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.

 

The Primary Axiom or Evolution is just a lie and should be replaced by Intelligent Design

page: 62
57
<< 59  60  61    63  64 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 10:41 AM
link   
a reply to: AlienView

The problem is that evolution does not have a direction or a purpose. It's not completely random either. The mutations are random, but the alleles selected for are based on the environment. The only "purpose" is adapting to the environment and changing along with it. There is no set direction or meaning to it. Many creatures die off because of mutations and never get to pass their genes down. It's more like trial and error, if it had a meaning, direction or purpose, it wouldn't kill off so many species that weren't fit. They would all adapt. Unfortunately, that's not how it works.
edit on 6 21 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 10:46 AM
link   
Why is artificial selection (breeding, farming etc), not considered to be evolution?



posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 11:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
Why is artificial selection (breeding, farming etc), not considered to be evolution?


My guess is that it's because the selection is not natural nor is it for survival & procreation. It's based on how useful the animals are to humans. I'm not going to get into a debate on what is considered natural or unnatural, but it's generally defined as something that occurs in nature without human intervention. I know some folks can say that humans are natural and houses could be considered natural almost like a bee hive is considered natural, but that's really a different argument.

Technically from the animal's perspective it could be considered evolution because humans ARE their environment, so what works for them works for the animal too. But is it really considered evolution when they are bred specifically for food and labor? If humans disappeared, it makes you wonder how many of those specialty dog breeds or farm animals would even survive without us, since we created that niche for them.

Food for thought.
edit on 6 21 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 09:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
My guess is that it's because the selection is not natural nor is it for survival & procreation. It's based on how useful the animals are to humans.

I would think there could be cases where artificial selection would be used for survival or procreation purposes (to protect a species maybe), although I'm not sure why it should be relevant to the question.

Maybe we try exploring this more objectively, eliminating the notion of natural vs artificial altogether. Let's pretend the distinction doesn't exist. In this way we can still see that evolution is a shift in the heritable genetic (and thus phenotypic) outcomes of a group of organisms due to ecological interactions and environmental influences. Humans are organisms. But they are organisms that can deliberately direct the genetic outcomes (evolution) of other organisms, perhaps as a type of ecological interaction.

Given this empirical fact, I guess I'd like to know why this phenomenon should be excluded from evolutionary theory, if it still is evolution. My best guess is it's because it contradicts its central and most important tenet – that evolution can only be a random, non-directed process. However, if we were to really look at it objectively, humans would seem to prove that notion false. Because here we have a case where one organism is deliberately (and yes, intelligently) 'evolving' other organisms for the purpose of survival.


originally posted by: Barcs
But is it really considered evolution when they are bred specifically for food and labor? If humans disappeared, it makes you wonder how many of those specialty dog breeds or farm animals would even survive without us, since we created that niche for them.

You seem to be describing a type of niche construction. But I think I see your point, even though I'm still not sure why the specific purpose for which an organism would direct the evolution of another should matter here. It's all in the interest of survival. What we should be considering differently is that intelligently directed evolution [by humans] happens on a large enough scale that warrants a rethink of evolutionary theory.

After all, Darwin conceived of natural selection from human breeding practices, and acknowledged that NS and artificial selection achieve basically the same thing, just that one is driven by natural forces and the other by purposeful intent. But appeals to "artificiality" only serve to obfuscate our objectivity of the matter by removing ourselves from the grand scheme of biological interactions. This to me poses a problem.
edit on 21-6-2016 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 10:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
Why is artificial selection (breeding, farming etc), not considered to be evolution?


It would be considered artificial evolution if a new species was born. That hasn't happened yet.
It probably will though.


edit on 22-6-2016 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 10:38 AM
link   
a reply to: PhotonEffect




After all, Darwin conceived of natural selection from human breeding practices, and acknowledged that NS and artificial selection achieve basically the same thing, just that one is driven by natural forces and the other by purposeful intent. But appeals to "artificiality" only serve to obfuscate our objectivity of the matter by removing ourselves from the grand scheme of biological interactions. This to me poses a problem.


