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: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 07:01 PM
link   
a reply to: HooHaa

None of what you said is true.




posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 07:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: HooHaa
When I hear evolution biology I think along the lines of a pet psychic ..

Evolution is a theory period.. It cannot be simulated in a lab, they cannot make a self replicating single cell.. Hell they don't even know why a cell divides in the first place..The time they got close they created tar and other compounds that are toxic to life.. Scream, yell, cry, poop, fart and holler.. No matter how many people claim it.. It's not fact it's theory.. Math maticians can tell you the numbers don't work.. The number becomes so large that it's beyond absurd..

Today a cell splits and forms an exact copy of its self.. The DNA , the information is the same, you can develop traits but not new species.. The only way to do that is direct manipulation of the code.. Speaking of code, where did the information come from in the first place?

With today's advancements in the fields of science, it still boggles my mind the number of people that still cling to this idea that life just popped up out of thin air..



Yes, evolution is theory, but after all, what we know of gravitation is theory too. There is very strong evidence that the component processes of evolution all work as theorized. They can be, and have been, reproduced in labs.

Early attempts at abiogenesis created amino acids in amidst that tar. There have been some advancements since then. True, we haven't yet created life but then we have only been doing it for a short while. Nature has billions of years and vast volumes of raw materials in comparison to our efforts.

The probabilities are small that any of this could be possible, but the numbers of times of the 'roll of the dice', so to speak, turn those 'unlikely possibilities' into certainties.

There are issues with evolutionary theory. That is why different scientists have different and often opposing views (like the ones we are speaking about in this thread). Our knowledge is imperfect, too.

Information theory has ideas as to how complexity could be emergent.

I personally believe that the level of order and the fact that science can find sensible rules to explain things, indicates non-randomness - a creative intelligence. This fits with my personal belief in God, specifically the Christian God. By the same application of science, I can see the inherent beauty of aspects of His creation and understand God in ways that I would not have considered were I not immersed in scientific inquiry.



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 11:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: HooHaa
When I hear evolution biology I think along the lines of a pet psychic ..
Evolution is a theory period..


Let's start with some basic definitions here.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

Not to be confused with a layman's theory:

1. a. Systematically organized knowledge applicable in a relatively wide variety of circumstances, esp. a system of assumptions, accepted principles, and rules of procedure devised to analyze, predict, or otherwise explain the nature or behavior of a specified set of phenomena. b. Such knowledge or such a system distinguished from experiment or practice. 2. Abstract reasoning: speculation. 3. An assumption or guess based on limited knowledge or information: hypothesis.

Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is in fact a Scientific Theory that explains the actions of how evolutions(a fact) works.

No matter how obstinate and/or ignorant one wishes to remain, it doesn't change the simple fact that MES is very likely the most substantiated, researched, cited, and proven Theory in the history of science and is supported by evidence from multiple scientific disciplines, including paleontology, geology, genetics and developmental biology. There simply is no question about whether or not it is indeed a fact.

The only argument at hand is the minutiae in exactly HOW it works as the more research that is done, and the more knowledge gained, we see more doors opening and new directions in which to explore. None of that alters reality and stops evolution itself from being a fact so this ludicrous garbage recycled ad infinitum of "it's only a theory" is beyond annoying. And even more so when it comes from people who want to dismiss it with a wave of their hand but can not be bothered to actually attempt to understand exactly what it is they are dismissing.

Laziness? Willful ignorance? I don't know what the impetus behind it but it's intellectually dishonest no matter how you look at it.



It cannot be simulated in a lab,


Simulated? No... Witnessed for 10's of thousands of generations? Absolutely. To be more precise, 60,000 generations of E. Coli as of summer 2014(the experiment began in 1988). myxo.css.msu.edu...


they cannot make a self replicating single cell..


You can't be serious with this line of rhetoric can you? Synthetic cells with self replicating DNA are a fact

io9.com...


Hell they don't even know why a cell divides in the first place..


Again...are you actually serious? Or do you just not understand basic 10th grade biology? Please do a little research on meiosis and mitosis. It will greatly benefit you.


The time they got close they created tar and other compounds that are toxic to life..


Which time was that?


