or doing actual science.

edit on 19-8-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 03:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

This has nothing to do with what I posted on the thread. I quit talking on that thread because I got to far behind. I am really busy in an immersive coding bootcamp don't really have the time to catch up.



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: sn0rch

Maybe read the article and you'll see it has some links to a video discussion.



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 03:38 PM
link   
a reply to: rossacus

I just thought the information here was interesting. There is no agenda just sharing the info.




He is just shocked that a geneticist is trying to go against years of established research.


Vague.



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 03:39 PM
link   
The same coding can have two meanings in two different organisms. Is it the similarity or the difference that you focus on?

To me it sounds like Ventner is playing waving around a Windows 95 share ware copy of DOOM saying "Pressing six doesn't bring up the Plasma Rifle, and it's too glitchy to play on Windows 98, therefore it is a totally separate creation from your later full version of the same software".



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 03:41 PM
link   
a reply to: DupontDeux





Dawkins says "[it] is the same 64-word dictionary wherever you look in the living kingdoms (with one or two exceptions too minor to undermine the generalization)."


Except its not...UGA in human cells is "defined" as a stop codon. UGA in mycoplasmas is "defined" as tryptophan. The cells don't read their dictionary the same



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 03:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: chr0naut

Nothing in genetics suggests there wasn't a common ancestor. Given your embarrassing performance in previous threads, I'm surprised you're back trying to keep up the farce that you're not a willfully ignorant creationist with an agenda.


The 17 different (at present count) 'decodings' of DNA suggests there wasn't a common ancestor. That is the point of the OP, the article it links and the science it is reporting.

I am not the one being willfully ignorant.

You have been presented with some evidence that refutes your faith (in a single evolutionary "tree of life") and denigrates the high priest of that faith.

The OP and my posts made no mention of anything remotely Creationist. It is a discussion of evolutionary and abiogenetic concepts. Your name calling attempt identifies that you either have no understanding of what is being discussed or that you have an unreasonable faith based agenda.



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 03:44 PM
link   
a reply to: DupontDeux

The statement about the Bush of Life seemed to be more of a humorous statement to me, and he didn't say that with any form of certainty .



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Glad someone else has some reading comprehension besides just me lol..



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 03:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: chr0naut

That's all really well said and all except for it being entirely wrong. See, Dawkins has actually been publishing in respected peer reviewed journals since the late 60's and while he may not publish as often is some of his peers because he does work outside the realm of science as well and isn't chained to a desk that requires him to publish in a regular schedule, he still publishes a considerable amount of research. The only caveat I would give is that his last peer reviewed paper was published in 2004. Despite that, his background in zoology and evolutionary biology combined with his amount of published work is pretty staggering.

en.m.wikipedia.org...


OK, I accede that I was being unacceptably harsh on Dawkins.

By Wilson's definition, there would be very few scientists.


edit on 19/8/2015 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 04:17 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

The article is a creationist propaganda website.

Let me repeat that:

A CREATIONIST PROPAGANDA WEBSITE.

No wonder you swallow it down wholesale.



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 04:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: DupontDeux

Also, what the article neglects to mention is that the geneticist dos not just shoot down the idea of the branching out of life (which is the point of the tree analogy). He clarifies and say that it is more like bushes of life, and his point is that there is a lot of lateral gene transfer and that it should be factored in.

You all know of bacterial antibiotic resistance, right? Well that is primarily due to this "sideways" DNA transfer. That is is point; that is why he sees bushes as a better analogy.

But somehow the article in OP's link forget to include that part.


Yes, but lateral gene transfer is NOT actually part of the modern evolutionary synthesis.



Why do you say that it's not included? It's listed on the main wiki page of modern evolutionary synthesis and scientists have been talking about it for decades.

And so much for Dawkins not being a real scientist or doing actual science.


MES was formulated in 1942 by Julian Huxley in his book "Evolution: The Modern Synthesis".

Lateral (or Horizontal) gene transfer, was not considered until nearly 10 years later and is NOT part of that definition.

MES also included genetic drift, which is now being down-played as it doesn't hold up so well under our current knowledge.

I (personally) think that HGT is "A New Paradigm for Biology" (quoting molecular biologist Peter Gogarten) and cuts right across all our ideas of how biodiversity arises. It is a game changer.



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 04:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: chr0naut

The article is a creationist propaganda website.

Let me repeat that:

A CREATIONIST PROPAGANDA WEBSITE.

No wonder you swallow it down wholesale.


Intelligent Design, not Creationist.

That is why they are discussing opposing evolutionary/abiogenetic ideas as science and referring to actual science in the debate.

I would propose that they are portraying a particular evolutionary paradigm as faith based and unreasoned, by contrasting it with known scientific data (Which is fair enough, considering that is what some have done to those with belief in Intelligent Design. Turnabout is fair play & etc.), no amount of name calling will change that.


edit on 19/8/2015 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 04:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: DupontDeux

Also, what the article neglects to mention is that the geneticist dos not just shoot down the idea of the branching out of life (which is the point of the tree analogy). He clarifies and say that it is more like bushes of life, and his point is that there is a lot of lateral gene transfer and that it should be factored in.

