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.

 

Watch Evolution in Action

page: 21
32
<< 18  19  20    22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 05:56 PM
link   
a reply to: VP740
Sickle cell anemia. A "fatal" mutation (due to complications) which is transmitted to offspring.

A mutation has no effect on the evolutionary process unless it impedes or enhances the likelihood of reproduction.

edit on 9/24/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Non sequitur. How does genetic recombination allow for the segregation of positive from negative mutations? What's the difference between reproducing with and without genetic recombination?



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 06:47 PM
link   
a reply to: VP740

How does genetic recombination allow for the segregation of positive from negative mutations?
"Genetic recombination" makes no such distinction. Genes are transmitted. In and of themselves, there are no negative or positive genes.



What's the difference between reproducing with and without genetic recombination?
That would depend on what you're actually talking about. If you're talking about cloning and sexual reproduction, there is a big difference. The "good" thing about sexual reproduction it that it encourages change.


edit on 9/24/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 11:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
I'm not watching the stupid videos, I already tried and got halfway thought the first and all it contained nothing but denial, banter and idle chatter, no facts, the usual creationist rhetoric and baseless accusations like you always make about me. I don't watch youtube videos, give me research papers. Give me facts. Anything. ...

Please, for once, directly answer a friggin point. You don't need to post an essay to answer one simple question that your argument is dependent on. The genome is not denigrating, it is changing over time. Detrimental mutations are rare enough to not have a big affect. I await your data that counters this fact.

It's not me that's denying the established fact of genetic degeneration/degradation, for which the peer reviewed articles are now posted in my last comment here (not that a genuine truth seeker would not be able to find them without John Sanford's help).

Or behaving like Phage, saying things like "they did not adapt", followed by edmc^2 posting a peer reviewed article that performs a similar experiment as in the OP that uses the word "adapt" all over the article, and then the clique being quiet, not wanting to get back to that...(what's the matter, no one else could correct Phage honestly?)

I probably can't even get you to acknowledge that when something is degrading or degenerating that it's "changing over time". Meaning that there is no point in bringing up that it's changing over time, unless you want people to have the impression that that automatically means that it's evolving (leaving out the part that implies evolution from prokaryotic unicellular organisms to eukaryotic multicellular organisms, which won't happen with degeneration). You don't want people to think about what kind of change it is in reality (perhaps you even prefer 'we don't know yet' to assist in denial of the facts/realities).

You make these wild claims that are totally unrepresentative of the reality of things, and then when I show the facts that make it logically impossible or extremely unreasonable to believe what you just said about it and you'll just say things like:
"That doesn't make it an issue for evolution."
Sure buddy, not for you at least. When you first twist the fact to pretend it's showing something else and that genetic degredation after natural selection has already done its thing isn't real. You have no interest in any responses from anyone that doesn't agree with you on evolutionary philosophies, you've made that painfully clear. Still haven't gotten any answers regarding the mythological telomere to telomere fusion in human chromosome #2. But I have responded to you so many times, you just twist it, and whenever something comes up that you really don't like (such as the links to the peer reviewed articles demonstrating and explaining genetic degradation/degeneration of my last comment) then you switch to 'you're not responding (in the way I'm demanding)'. You've got that right, I'm not singing the tune you want me to sing.

Coming back to Phage's comment for a moment about the word "adapt" and a lot of people not even noticing the "denial, banter and idle chatter, no facts,..." or otherwise unwilling to lift a finger to correct misleading information and get to the bottem of a matter, here's the first line in the article linked in the OP:

The MEGA-plate allows scientists to watch bacteria adapting to antibiotics before their eyes.

Perhaps that's the reason why some people won't respond to certain people here exactly the way they want it. But then again, you're doing the same routine of falsely accusing someone of not responding over and over, and you're not the only one doing this. While actually not responding yourself to the response, just repeating the earlier claims phrased slightly differently while refusing to acknowledge or consider the facts and respond to those rationally (something more rational than the denial expressed in "The genome is not denigrating").

'Deny everything'....Balrdick-style (the only reason Phage argued for or claimed "they did not adapt" is because someone critical of evolutionary philosophies pointed out that they adapted, when it's the article in the OP doing it, I'm sure its fine). I'd ask the same question to you as the question posed to AronRa at 12:37 in that video I mentioned earlier, if I thought I could ever get an honest answer out of you or even manage to get you to consider it rationally rather than looking for an excuse to dismiss it as no "issue for evolution". Sure, if you quickly switch to "evolution" meaning just any change over time (following the philosophy 'evolution has no direction').
edit on 25-9-2016 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 04:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: VP740
a reply to: Phage

Non sequitur. How does genetic recombination allow for the segregation of positive from negative mutations? What's the difference between reproducing with and without genetic recombination?

