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.

 

I will answer every question about evolution you have

page: 9
24
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 08:39 PM
link   
Also, has anyone discussed the weasel program and the variety of computer simulations that accompany it? As far as I know, nearly everyone, including Richard Dawkins, has accepted that a random search to generate the letters of the alphabet, or a phrase, would not ever be possible. The closest data I have says that computer simulations have reached only the first 14 letters after 35,000,000,000 attempts, but I could be wrong on that.

What Dawkins suggested was that we limit it to a phrase...in this case " METHINKS*IT*IS*LIKE*A*WEASEL". However, the one problem I see is that every correct letter the computer simulation generates actually stays in place...how does that illustrate evolution in the slightest? The computer program is designed to know what is good and what is bad...or in this case, what the goal is...while mutation(the basis of evolution) has no such filter...

So...problems to address with the weasel program...
1)rate of mutation occurrences not accurate with what happens in nature
2)operates based on a pre-selected goal...not what happens in nature
3)operates based on a fixed length(28 characters) which again, is not what happens in nature



edit to add: I stand corrected...computer programs generally reach the entire alphabet(a measly 26 characters) after 8,300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 random queries...

A2D
edit on 30-11-2015 by Agree2Disagree because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-11-2015 by Agree2Disagree because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 09:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: Ghost147

In other words they are the same.


No, they are not the same. One is a product, the other is a process.

When a mutation occurs through successive generations, the process in which it took to become a mutation is Evolution. The mutation itself is an adaptation.


originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: Ghost147
I love you atheists as much as the theists. Both wasting time on something unprovable


Many, if not most of the people who accept Evolution as a valid theory ARE theists. Scientific matters are not an exclusive trait of Atheism.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 09:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147
Many, if not most of the people who accept Evolution as a valid theory ARE theists. Scientific matters are not an exclusive trait of Atheism.


True. In fact mathematics would lean towards a "construct"? Right word?



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 09:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: Ghost147
Many, if not most of the people who accept Evolution as a valid theory ARE theists. Scientific matters are not an exclusive trait of Atheism.


True. In fact mathematics would lean towards a "construct"? Right word?


I'm not quite sure Construct would be the correct word because 'Construct' usually implies it's not totally based off of empirical evidence. Mathematics are simply the study of quantity, structure, space, and change. Although it's definition is debated because we can make discoveries, but also imply aspects of it from our own minds.

Back to the topic though, does the first part of my comment (to which you quoted the second) explain the difference a bit more clearly?



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 09:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147
Back to the topic though, does the first part of my comment (to which you quoted the second) explain the difference a bit more clearly?


Not really. Well, maybe. Can deevolution be considered evolution as well? See the Great White. It had to get smaller to survive.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 09:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

When a mutation occurs through successive generations, the process in which it took to become a mutation is Evolution. The mutation itself is an adaptation.


mutations aren't adaptation in any sense...

an adaption is a trait with a current functional role in the life of an organism that is maintained and evolved by means of natural selection...
a mutation is a permanent change of the nucleotide sequence of the genome of an organism, virus, or extrachromosomal DNA or other genetic elements....

Turtles have adapted to dig in the sand with their flippers....because to say that their flippers were "designed" to dig in the sand would be crazy....it wasn't a mutation...it was an adaptation...they are different..

A2D



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 09:31 PM
link   

originally posted

Furthermore, Color doesn't necessarily need to arise because it's at all beneficial, in some cases it could be a byproduct of another mutation that coincidentally affects color. One reason some humans have darker skin coloration is because dark colors helps block UV rays.



U make the first statement then back it up with an example of color BEING beneficial?
Odd.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 09:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: Ghost147

When a mutation occurs through successive generations, the process in which it took to become a mutation is Evolution. The mutation itself is an adaptation.


mutations aren't adaptation in any sense...

an adaption is a trait with a current functional role in the life of an organism that is maintained and evolved by means of natural selection...


Yes, you are correct. I misspoke. The original comment I made on it explains what you've just confirmed. It is a result of evolution nonetheless.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 09:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147


Eilasvaleleyn: Creativity is a wonderful thing for survival... Faith, I would say, came from believing your fellow tribesmen when they told you that there was a tiger...