Scream, yell, cry, poop, fart and holler.. No matter how many people claim it.. It's not fact it's theory..


But it is a fact. The theory only explains how evolution works. Just like gravity is a fact and the theory tries to explain how gravity works.



Math maticians can tell you the numbers don't work.. The number becomes so large that it's beyond absurd..

Which mathematicians are those and can you show us their work and explain it please? The actual work, not just a summary where you quote some random figure of2.8x 10 to the 50th power or some silliness, the actual work showing how they arrived at their conclusions. Thanks.


Today a cell splits and forms an exact copy of its self.. The DNA , the information is the same, you can develop traits but not new species..


False. There are sorts of things that can occur that lead to rise of replication errors that can alter the genome during cell replication. Downs Syndrome anyone?


The only way to do that is direct manipulation of the code..


Oh? Why is that and what do you base this on? Does this mean that someone sneaks into the bedrooms of older women and fiddles around to give them children with Downs Syndrome just for fun?


Speaking of code, where did the information come from in the first place?

Are we talking about evolution or abiogenesis? Let's stick to the topic at hand shall we?

With today's advancements in the fields of science, it still boggles my mind the number of people that still cling to this idea that life just popped up out of thin air.


Likewise, with all of the information available at our fingertips on the internet, it still boggles my mind that people are so willfully ignorant as to think that the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis has anything to do with the origins of life i.e. Abiogenesis or Panspermia when it has nothing to do at all with the origins of life.



posted on Aug, 21 2015 @ 06:29 AM
link   
a reply to: PhotonEffect






The modern synthesis bridged the gap between the work of experimental geneticists and naturalists, and paleontologists. It states that:





1) All evolutionary phenomena can be explained in a way consistent with known genetic mechanisms and the observational evidence of naturalists.


I'm curious why HGT wouldn't be considered a genetic mechanism since it can occur by transduction, transformation or conjugation? I'm not a molecular biologist and have never done any bench work in the field but doesn't the word "mechanism" imply any type of induced change? Antibiotic resistance in bacteria is an acquired trait through gene swap or HGT. The gene is inheritable to the next generation so why wouldn't it be considered part of evolutionary synthesis? I'm just trying to determine the logic of excluding HGT from MES.

edit on 21-8-2015 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2015 @ 11:20 AM
link   
a reply to: PhotonEffect

I still think you are dead wrong in assuming that modern synthesis does not update itself to reflect new evidence and new studies. Science isn't dogma. It's constantly changing. Thinking you can define MES in 6 bullet points is way off base, IMO. You need entire books to explain everything. I have seen no reason whatsoever to justify your view of MES. Also you did not address the main point in my previous post:


1) All evolutionary phenomena can be explained in a way consistent with known genetic mechanisms and the observational evidence of naturalists.


"Please explain how HGT is inconsistent with known genetic mechanisms. The truth is, it IS a known genetic mechanism."

If HGT is consistent with known genetic mechanisms, then based on your bullet point, it is part of MES. If you are suggesting that it is NOT a known genetic mechanism, then you'd have to prove that the studies that demonstrate it are wrong. It's listed on the main wiki page, so I don't see why you think it's unrelated. If I went to the wiki page for Gravity and they talked about time dilation, should I assume that isn't part of the theory of gravity, unless it's part of some 6 bullet point summary?

Now back to epigenetics. If my understanding of it is faulty, then please show me. I have always been under the impression that epigenetics is about the genes being turned on or off from environmental pressures during an individual organism's lifetime. Let's start with that basic point. Is that wrong?

Can you demonstrate how epigenetics can lead to new species or new traits arising in a population? Did those traits that are turned on and off not arise from genetic mutations? Did the ability to manipulate genes on that level not arise from genetic mutation?


edit on 21-8-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2015 @ 11:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
Epigenetics expresses real traits. Under natural selection, those traits may have an advantage. Those unable to express those advantageous epigenetic traits are likely to be selected against (or the respective opposite cases for disadvantageous traits). What would preclude epigenetics from evolution?