There are a few dozen mutations per generation in humans, some say 50 others 60~.

Genetic recombination moves genes such that it disvinculates, unties, a good gene from being forced to be transmitted along with a bad gene.

Most of the mutations are neutral or not too detrimental. Suppose a fatal or highly detrimental mutation occurs, perhaps one of the children will have it, another will have it along with the good mutation, and perhaps yet another will have the good mutation without the bad. Because the genes the offspring will end up with are not the exact same collection, but different combinations.

Genes are moved and reshuffled, such that there are odds of receiving the good without most or all of the bad. Also remember that whatever results still has to make functional sperm and succeed in competition. So from tens of millions of cells only those with at least a certain degree of functionality will have a chance at success
edit on 25-9-2016 by Xenogears because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-9-2016 by Xenogears because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-9-2016 by Xenogears because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 04:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: edmc^2 who said:
In the case of the E.Coli - they adapted to their environment so that they can consume the nutrients around them then flourish until the wall it hit again.

posted by: Phage
They did not adapt.
A few of them carried a mutation which made them immune to the antibiotic. They survived to reproduce. The others did not, they died. There was no adapting.

From the article that edmc^2 used and the peer reviewed article linked to there:

The MEGA-plate provides a versatile platform for studying microbial adaption and directly visualizing evolutionary dynamics.
...
The device, dubbed the Microbial Evolution and Growth Arena (MEGA) plate, represents a simple, and more realistic, platform to explore the interplay between space and evolutionary challenges that force organisms to change and adapt or die, the researchers said.

"We know quite a bit about the internal defense mechanisms bacteria use to evade antibiotics but we don't really know much about their physical movements across space as they adapt to survive in different environments," said study first author Michael Baym, a research fellow in systems biology at HMS.

The bible about this behaviour:

...not open to any agreement... (2 Timothy 3:1-5)

Thank you for your participation in adding demonstrations of the reliability and accuracy of the bible.

Note also all the other people talking about adaptation before Phage had an issue with a certain someone using it in a certain context. There seemed to be little issues then unless you go all the way back to rnaa's comment about that subject:

'Adaption' is a word that can be used at different levels of a conversation and mean slightly different things depending on context. Just like 'evolution'.


The cunning propagandist loves such shortcuts—especially those that short-circuit rational thought. Propaganda encourages this by agitating the emotions, by exploiting insecurities, by capitalizing on the ambiguity of language, and by bending rules of logic. As history bears out, such tactics can prove all too effective.

Source: The Manipulation of Information: Awake!—2000

rnaa was the person who made the illogical unreasonable claim below in spite of the facts/realities that I tried to remind him of again (demonstrated by the "science" he implies to respect so much, I guess not so much when it's not tickling his ears), for the gazillionth time (either denying facts or reality, feigning ignorance, or continued willful ignorance):

Comment on page 10.
Related comment on page 12.
Related comment and also a non-direct response to rnaa's argument "Only as an ANALOGY." regarding the word "machines" used in the context of living organisms and what they're made of, on page 10 and page 19.

But really starting with this comment on page 7

I won't complain about not getting a response to every little thing I'm bringing up when responding to what others have brought up. There's too much anyway. But it would be great if some of the things mentioned in the comments above wouldn't be completely ignored or denied the next time the same illogical and unreasonable claims and statements are repeated again in true propagandistic style (repetition being a key in that, also when considering the words "indoctrination" and "brainwashing"). If not by the person making those claims and statements, than by anyone with the same feelings regarding evolutionary philosophies and philosophical naturalism. You don't really need to deny everything and make it that obvious you're on a bandwagon with only 1 type of targets for disagreement and debate.
edit on 25-9-2016 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 04:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Would you accept your same hypothesis for dogs ?



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 06:33 AM
link   




when playing poker if you reshuffle the probability of getting a full house is not zero, bad cards get separated from good cards, and mostly good as well as mostly bad combinations can occur. Of course mostly bad if it is too bad, might lead to failure to fertilize the egg, or to spontaneous abortion, or early death, infertility, etc. IF a mostly good combination occurs it will have increased probability of increased reproductive success.


edit on 25-9-2016 by Xenogears because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-9-2016 by Xenogears because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 12:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Xenogears

Thanks! So, code modularity helps in genetics, for some of the same reasons it helps in programming; that's cool. I could see how sexual selection could result in a shorter fatter bell curve for a given trait (if those from each extreme of the bell curve tend not to mix for whatever reason). Then, natural selection would have an easier time shifting that population into optimal position, than one with a tall thin bell curve. It hadn't occurred to me that just randomly shuffling sections of code into different groups could have any meaningful effect.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 01:57 PM
link   
I’m really not getting this argument. Genomes degrade? And this has been going on more or less continuously since the creation of life?

