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.
"Genetic recombination" makes no such distinction. Genes are transmitted. In and of themselves, there are no negative or positive genes.
How does genetic recombination allow for the segregation of positive from negative mutations?
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.
What's the difference between reproducing with and without genetic recombination?
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.
The MEGA-plate allows scientists to watch bacteria adapting to antibiotics before their eyes.
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?
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.
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.
'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.
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.
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?
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.
1) Evolution posits that matter created consciousness as an emergent property over vast amounts of time.
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?
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.
P.S. You still have not responded to the citations I posted which flatten your positions.
"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. "
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.
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.
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. "
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?