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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Watch Evolution in Action

page: 7
32
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 01:07 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 01:08 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 04:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Yeah but the problem is the mutation never, ever, ever mutates into something better, it ALWAYS de-evolves


You admit in your first post that it is de-evolving.

If you look into de-evolution, you'll learn that it doesn't actually exist.

Evolution does not have a direction, de-evolution=evolution.

You admitted, in the second line of your first post no less, that this is an example of evolution and then spent 6+ pages arguing over why it's not while constantly supporting the theory of evolution.

Sure, you may have an argument that "no new information was added" as you have vehemently proclaimed, but this is evolution nonetheless.

ETA: BTW, very cool video and a great example of observable evolution! Thank you!

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



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 04:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman


Now don't forget, evolution according to Charlie Darwin

If you want to change the definition, please let me know


This explains a lot. You're using definitions that haven't existed in 70 years. You're 7 decades behind in your knowledge of evolutionary theory. Everything falls into place now. So for the uninitiated, per 'On the Origin of Species' , the only mechanism of evolution postulated by Darwin was Natural Selection. In the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, which has been a thing since the late 1940's, accepts that there are other potential mechanisms, Including genetic drift (which could play as big of a role as natural selection does) migration, mutation and Punctuated Equilibrium.The Modern Evutiinary Synthesis states that characteristics are passed down from parents to offspring on parts of DNA called genes. Variation between individuals within a species is because of the presence of multiple alleles of a gene. A 3rd difference between Darwin 1859 vs. MES today is that MES states that speciation is due to the gradual accumulation of small changes or mutations at the gene level. In other words, microevolution leads to macroevolution.

So why again are you limiting yourself to evolution only as described by Darwin 157 years ago and ignore the mountain of science, like Genetics, that has come SINCE 'OtOoS 'was published?



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 05:45 PM
link   
This thread is comedy gold. There's nothing like building up your own definition of evolution so you can tear it down and throw it at everyone



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 08:01 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

Actually PV
I defined evolution with a link on age 1 or 2
I also used Darwin
I have been very fluid

The argument about mutations losing information just doesn't seem to cut it

But by all means, show me the latest stuff



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 11:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: chr0naut



Since e-coli take about 20 minutes to reproduce that would only be about 792 generations.


The long-term evolution experiments using E. coli, begun by Richard Lenski in 1988, have allowed direct observation of major evolutionary shifts in the laboratory.[39] In this experiment, one population of E. coli unexpectedly evolved the ability to aerobically metabolize citrate, which is extremely rare in E. coli. As the inability to grow aerobically is normally used as a diagnostic criterion with which to differentiate E. coli from other, closely related bacteria, such as Salmonella, this innovation may mark a speciation event observed in the laboratory.
Escherichia coli: Genome plasticity and evolution

The link to the Lenski experiments aren't working. But:

The E. coli long-term evolution experiment (LTEE) is an ongoing study in experimental evolution led by Richard Lenski that has been tracking genetic changes in 12 initially identical populations of asexual Escherichia coli bacteria since 24 February 1988.[2] The populations reached the milestone of 50,000 generations in February 2010 and 65,000 in June 2016.

This should be an interesting read.


I am aware of the Lenski experiments.

It was these particular video's that I was questioning.



posted on Sep, 10 2016 @ 12:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: peter vlar

Actually PV
I defined evolution with a link on age 1 or 2
I also used Darwin
I have been very fluid

The argument about mutations losing information just doesn't seem to cut it

But by all means, show me the latest stuff


Ignorance is not just what you don't know.
It's also what you won't know.
AronRa



posted on Sep, 10 2016 @ 01:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman


a reply to: WakeUpBeer

I think you missed my point I asked for what new information was added


Well... seeing been 5 pages ..

I figure Ill step in ..

What New Information was Added ...

Bacteria is Very Smart Buggers ! no really .. High MicroBial Intelligence
they can communicate on a one on one level or like a fricken NETWORK! ..

Problem Solving ... as Nature finds a way.. the improvise, they adapt, they change..

to get through a barrier get the Job Done .. The Main Word Survival..

but no Brains that we know of .. They act they are like micro networked computers..

( Some Learning to Do )

How smart are bacteria?
microbiologybytes.wordpress.com...


A recent article in New Scientist entitled Why microbes are smarter than you thought looks at six behaviours that seem remarkably intelligent for single celled organisms. Single-celled organisms don’t have nervous systems, let alone brains, but they could be viewed as with internal machinery that can process and respond to information .



If Bacillus subtilis cells are growing in a nutrient-poor area, they release chemicals into their surroundings which tell their neighbours “There’s not much food here, so clear off or we’ll both starve.” In response to these chemical messages, the other bacteria move away, changing the shape of the colony.