To me, epigenetics is a separate process. Expressing existing genes, or turning existing genes on and off, doesn't create new traits and doesn't create new species. It only temporarily changes what is expressed. The species in question must go through the evolutionary changes PRIOR to epigenetics working. Don't get me wrong, I originally argued that it should be considered "part" of evolution, or a side process that happens alongside it, but the more I learn about it, the more I consider it separate. I could easily be wrong, I'm not an expert on it, I just haven't seen any reason why it should be part of it.
edit on 21-8-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2015 @ 12:02 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Star for that. Seriously.



posted on Aug, 21 2015 @ 12:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs


The species in question must go through the evolutionary changes PRIOR to epigenetics working.

I think Chr0naut's point is okay.

It would work like this: a complex of environmental causes triggers epigenetic processes that result in adaptive advantages to the organism, but do so at different rates, or to different degrees, among individuals in a population. In some individuals the epigenetic effect may not be expressed at all. Members of the population might then be considered as selectively fit to a greater or lesser degree based on how soon or how fully the relevant trait is expressed. This would select for individuals in which the trait is expressed more highly.

Conversely, resistance to deleterious epigenetic expressions caused by enviromental factors (the horrible example of thalidomide-related birth defects is the first that springs to mind, but they need not be as gross as this) could also be selected for in this way.

I ain't sayin' it's so, but I don't really see why it can't be.



posted on Aug, 21 2015 @ 02:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut
Epigenetics expresses real traits. Under natural selection, those traits may have an advantage. Those unable to express those advantageous epigenetic traits are likely to be selected against (or the respective opposite cases for disadvantageous traits). What would preclude epigenetics from evolution?


To me, epigenetics is a separate process. Expressing existing genes, or turning existing genes on and off, doesn't create new traits and doesn't create new species. It only temporarily changes what is expressed. The species in question must go through the evolutionary changes PRIOR to epigenetics working. Don't get me wrong, I originally argued that it should be considered "part" of evolution, or a side process that happens alongside it, but the more I learn about it, the more I consider it separate. I could easily be wrong, I'm not an expert on it, I just haven't seen any reason why it should be part of it.


I see your point, but I still believe that the inability to express an advantageous characteristic (because 'trait' is a loaded word), would be a possible selection pressure against the organism unable to express. The 'culling' would change the genetic balance of the population and therefore it would fit classic evolutionary models.

The temporary nature of the expression of an epigenetic characteristic is immaterial (IMHO) if it causes overall change in the genetic balance of the population.

Certainly, epigenetically enabled organisims are significantly more 'adaptive' than those without.

The concept also modifies the meaning of evolution because life/death/heritability mechanisms are reduced in importance in overall population genetic change.

It is the variety and complexity of paths towards genetic change that reveals chinks in the adequacy of older models to describe all biodiversity.

Perhaps we need a Post-Modern Evolutionary Synthesis?



edit on 21/8/2015 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2015 @ 03:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: chr0naut

Star for that. Seriously.


Oh no! Does this portend the end of the universe?

Asty & I in agreement!!!

Cheers



posted on Aug, 21 2015 @ 10:29 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut


The temporary nature of the expression of an epigenetic characteristic is immaterial (IMHO) if it causes overall change in the genetic balance of the population.

Agreed, but I should say 'results in', not causes. Admittedly a fine distinction, but the point here would be that the chain of causation is rather long and other factors are also involved in it.


Certainly, epigenetically enabled organisims are significantly more 'adaptive' than those without.

That isn't guaranteed. As I pointed out, epigenetic changes can be deleterious as well as beneficient. Also, all organisms are in fact 'epigenetically enabled' — starting right at the bottom, with bacteria.


The concept also modifies the meaning of evolution because life/death/heritability mechanisms are reduced in importance in overall population genetic change.

This is not true. Phenotypic variations of epigenetic origin also play into the same mechanism of differential natural selection just as other variations do; this is exactly the point you made earlier and which I agreed upon with you.

Epigenetics doesn't alter either the model or the mechanism of evolution by natural selection.



posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 10:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

Hello Phantom423,


originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: PhotonEffect
I'm curious why HGT wouldn't be considered a genetic mechanism since it can occur by transduction, transformation or conjugation? I'm not a molecular biologist and have never done any bench work in the field but doesn't the word "mechanism" imply any type of induced change? Antibiotic resistance in bacteria is an acquired trait through gene swap or HGT. The gene is inheritable to the next generation so why wouldn't it be considered part of evolutionary synthesis? I'm just trying to determine the logic of excluding HGT from MES.