In that case,

1. How come life endures? Why hasn’t everything living died out long ago from copying errors and inherited mutations?

2. Why is the Creator’s handiwork so prone to deterioration and accident? Surely he would make sure things functioned better than that? Or are shoddily assembled, fall-apart genomes part of The Plan?

Come on. It’s absurd whichever way you look at it.

May I put in a plug for this brilliant new thread by eisegesis about how we are putting our knowledge of evolutionary genetics to good use. Pay a visit, you won’t be disappointed.


edit on 25/9/16 by Astyanax because: format bad. List maker function not working.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 07:08 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

You seem very keen for a break, is it too intense for you? Or are you trying to imply feelings, that is not a good debating tactic, and in an argument even worse.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 07:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

You seem very keen for a break, is it too intense for you? Or are you trying to imply feelings, that is not a good debating tactic, and in an argument even worse.


I figured I'd enjoy a weekend with people outside the internet forum. Did you miss me?



2. Why is the Creator’s handiwork so prone to deterioration and accident? Surely he would make sure things functioned better than that? Or are shoddily assembled, fall-apart genomes part of The Plan?


If you are actually curious regarding the other explanation for origins besides evolution there is plenty of information regarding the Spirit's handiwork of the material world. In terms of suffering and decay, this is due to the fall of humankind from perfection.
edit on 25-9-2016 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 07:42 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

No I've got a rather good scope, so I don't waste bullets .... oh wait you did not mean that


I'm aware of a great many alternatives to evolutuon, and the various biogeneses, I am a polytheist after all
You've got nothing to show me that I've not seen before I'd wager.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 08:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

No I've got a rather good scope, so I don't waste bullets .... oh wait you did not mean that


I'm aware of a great many alternatives to evolutuon, and the various biogeneses, I am a polytheist after all
You've got nothing to show me that I've not seen before I'd wager.


In my opinion it can be simplified to two options - did matter generate consciousness or did consciousness generate matter?

1) Evolution posits that matter created consciousness as an emergent property over vast amounts of time.
2) Spiritual traditions, such as Christianity, claim that God, as a conscious Spirit, created matter and enjoyed the creation in the ideal creative vessel - the human body.

During my agnostic phase I tried to combine these two explanations but realized it wasn't logical - if Spirit is intelligent and all-powerful it would not require randomness to create biologically (materially) advanced beings. The popular belief that matter gave rise to spirit was addressed by Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas:

Jesus said, "If the body came into being because of spirit, that is a marvel, but if spirit came into being because of the body, that is a marvel of marvels."

edit on 25-9-2016 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 08:38 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

(Biological) Evolution makes no such claim in its theory. Evolution only talks about the change in life from one generation to the next and so on.

Why do you guys insist in misquoting the theories and hypothesis of science?

My spiritual path and all the cultures related to it, generally say that the universe arose from Chaos, and there is not talk of a deity causing. The deities came later.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 09:34 PM
link   


1) Evolution posits that matter created consciousness as an emergent property over vast amounts of time.


Can you please provide a citation that supports that statement? Once again, you're deliberately misinterpreting the science of evolution to fit into some crackpot religion. Most Christians, Jews and Muslims have no problem with the science of evolution. It's the cult religions that make these claims.

It's really a shame that you have absolutely no ability or desire to know the real world of science. They took you in hook, line and sinker, I'm afraid.

P.S. You still have not responded to the citations I posted which flatten your positions. Please take the time to read them. The key to enlightenment might just show up!

Disappearing into the ether is not an option.







edit on 25-9-2016 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-9-2016 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 08:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

(Biological) Evolution makes no such claim in its theory. Evolution only talks about the change in life from one generation to the next and so on.


originally posted by: Phantom423

"Evolution posits that matter created consciousness as an emergent property over vast amounts of time."

Can you please provide a citation that supports that statement?



So wait, if you don't believe that, then you must believe in some sort of intelligent design. According to your theory, random mutation is responsible for the diversity of life - therefore it insists that this random mutation also generated consciousness. Some have speculated that some sort of intelligent design must have been involved in this process in order to generate consciousness, but many vehemently insist that no intelligence was involved.

Regardless, evolution insists that random mutations gave rise to the diversity of life and therefore consciousness.


originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

My spiritual path and all the cultures related to it, generally say that the universe arose from Chaos, and there is not talk of a deity causing. The deities came later.