Ghost147: Art and religion seemed to have stemmed from the traits we previously mentioned, so in that sense, we never really 'evolved' art and religion in the first place; similar to saying that vehicles are also a product of many of the similar traits.

This is not good enough. Art and religion aren't things that appear in some human populations and not in others; they are human universals. Moreover they are not simple features but complex, purposeful traits.

All the characters of an organism are subject to natural selection. This includes complex behavioural traits, which take a large amount of energy to acquire and deploy. If they are not selected for, they will most assuredly be selected against. This is as true of extended phenotypic traits like art and religion as it is of simple ones like hair colour or tail length.

(It is obvious, surely, that the trait we call language was selected for. It is foolish to insist that art and religion were not similarly selected for.)

The correct answer to my question is, of course, 'we don't know.' There are lots of speculative explanations. Richard Dawkins has suggested that faith is the development of the tendency of children to obey their parents, but he, unlike those who take evolution as an article of faith, is well aware that the 'evolutionary by-product' theory isn't powerful enough to explain complex traits like art and religion. So he proposes, additionally, that they are parasitical memes that have evolved to be self-sustaining. It's a pretty weak argument, and as far as I can see, an unfalsifiable one. But then he doesn't present it as fact, merely as speculation.

There is no harm in admitting that there are some facts of biology (and psychology) that evolutionary theory cannot explain -- for now. But we must not forget, either, that facts which don't fit a theory are grounds, ultimately, for rejecting the theory. Biology needs to follow the example of physics, and devise more rigorous tests of the hypotheses it lives by.

And those who make a hobby of evolutionary biology would do well to be a more careful in distinguishing between biological fact and evolutionary speculation.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 09:43 PM
link   
It is a broad concept I am trying to express.
I am using random specific examples to illustrate the part of your beliefs I just cannot swallow.
So lets put it a different way.
Felines and retractable claws.
I assume they have special skin that keeps from ripping and bleeding when the claws slide in and out.

If retractable claw muscular system mutation developed before stretchy skin it would be a disadvantage due to making your own paws bleed is bad. Being a disadvantage this mutation wouldnt stick and or spread.

If stretchy special non slicing cuticles mutation came first it wouldnt stick or spread because on its own it gives no advantage.


edit on 30-11-2015 by BOTAL because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 09:51 PM
link   
I do believe LOTS of adaptation, modification and evolution has occured. It is clear to see and well proven.
I just cant buy that the perfect balances of ecosystems
And genius designs of the life on earth
All randomly occured and all started from one single cell organism way back when.
Maybe something made a cat which over time became leopard cheetah lion and tiger. I can believe that. But something made cat.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 09:53 PM
link   
a reply to: BOTAL

Your argument has already been discussed and dealt with. Evolution occurs by small increments, with complementary traits reinforcing each other.

The trouble is not that people don't understand your questions, but that you appear incapable of understanding the answers. Maybe the theory of evolution is too hard for you to understand, as seems to be the case for so many people.

I'm afraid you either have to accept the word of those who know better, or believe whatever you want to and stop asking questions. There's no shame in it; we can't all be clever.

Hope that clears things up, not just for you but for others on this thread who keep reheating the same stale arguments-from-incredulity.


edit on 30/11/15 by Astyanax because: of phone dumbness.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 09:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: Ghost147
Back to the topic though, does the first part of my comment (to which you quoted the second) explain the difference a bit more clearly?


Not really. Well, maybe. Can deevolution be considered evolution as well? See the Great White. It had to get smaller to survive.


Well, its not really referred to as "deevolution". Evolution doesn't require an organism to get bigger, stronger and faster, it simply means that genetic variation through successive generation occurs. What determines which mutations stay in a population is mainly due to Natural Selection.

So if it is more beneficial for an organism to reduce something, or lose something its ancestors had previously attained, then evolution can actually take away, rather than continuously add.