Darwin didn't delve into speciation, which is how we view evolution today. Darwin's premise still holds, but science has elucidated the mechanism much more thoroughly than Darwin could have ever done.

The science of evolution also evolves as a function of technology and more discoveries.



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 08:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
Darwin didn't delve into speciation, which is how we view evolution today.

Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species.

Evolution is not just speciation.



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 09:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: PhotonEffect

originally posted by: Phantom423
Darwin didn't delve into speciation, which is how we view evolution today.

Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species.

Evolution is not just speciation.


Yes he did. But he had no knowledge of what advanced technology would uncover.

And you're right - evolution is more than speciation - those details are in the literature.



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 09:47 PM
link   
a reply to: PhotonEffect

Darwin did not invent evolution, nor did he understand the mechanism that causes evolution (viz DNA), so getting fixated on Darwin, is like assuming all computer programming is Babbage



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 02:07 AM
link   
And yet, after all is said and done - After the profits of darkness - of meaninglessness - in a meaningless universe have spoken

There are some who can not accept meaninglessness - Cannot accept a universe without meaning - cannot accept a void without intelligence - can not accept an eternal darkness backing light - to them the light always rules - always shines.

Those who ultimaty have to rely upon faith:



And in the final hours before tha New Dawn can see it no other way:

"In the beginning there was nothing

- And the Lord said Let there be Light

- And there was Light."


And Evolution only exists as a manifestation of Intelligent Design


And the universe itself is an existent state of intelligence - And the proof
- Science is the proof - Science proves intelligence





“We are a way for the cosmos to know itself.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos

edit on 23-6-2016 by AlienView because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 09:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

Thanks. I'm not fixated on him.
Darwin did not invent evolution, you're right. No one did. He only came up with one way to explain causes for the diversity of life.

Lots of dancing around the question I am asking.
edit on 23-6-2016 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 08:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Noinden

Thanks. I'm not fixated on him.
Darwin did not invent evolution, you're right. No one did. He only came up with one way to explain causes for the diversity of life.

Lots of dancing around the question I am asking.


I'm not sure what your question is - can you please repeat it? Thanks.



posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 07:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

Organisms that direct the evolution of other organisms for their own intents and purposes. IOW, intelligently guided evolution. Why is this not included in evolutionary theory?



posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 11:36 PM
link   
a reply to: PhotonEffect

What exactly is it that leads you to believe that selective breeding/ artificial selection isn't discussed in evolutionary biology? Just a heads up... It is. It's just that most people, when discussing evolution, are referring to the mechanisms behind natural biological evolution. Especially in ATS where the main discussions center on why select groups do not believe or understand the science behind it. That doesn't mean that selective breeding isn't discussed in evolutionary biology. In Anthropology for example, the focus is completely on the evolution of our own genus and its predecessors as we try to learn how we came to be who we are today. Likewise, in Paleontology, the evolution of extinct fauna are the focus of that discipline. Artificial selection/ selective breeding is a relatively new phenomena going back 30-40 KA with the domestication of Canids. Other livestock such as sheep and goats have been domesticated roughly 11 KA, cats ~9 KA etc... Selective breeding of plants 8-10 KA. So in the grand scheme of evolution, it isn't a huge component in the context of charting evolution of species over several hundred million years. It's certainly discussed and studied though. I often see papers and articles related to various domestication episodes. Unless you're actively reading journals or scholarly articles you're not going to see them that often. It's just the nature of our media.



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 10:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Phantom423

Organisms that direct the evolution of other organisms for their own intents and purposes. IOW, intelligently guided evolution. Why is this not included in evolutionary theory?


I don't know where you get this impression - "intelligently" guided evolution? Who's guiding whom?
Organisms do not make command decisions based on their "intents and purposes" to drive evolution.
Can you please be more specific - i.e. some quotes or references from the scientific literature?



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar


originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: PhotonEffect

What exactly is it that leads you to believe that selective breeding/ artificial selection isn't discussed in evolutionary biology? Just a heads up... It is. It's just that most people, when discussing evolution, are referring to the mechanisms behind natural biological evolution.