IF evolution is true, where did deities come from? Are they evolved beyond human intellect, or did they take a different path on the tree of life? Are they biological? What are humans relationship with these deities?


P.S. You still have not responded to the citations I posted which flatten your positions.


You STILL haven't found the citation that I requested regarding that image you posted. I think you need to settle down with making others read papers that you likely have not read your self.

Do you know the difference between Darwinism and Lamarckism? Because the following comment indicates that you do not:


"The difference, of course, is that one of the ape-men figured out that greater things can get done when you use the tools around you. "


edit on 26-9-2016 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 09:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

(Biological) Evolution makes no such claim in its theory. Evolution only talks about the change in life from one generation to the next and so on.


originally posted by: Phantom423

"Evolution posits that matter created consciousness as an emergent property over vast amounts of time."

Can you please provide a citation that supports that statement?



So wait, if you don't believe that, then you must believe in some sort of intelligent design. According to your theory, random mutation is responsible for the diversity of life - therefore it insists that this random mutation also generated consciousness. Some have speculated that some sort of intelligent design must have been involved in this process in order to generate consciousness, but many vehemently insist that no intelligence was involved.

Regardless, evolution insists that random mutations gave rise to the diversity of life and therefore consciousness.


originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

My spiritual path and all the cultures related to it, generally say that the universe arose from Chaos, and there is not talk of a deity causing. The deities came later.


IF evolution is true, where did deities come from? Are they evolved beyond human intellect, or did they take a different path on the tree of life? Are they biological? What are humans relationship with these deities?


P.S. You still have not responded to the citations I posted which flatten your positions.


You STILL haven't found the citation that I requested regarding that image you posted. I think you need to settle down with making others read papers that you likely have not read your self.

Do you know the difference between Darwinism and Lamarckism? Because the following comment indicates that you do not:


"The difference, of course, is that one of the ape-men figured out that greater things can get done when you use the tools around you. "






You STILL haven't found the citation that I requested regarding that image you posted. I think you need to settle down with making others read papers that you likely have not read your self.


You never read any of the citations. Period. Admit it and move on. You're trying to weasel your way out of discussing any of the citations. You're very transparent.




So wait, if you don't believe that, then you must believe in some sort of intelligent design. According to your theory, random mutation is responsible for the diversity of life - therefore it insists that this random mutation also generated consciousness. Some have speculated that some sort of intelligent design must have been involved in this process in order to generate consciousness, but many vehemently insist that no intelligence was involved. Regardless, evolution insists that random mutations gave rise to the diversity of life and therefore consciousness.



Focus on the response. Where in evolutionary theory does consciousness come into play? Can you provide a citation?
The diversity of life doesn't guarantee consciousness. It doesn't even imply consciousness. Is grass conscious?





Do you know the difference between Darwinism and Lamarckism? Because the following comment indicates that you do not: "The difference, of course, is that one of the ape-men figured out that greater things can get done when you use the tools around you. "


You still don't get that comment. Please think about it.


You have an extremely convoluted thought process.

edit on 26-9-2016 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-9-2016 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 09:14 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Just to refresh your memory, here are the links to that conversation:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

From the last link:


a reply to: cooperton I haven't found that paper yet, however, the papers cited in items 1 and 4 of my post are quite clear in their conclusions. Please respond to those papers as I think they are probably more relevant to the discussion. I don't recall anything about transposons and Bonobos in those papers. What's the relevance of your statement and citation?



posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

You are hopeless. I asked you a very simple question and you didn't answer it. You went off on some big tirade yet again with all the BS accusations and slander.

Why can't you simply answer the question?

1. How is having a higher frequency of detrimental genes a problem for evolution?

2. What exactly do you mean by degenerating?

Your refusal to answer these easy questions in your own words, only proves to me you don't even understand what is being claimed by these creationists.

I'm sick of having to repeat my questions because you ignore them or hide the answers in walls of accusations and semantics. Answer the 2 simple questions. 1 and then 2. It's not that difficult to follow a conversation. Stop the tirades and the tangents. You did the same exact thing in the last thread where you claimed inductive reasoning based on facts and did not ONCE even post your reasoning, you just stated it as fact. It really upsets you that ID is not a fact and people aren't buying your rants. I don't get it. You can still believe it is true without telling everyone else they are wrong and posting propaganda and pseudoscience as sources. Answer my 2 questions above in your own words, simple and direct to the point. Don't rant about what some creationist said at some point and accusing me of twisting things. Answer the questions.
edit on 9 26 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
32
<< 18  19  20    22 >>

log in

join