You all know of bacterial antibiotic resistance, right? Well that is primarily due to this "sideways" DNA transfer. That is is point; that is why he sees bushes as a better analogy.

But somehow the article in OP's link forget to include that part.


Yes, but lateral gene transfer is NOT actually part of the modern evolutionary synthesis.



Why do you say that it's not included? It's listed on the main wiki page of modern evolutionary synthesis and scientists have been talking about it for decades.

And so much for Dawkins not being a real scientist or doing actual science.


MES was formulated in 1942 by Julian Huxley in his book "Evolution: The Modern Synthesis".

Lateral (or Horizontal) gene transfer, was not considered until nearly 10 years later and is NOT part of that definition.

MES also included genetic drift, which is now being down-played as it doesn't hold up so well under our current knowledge.

I (personally) think that HGT is "A New Paradigm for Biology" (quoting molecular biologist Peter Gogarten) and cuts right across all our ideas of how biodiversity arises. It is a game changer.



I've got to say that stating that HGT or LGT is not an accepted mechanism based on some rather stringent definitions flouted about on the Internet is little more than a game of Semantics. The fact of the matter is that it's a well researched aspect of evolutionary biology and more so each coming year. I don't know of any evolutionary biologists who would agree that it isn't an important aspect to be studied or that it couldn't have much wider implications in evolutionary studied in the future.

With that said, it's clearly a big aspect of genetic transfer in eukaryotes, bacterium and single felled organisms etc... and in fact may prove to be the PRIMARY method of genetic transfer in those organisms. That however does not, at this point in time, appear to play a big role if any, in larger, multicellular organisms. Could that change in the future as more research is done? Absolutely.

It COULD be the game changer you think it is. Based on what is currently known though, it's not there yet and the data certainly doesn't bare out the weight with which you seem to apply to HGT/LGT. That's not to say it isn't worth keeping an eye on and seeing where the research goes. I'm not one to throw the baby out with the bath water. Just saying that ascribing a bigger role for a process that may or may not apply to all forms of life is not good science and comes off as cherry picking data in an effort to call foul on a century and a half of knowledge.

And while I'm at it, I do appreciate your reply to my comments on Daekins status as an actual scientist!



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 04:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: DupontDeux

Also, what the article neglects to mention is that the geneticist dos not just shoot down the idea of the branching out of life (which is the point of the tree analogy). He clarifies and say that it is more like bushes of life, and his point is that there is a lot of lateral gene transfer and that it should be factored in.

You all know of bacterial antibiotic resistance, right? Well that is primarily due to this "sideways" DNA transfer. That is is point; that is why he sees bushes as a better analogy.

But somehow the article in OP's link forget to include that part.


Yes, but lateral gene transfer is NOT actually part of the modern evolutionary synthesis.



Why do you say that it's not included? It's listed on the main wiki page of modern evolutionary synthesis and scientists have been talking about it for decades.

And so much for Dawkins not being a real scientist or doing actual science.


MES was formulated in 1942 by Julian Huxley in his book "Evolution: The Modern Synthesis".

Lateral (or Horizontal) gene transfer, was not considered until nearly 10 years later and is NOT part of that definition.

MES also included genetic drift, which is now being down-played as it doesn't hold up so well under our current knowledge.

I (personally) think that HGT is "A New Paradigm for Biology" (quoting molecular biologist Peter Gogarten) and cuts right across all our ideas of how biodiversity arises. It is a game changer.



I've got to say that stating that HGT or LGT is not an accepted mechanism based on some rather stringent definitions flouted about on the Internet is little more than a game of Semantics. The fact of the matter is that it's a well researched aspect of evolutionary biology and more so each coming year. I don't know of any evolutionary biologists who would agree that it isn't an important aspect to be studied or that it couldn't have much wider implications in evolutionary studied in the future.

With that said, it's clearly a big aspect of genetic transfer in eukaryotes, bacterium and single felled organisms etc... and in fact may prove to be the PRIMARY method of genetic transfer in those organisms. That however does not, at this point in time, appear to play a big role if any, in larger, multicellular organisms. Could that change in the future as more research is done? Absolutely.

It COULD be the game changer you think it is. Based on what is currently known though, it's not there yet and the data certainly doesn't bare out the weight with which you seem to apply to HGT/LGT. That's not to say it isn't worth keeping an eye on and seeing where the research goes. I'm not one to throw the baby out with the bath water. Just saying that ascribing a bigger role for a process that may or may not apply to all forms of life is not good science and comes off as cherry picking data in an effort to call foul on a century and a half of knowledge.

And while I'm at it, I do appreciate your reply to my comments on Daekins status as an actual scientist!


The thing is, I (and Venter) could be wrong and Dawkins right. We don't really know if the stop codings could simply be dropped from or added to the definition arbitrarily.

My guess is that Venter, with his work on artificial organisims, access to the best equipment and staff, is in a far better position to find out.

And in regard to Dawkins, it wasn't very Christian of me. I apologize.



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 05:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

Intelligent Design, not Creationist.



Same/Same

I.D. is just creationism in a cheap lab coat.



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

This would be called the Genetic fallacy...



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join