I wasn't asking whether or not it's discussed amongst evolutionary biologists, as I'm sure it is to some extent that I'm not presently privy to.

This is also not meant to be an exercise in anthropology or a discussion of paleontology, as you're smart enough to know already.

My question is regarding the objectivity of evolutionary thinking. I'm asking if artificial selection is considered to be a mechanism within the current framework of evolutionary theory (MES). If it is, then 1) is it stated in the literature as such, and 2) why do we still harbor this idea that evolution can have no purpose or intelligent guidance behind it?
edit on 27-6-2016 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 12:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Phantom423

Organisms that direct the evolution of other organisms for their own intents and purposes. IOW, intelligently guided evolution. Why is this not included in evolutionary theory?


I don't know where you get this impression - "intelligently" guided evolution? Who's guiding whom?


Sure you do. I just recently asked about artificial selection, to which you replied with a remark about it being "artificial evolution" only if speciation were to occur. Well speciation does occur, in abundance, due to deliberate human intervention. This is intelligently guided evolution, like it or not.



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 06:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: PhotonEffect

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Phantom423

Organisms that direct the evolution of other organisms for their own intents and purposes. IOW, intelligently guided evolution. Why is this not included in evolutionary theory?


I don't know where you get this impression - "intelligently" guided evolution? Who's guiding whom?


Sure you do. I just recently asked about artificial selection, to which you replied with a remark about it being "artificial evolution" only if speciation were to occur. Well speciation does occur, in abundance, due to deliberate human intervention. This is intelligently guided evolution, like it or not.


Can you give an example of a new species which was intentionally produced through human intervention? I'm at a loss to think of one. It may well happen in the future. However, at the moment, I don't think this technology is possible.

What we see in nature is divergence within a species which eventually divides into two separate species. This has been documented in plants, insects and animals. But I can't think of a new species which was made in a lab.




edit on 27-6-2016 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-6-2016 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 08:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
Can you give an example of a new species which was intentionally produced through human intervention? I'm at a loss to think of one. It may well happen in the future. However, at the moment, I don't think this technology is possible.

What we see in nature is divergence within a species which eventually divides into two separate species. This has been documented in plants, insects and animals. But I can't think of a new species which was made in a lab.

No need to think anymore, when there's google at your fingertips

Laboratory synthesis of an independently reproducing vertebrate species

In all seriousness, I wasn't even referring to what can be done in the lab as far as generating a novel species or fabricating a genome from scratch. But this should also be considered.

I'm asking why artificial selection, which is intentional evolution caused by an organism, is not considered part of evolutionary theory. Humans do this on an enormous scale. I didn't think I was asking such a confusing question.

And recall there doesn't have to be speciation to call it evolution ( at least by current definitions).

edit on 27-6-2016 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 09:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: PhotonEffect

originally posted by: Phantom423
Can you give an example of a new species which was intentionally produced through human intervention? I'm at a loss to think of one. It may well happen in the future. However, at the moment, I don't think this technology is possible.

What we see in nature is divergence within a species which eventually divides into two separate species. This has been documented in plants, insects and animals. But I can't think of a new species which was made in a lab.

No need to think anymore, when there's google at your fingertips

Laboratory synthesis of an independently reproducing vertebrate species

In all seriousness, I wasn't even referring to what can be done in the lab as far as generating a novel species or fabricating a genome from scratch. But this should also be considered.

I'm asking why artificial selection, which is intentional evolution caused by an organism, is not considered part of evolutionary theory. Humans do this on an enormous scale. I didn't think I was asking such a confusing question.

And recall there doesn't have to be speciation to call it evolution ( at least by current definitions).


Very interesting article - I need to read it and look into the references. Genetics isn't my field. There's a lot of chatter about robotic hybrids with humans - another interesting phenomenon to read about. Thanks for posting - love to learn new things.




edit on 27-6-2016 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
57
<< 59  60  61    63  64 >>

log in

join