Fair questions. But I don't think we can isolate just the one aspect of the MES, since all tenets should be taken in the context of all others. So for instance, Point 1 is further clarified and expanded on by the subsequent points.

For the record, I'm also arguing that HGT should be included within the actual framework of evolutionary theory (MES). The fact that we are aware of this mechanism doesn't mean the theory has been updated to accommodate it.

Researchers have comfortably verified that the majority of genetic transmission in prokaryotes happens laterally. They are also finding more and more instances of this happening between animals, plants, and fungi. However, the patterns of heritability by which the MES (the "text book" theory) is built upon and is firmly entrenched, are vertical in nature (parent to offspring by sexual or asexual transmission) – not lateral. From a phylogenetic standpoint, HGT challenges the notion established by the MES that morphological relationships between organisms adhere to a linear tree-like pattern of descent.

If the synthesis has been extended to include a lateral pattern of gene transfer, then I have yet to see it.

Check this out about SPINs, a type of TE. www.pnas.org...
Basically the same DNA sequences were found across several unrelated animals. Probably due to HGT. Really cool stuff.

What we're going to soon realize, I think, is that HGT plays a much more pervasive role in the shaping of eukaryotic genomes than we initially thought. The Theory of Evolution will have to be revised because, well, it is not presently structured to accommodate this type of mechanism.

edit on 23-8-2015 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 10:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs


originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: PhotonEffect

I still think you are dead wrong in assuming that modern synthesis does not update itself to reflect new evidence and new studies. Science isn't dogma. It's constantly changing.

Theories don't update themselves. This must be accomplished by the scientific community. A proposal for an updated theory must be presented, tested, verified, and accepted. In fact, proposals for an extended synthesis have been presented. Chr0naut mentioned the “post modern synthesis” proposed by Koonin. What do you suppose that means, and why would biologists be calling for such a thing?


originally posted by: Barcs
Also you did not address the main point in my previous post:

1) All evolutionary phenomena can be explained in a way consistent with known genetic mechanisms and the observational evidence of naturalists.

"Please explain how HGT is inconsistent with known genetic mechanisms. The truth is, it IS a known genetic mechanism."

Yes, it most certainly is a known mechanism, but for some reason you assume this to mean it's been integrated into the MES. I'm sorry, but I think you might be wrong here. As I mentioned above to Phantom23 - you can't take this one point in isolation (and out of context). The theory wasn't formulated around that one aspect, but of several, all of which relate to one another to form the current (and rather narrow) view of evolution.

Essentially, the entirety of the synthesis is based on traditional (Mendelian) vertical inheritance principles. Not horizontal ones.

But, you're right, science (via the scientific method) itself isn't necessarily dogmatic. It's the proponents of certain scientific (or anti-religious) views who are.


originally posted by: Barcs
If HGT is consistent with known genetic mechanisms, then based on your bullet point, it is part of MES. If you are suggesting that it is NOT a known genetic mechanism, then you'd have to prove that the studies that demonstrate it are wrong. It's listed on the main wiki page, so I don't see why you think it's unrelated.

Don't hold me to the bullet points. They're not mine. They're Huxley's.


originally posted by: Barcs
Now back to epigenetics. If my understanding of it is faulty, then please show me. I have always been under the impression that epigenetics is about the genes being turned on or off from environmental pressures during an individual organism's lifetime. Let's start with that basic point. Is that wrong?

No you're not wrong. Gene expression is simply what we see as the phenotype. The prevailing view is that phenotypes are a direct result of the underlying genotype, or changes in the DNA sequence. However epigenetic factors also influence the expression of phenotypes without a change to the actual DNA sequence. It does this via methylation or histone modification, amongst other mechanisms. These effects can be induced in a number of ways, including the environment. Where you're understanding becomes faulty is when you assert that it has no evolutionary implications.


originally posted by: Barcs
Can you demonstrate how epigenetics can lead to new species or new traits arising in a population?

