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.

 

Genetics, Evolution and the Creationist Conspiracy

page: 8
16
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 11:59 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Please explain to me which part of that proves special creation or falsifies evolution.

The abstract says that UNAMBIGUOUSLY beneficial mutations are extremely rare, in what way does this falsify evolutionary theory? Keep in mind that natural selection is the survival of those fit enough to pass on their genes, a mutation does not need to be unambiguously beneficial to be added to the genome, passed on to future generations or contribute in some way to evolution.

So what you have established here is

A) there is debate within the scientific community as to how common beneficial mutations are.

B) This paper says they are rare

What point, exactly, are you trying to make? That because one paper says such mutations are RARE that somehow evolution does not take place at all OR needs some kind of boost from an outside (presumably supernatural) source?




posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 04:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Titen-Sxull

My point is that there is not enough time in the bank for neo-darwinian mechanisms. Especially when we look at the pre-cambrian explosion.




This paper says they are rare


This paper explains why they are rare, and it doesn't just say rare it says virtually zero. It also ask a very important question at the end."How might genetic degeneration ever be averted, given the continuous accumulation of low impact deleterious mutations? "

I have not mentioned one thing about my religion so why do you insist on bringing it up? This is a conversation about Science. it has nothing to do with whether God exist but rather if evolution is all its cracked up to be.



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 09:33 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

"Virtually zero" is not zero. You guys frequently throw around terms like that thinking that it means zero. It doesn't.
edit on 7-9-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

There is a set time that evolution has to work. It doesn't have infinite time. The Earth is estimated to be about 4 billion years old. Life is considered to be about 3.8 billion years old and humans are considered to be between 200,000 and 450,000 years old. So evolution has a few billion years to get the job done. Thats statistically impossible, especially when no one can account for how genetic degeneration would be avoided. Given enough time your right it wouldn't matter that its chances were virtually zero, but it wasn't given enough time. It would need beyond trillions and trillions of years.

You see the issue most people have is they don't know enough about what is required for new morphological traits to be evolved, which is what macro-evolution is meant to explain. New protein folds are needed. New Gene Regulatory Networks are needed. The information needs to be in the genome for those things to function on.

Protein folding is a big issue for neo-darwinian mechanisms.

Excerpt:



• Protein folding. The proteins making
up every living organism are all
formed as sequences of a large number
of amino acids, strung out like beads on
a necklace. Once the beads are put in
the right sequence, the protein folds up
rapidly into a highly specific three-dimensional
structure that determines its
function in the organism. It has been estimated
that a supercomputer applying
plausible rules for protein folding would
need 10^127 years to find the final folded
form for even a very short sequence
consisting of just 100 amino acids
. In
fact, in 1993 Aviezri S. Fraenkel of the
University of Pennsylvania showed that
the mathematical formulation of the
protein-folding problem is computationally
“hard” in the same way that the
traveling-salesman problem is hard.
How does nature do it?


Source:www.cs.virginia.edu...

Now look at that time frame. Thats far to vast for the time given for neo-darwinian evolution. Then we get to the fossil record. They more complex these things get the more time thats needed and the time frames that are given simply aren't long enough. Neo-darwinism just isn't holding up to the science of our time bro. That doesn't mean evolution did not occur it just means you need to look at something other than neo-darwinist mechanisms.
edit on 7-9-2015 by ServantOfTheLamb because: typo



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 01:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Barcs
Thats statistically impossible


Show us your math, then.



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb






Thats statistically impossible, especially when no one can account for how genetic degeneration would be avoided. Given enough time your right it wouldn't matter that its chances were virtually zero, but it wasn't given enough time. It would need beyond trillions and trillions of years.


I'd like to see the calculations on that.




In natural science, impossibility assertions (like other assertions) come to be widely accepted as overwhelmingly probable rather than considered proven to the point of being unchallengeable. The basis for this strong acceptance is a combination of extensive evidence of something not occurring, combined with an underlying theory, very successful in making predictions, whose assumptions lead logically to the conclusion that something is impossible.

Two examples of widely accepted impossibilities in physics are perpetual motion machines, which violate the law of conservation of energy, and exceeding the speed of light, which violates the implications of special relativity. Another is the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics, which asserts the impossibility of simultaneously knowing both the position and the momentum of a particle.

While an impossibility assertion in science can never be absolutely proven, it could be refuted by the observation of a single counterexample. Such a counterexample would require that the assumptions underlying the theory that implied the impossibility be re-examined.


Read the last paragraph above - you need ONLY ONE observation counterexample for a theory to be re-examined. There are currently 156,000 research papers in recognized scientific journals which have analyzed topics in evolution inside out and upside down. That's slightly more than "1". Show me one that is "statistically impossible". You can't do it.

Your arguments are always based on the Creationist bs that has absolutely no foundation in mathematics, physics or chemistry - or statistics for that matter.

I want to see that calculation.

Thanks.


edit on 7-9-2015 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I'd also like to see the ROC (rate of change) algorithm that you Creationists use. It seems that you folks have calculated a rate of change with a lot of data. Where's the data??



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 02:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
Excerpt:



• Protein folding. The proteins making
up every living organism are all
formed as sequences of a large number
of amino acids, strung out like beads on
a necklace. Once the beads are put in
the right sequence, the protein folds up
rapidly into a highly specific three-dimensional
structure that determines its
function in the organism. It has been estimated
that a supercomputer applying
plausible rules for protein folding would
need 10^127 years to find the final folded
form for even a very short sequence
consisting of just 100 amino acids
. In
fact, in 1993 Aviezri S. Fraenkel of the
University of Pennsylvania showed that
the mathematical formulation of the
protein-folding problem is computationally
“hard” in the same way that the
traveling-salesman problem is hard.
How does nature do it?