A good example would be color and eyesight. When a species had an ancestor that used to live in a light-filled environment, but had - over time - migrated to an environment that had no light, we see color that tends to fade to a white (or translucent) appearance, and we see what once were functional eyes, disappearing.

Functional traits are kept, and unnecessary and/or prohibitive traits are weeded out or lay dormant.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 10:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: BOTAL

originally posted

Furthermore, Color doesn't necessarily need to arise because it's at all beneficial, in some cases it could be a byproduct of another mutation that coincidentally affects color. One reason some humans have darker skin coloration is because dark colors helps block UV rays.



U make the first statement then back it up with an example of color BEING beneficial?
Odd.


Because it can be both a benefit, and also simply a matter of it forming from a byproduct. It's not necessarily one or the other (when referencing the origin of color specifically)



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 10:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

Where was it dealt with? because I'm curious as well...

Also, saying that evolution occurs by small increments with complimentary traits reinforcing each other doesn't answer his question...how do those complimentary traits develop side by side...because they cannot(or rather, WOULD NOT via natural selection) develop one before the other...

Telling someone with questions to stop asking questions and accept your explanation(because you're apparently more intelligent) is just plain absurd....you should be ashamed of yourself.

A2D
edit on 30-11-2015 by Agree2Disagree because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 10:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: BOTAL
I do believe LOTS of adaptation, modification and evolution has occured. It is clear to see and well proven.
I just cant buy that the perfect balances of ecosystems
And genius designs of the life on earth
All randomly occured and all started from one single cell organism way back when.
Maybe something made a cat which over time became leopard cheetah lion and tiger. I can believe that. But something made cat.


Obligate mutualism can evolve gradually from nonobligate associations. For example, a yucca can be pollinated by many insects and gradually specialize to attract just one moth, and a moth may live off many species of yucca and gradually specialize on just one. In fact, some yucca species are still pollinated by more than one moth, and the yucca moth Tegeticula yuccasella pollinates several species of yucca (Powell 1992).

This is what we were attempting to explain earlier



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 10:05 PM
link   
Last post for a while... letting y'all respond.
Just to be crystal clear the prob is any two things that only work in unison.

Be it two things in one organism
like mutation for extra skin randomly hanging over eyeballs
And seperate mutation for facial muscles that raise and lower this skin
Not mentioning brain mutation that can control these muscles that mutant has for first time in species history.

Or be it two things in two organisms
Like flowers and bees

If two ( or more ) mutations ONLY create benefit when working together

IN ANY CASE-not just the examples my non-scientist brain picked in ten seconds for the post

If they provide NO BENEFIT whatsoever without the rest of the "package"
Whichever one came first would never stick
And whatever came second wouldnt either when it showed up later and no previously existing meaningless traits were waiting there to work together with it.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 10:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: BOTAL
Last post for a while... letting y'all respond.
Just to be crystal clear the prob is any two things that only work in unison.


Just in case you missed it [we were both responding at the same time]. Read the post above your most recent one. Does that explanation clarify a few things? I can elaborate if you need me to.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 10:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

I'm not sure I understand. Your example is 2 organisms evolving mutually beneficial traits...

What about 1 organism evolving 2 mutually beneficial traits, simultaneously....?

Any better examples by chance?
A2D



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 10:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: BOTAL

Your argument has already been discussed and dealt with. Evolution occurs by small increments, ..


I dont care which actually came first. To save space and to discuss the THEORY of evolution lets just say stretchy cuticle mutation came first.
By a small increment the mutant has slightly barely just a wee bit stretchier cuticles.

Since the arm muscles that retract claws havent appeared yet the just ever so slightly more stretchy cuticles provide no advantage
None at all. So that trait does not catch on.
So generation after generation of the stretchy cuticled mutants offspring dont gradually get stretchier and stretchier cuticles over thousands of years
Because the original mutant had no advantage.
Just like the mutant with the tiny tiny second tail didnt stick. And never had hundreds of generations of descendants getting longer and longer second tails.
The stretchy skin BY ITSELF gives NO ADVANTAGE and therefore would not take over the species with its offspring.




top topics



 
24
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join