Epigenetics and the Evolution of Darwin's Finches


Did those traits that are turned on and off not arise from genetic mutations?

No, by histone/chromatin modification or dna methylation, mostly.


Did the ability to manipulate genes on that level not arise from genetic mutation?

Nope. By epimutations.



posted on Aug, 24 2015 @ 01:19 PM
link   
a reply to: PhotonEffect

Thanks for the explanation. It makes sense that any mechanism which has been shown to play a role in evolution should be included in the framework.



posted on Aug, 24 2015 @ 09:47 PM
link   
a reply to: PhotonEffect


Essentially, the entirety of the synthesis is based on traditional (Mendelian) vertical inheritance principles. Not horizontal ones.

Citation?

What happens to genes after they are horizontally transferred? Are they somehow excluded from being heritable?

Are you claiming that evolutionary biologists are unaware of the role played by HGT in prokaryote evolution?



posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 10:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax


Citation?

Any definition of the MES should suffice.
dictionary.reference.com...
evolution.about.com... ( #2 and # 3)
www.encyclopedia.com...

Please point out any instances of lateral transfer in these definitions. Or feel free to find me a link to one, because for the life of me I can't find it. Thanks


What happens to genes after they are horizontally transferred? Are they somehow excluded from being heritable?

It depends on the organism, but in principle any horizontally transferred gene can either degenerate, be retained as is, or undergo adaptive evolution. The newly acquired gene sequence is then introduced into the recipient genome through recombination or by insertion. In eukaryotes the process is much more complex. Not all transfers result in a benefit to fitness of course.


Are you claiming that evolutionary biologists are unaware of the role played by HGT in prokaryote evolution?

No, I never claimed that, if you've been following along. HGT has been known for over 30 years. Of course they are aware of it, which is why it's so confounding to me that it hasn't been subsumed into the current framework of evolutionary theory (i.e the MES).

The issue is many think that since we know about it then it must be part of the theory. That's a misconception I'm afraid.

Long live Carl Woese

And another enlightening review of HGT
Evolutionary Implications of HGT

edit on 25-8-2015 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 01:44 AM
link   
a reply to: PhotonEffect


Any definition of the MES should suffice.

No, it doesn't. Please find a scientifically respectable source that says horizontal gene transfer is not part of the theory of evolution (or MES if you prefer).


It depends on the organism, but in principle...

So genes, whether horizontally or vertically transferred, are heritable. So much for your claim.


No, I never claimed that

Good.



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 05:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
No, it doesn't. Please find a scientifically respectable source that says horizontal gene transfer is not part of the theory of evolution (or MES if you prefer).

Oh, the encyclopedia is not good enough? Perhaps you could be the first to locate a scientifically respectable source that shows HGT is actually part of the MES. If you can, you'd be the first. Read my links.


So genes, whether horizontally or vertically transferred, are heritable. So much for your claim.

What claim?
Genes are not heritable. Traits are.



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 11:23 PM
link   
a reply to: PhotonEffect


Perhaps you could be the first to locate a scientifically respectable source that shows HGT is actually part of the MES. If you can, you'd be the first.

Sorry, you're the one claiming it isn't. The burden of proof is yours. Can't find a reliable source? I'm not surprised.


Genes are not heritable.

Well, well. And here you are posing as an expert on horizontal gene transfer, the new Darwinian synthesis and other evolution-related matters.

Ladies and gentlemen of ATS, I trust you're paying attention.



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Photon, I will eventually come back to this. There are still a few things about epigenetics that I am not seeing in relation to your points about modern synthesis, that I am still digging for answers for.

You mentioned that epimutations were responsible for us developing the ability to turn certain genes on and off in response to environmental pressure, but how can an ability emerge as a result of a sub process of that ability itself? That seems a little bit circular, almost like saying god created god or that evolution created life. Epimutations by definition do not effect base pairs of DNA at all, so how does this affect the ability and how does it affect the passing down of changes, which are required for evolution? If you don't want to respond to this yet, I understand, I still have some digging to do in regards to your other points, but I am currently trying to learn as much as I can about epigenetics so I can formulate a better response.

Thanks
edit on 27-8-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join