Source:www.cs.virginia.edu...


You don't even understand your own sources. That article is NOT saying it's "statistically impossible" for the proteins to have folded in that way, it's saying that some problems do not lend themselves to brute force calculable solutions. Object recognition is another complex problem that is biologically easy but immensely difficult (and possibly near-impossible) to tackle arithmetically brute force..



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb



This paper explains why they are rare, and it doesn't just say rare it says virtually zero.


And it also acknowledges in the abstract that the scientific community is still debating this topic and searching for answers. Or are you arguing that this one paper represents a scientific consensus? Scientists haven't figured out how rare beneficial mutations are, not to mention the fact that mutations are not the only drivers of evolution.



My point is that there is not enough time in the bank for neo-darwinian mechanisms.


Creationists are the only people who don't think that MILLIONS of years isn't enough time for evolution to take place. As for the Cambrian explosion again we're talking about tens of millions of years here. Even if somehow it was discovered that beneficial mutations are too rare to account for the Cambrian Explosion where would that leave us? It wouldn't falsify evolution entirely because we still see the changes organisms have gone through for ourselves (my OP mentions corn, dogs, etc) it would merely mean there's a piece of the puzzle missing. Studies of ring species in the wild, and even some studies in the lab, have shown that speciation occurs, evolution is an observable fact. So even IF evidence is accrued that beneficial mutations are too rare to account for some evolutionary changes it doesn't disprove evolution.





How might genetic degeneration ever be averted, given the continuous accumulation of low impact deleterious mutations?


Given that they are talking about low impact mutations however there's no reason to think there is a way to avert genetic degeneration, at least degeneration of a sort that is, as mentioned, low impact. Human beings do possess plenty of junk DNA, chickens have the genes for producing teeth, we all carry the vestiges, deleterious, benign and beneficial, of all the fit survivors that came before us.

edit on 7-9-2015 by Titen-Sxull because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-9-2015 by Titen-Sxull because: added a video



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 04:31 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Supercomputer sets protein-folding record

Faster simulations follow protein movements for longer

Computing power



Anton was created by researchers at D.E. Shaw Research, an independent research institute in New York founded by David Shaw, formerly a professor at Columbia University in New York. Shaw abandoned academia in 1986 to work on Wall Street, eventually starting his own hedge fund. The fund was a success: in 2009, Shaw was number 123 on Forbes' list of the 400 richest Americans, with a net worth of US$2.5 billion.

Shaw returned to research in 2001, using his wealth to establish a research institute where he would be free to pursue his passions without relying on federal grants. He decided to tackle basic questions surrounding protein dynamics.

He named Anton after Antonie van Leeuwenhoek, the seventeenth-century 'father of microbiology' who was the first to use microscopes to study microbes. From chips to algorithms, the computer is designed to one end: modelling particle–particle interactions. Anton's simulations are based entirely on physical models of the forces among atoms in the protein and its surrounding water molecules. The computer divides time into tiny steps, each perhaps a femtosecond long, and determines how the atoms will move in each period by calculating the forces between all the pairs of atoms in the system.

Test run

To test Anton's ability to model protein dynamics, Shaw and his team selected two proteins that have been studied experimentally for a long time1. One is a protein fragment called a WW domain, and the other a small protein called basic pancreatic trypsin inhibitor.


The simulations revealed how the proteins changed as they folded, unfolded and folded again. "The agreement with experimental data is amazing," says Chandra Verma, a computational structural biologist at the Bioinformatics Institute of the Agency for Science, Technology and Research in Singapore.



www.nature.com...

BTW, John Casti was cited TWICE for plagiarism and had to withdraw research papers.

I think I may start another sticky thread entitled: HOW TO DO PROPER SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE SEARCH. There's a few around here who could use it.



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 04:34 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Here's a place to start - you can participate in the protein folding experiment at Stanford - similar to Seti@Home

folding.stanford.edu...



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 05:05 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 12:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Barcs

There is a set time that evolution has to work.

This simply isn't true. Evolution follows the environment. There is no set time.



So evolution has a few billion years to get the job done. Thats statistically impossible, especially when no one can account for how genetic degeneration would be avoided.


Completely wrong. Improbable is NOT impossible. Please try to understand the terminology you use instead of using shock value words to sucker people in. Statistically Impossible means ZERO chance. You are thinking of improbable.


Given enough time your right it wouldn't matter that its chances were virtually zero, but it wasn't given enough time. It would need beyond trillions and trillions of years.


You can prove this? Look, I've broken down the numbers before. You are looking for problems with evolution anywhere you can possibly find them and the second you see something that kind of agrees you embrace it and run with it, despite the MOUNTAINS of evidence for evolution. The mutation rate is high enough. It's been observed. You are blatantly misunderstanding the website you have read. Were protein folds an issue when new species formed in a lab? If we can observe evolutionary changes that lead to speciation in just around 50 years, what makes you think3 billion years isn't enough time to account for life on earth today? Oh let me guess, you are dividing evolution into macro and micro again, when they are the same mechanism accumulation of genetic mutations.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 11:45 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb




That doesn't mean evolution did not occur it just means you need to look at something other than neo-darwinist mechanisms.


Interesting, even when you say this your perspective is attacked, it is clear to me it MUST be their way and no other.
Why are their perspectives so egotistical ?
I appreciate your input.
edit on 8-9-2015 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 04:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

It's egotistical to believe that your unscientific opinions have equal weighting to the mountain of emperical evidence supporting evolution.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join