Many microbes can accelerate the rate at which their genes mutate. This allows them to obtain new abilities that may be helpful when conditions get tough. Escherichia coli mutates more rapidly when under stress (Stress-induced mutagenesis in bacteria.Science. 2003 300(5624): 1404-9), and yeast can perform the same trick (Adaptive mutation in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Crit Rev Biochem Mol Biol. 2007 42(4): 285-31).


So this Video in Question of this Dam Debate is OLD NEWs if you ask ME ..

and for your Question Raggyman .. the what is added in the information..

The bacterial Net Work Remembers, It Learns , it Mutates to Test what it can break Through

TRIAL and ERROR .. till it can break the Barrier .. that Simple ..



When the amoeba Dictyostelium searches the surface of a Petri dish for food, it makes frequent turns. But it does not do so randomly. If it has just turned right, it is twice as likely to turn left as right on its next turn, and vice versa. It remembers which direction it last turned.

microbiologybytes.wordpress.com...

So through out the decade of Human Antibiotic Medicine, the Micro Single cell Survivors Remembers..
and adapt.. passed down to their offspring, the new generation. that information to resist.. of what ever comes along to stop them dead.. Bacteria loves to Fight ...

immunity is a Bitch .. the GOOD the BAD the UGLY!! of Bacteria's !




Solution is ! Create a Super White Cell ! n T Cell to kill Viruses ,
Bacteria ( The Bad and Ugly ONLY ) and of course other Micro Parasites..
and Especially CANCER Cells!


edit on 62016SaturdayfAmerica/Chicago9253 by Wolfenz because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2016 @ 07:11 AM
link   
Beautiful (and disturbing, in the context of antibiotic resistance) footage and demonstration.

For my uneducated layperson's brain, this is how I describe evolution as it is today theorized, to myself: Evolution is not a magical force that acts on living creatures to somehow make them automatically improve. Evolution is simply "how things shake out." Evolution itself it not a "thing," it is a description of much more complex dynamics than the word intuitively suggests in people's minds. I think that's the disconnect people often have.

You have an environment. In that environment you have a creature. That creature has attributes that make it well or poorly suited to that environment. If it's well suited, it might survive. If it's less well suited... it still might survive. If it's extremely poorly suited, it's probability of death might be greater but... sometimes, it STILL might survive. All sorts of things affect this, some of which others have more aptly described in this topic already.

But the important point is that one way or another, some will survive and some won't. And those who survive, pass on some of their traits to their offspring... along with the offspring having traits of their own, as well as being subject to the aforementioned "all sorts of other things" during the course of their existence, which can also impact their survivavility in that environment. Then add to that that the environment itself can ALSO change, in any number of ways.

All of these dynamics lead to a measurable change over time in which traits remain extant, and which die out. And it's not always the ones that are "better," or contain more complexity, but often a reducing of complexity, or even an evolutionary dead end where something changes many times in ways that help it survive, but then dies out anyway.

Evolution is not automatically evocative of progress in a "positive" direction in the sense that our anthropomorphism tends to make us assume or imagine. It does not always produce greater likelihood of survival, nor does it always inexorably lead to more complex organisms, or toward greater intelligence. It does not always "add" something. It just results in change, for better or worse.

It's "just how things shake out."

Peace.
edit on 9/10/2016 by AceWombat04 because: Typo



posted on Sep, 10 2016 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

I guess that's why Freud characterized creativity as a form of excretion. I'd hoped for better from the thread though.



posted on Sep, 10 2016 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

You must have known it was going to get derailed. Some people just hate anything that mentions the E word.



posted on Sep, 10 2016 @ 01:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

There were some informative replies too at least.



posted on Sep, 10 2016 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Wolfenz





Bacteria is Very Smart Buggers ! no really .. High MicroBial Intelligence they can communicate on a one on one level or like a fricken NETWORK! ..


The collective evolved into (arguably) the most intelligent creature on the planet..
The evolution of the human brain begins with bacteria. We are a collective of colony's of cells, cells that have DNA of their own that can be traced back in ancient organisms such as bacteria.



Some bacteria possess mechanically-sensitive ion channels, as well as microscopic propellers that drive movement, giving them a rudimentary sense of touch and the ability to move. Within a single bacterial cell, sensation, information processing (you could call it a simple form of 'memory'), and reaction can be coordinated, partially thanks to the same ion channels responsible for human brain signaling. Eons before more complex organisms would use neurons to build nervous systems, ion channels were aiding bacteria in their quest to interact with their surroundings. 4hexn-DtSt4

link
link




posted on Sep, 10 2016 @ 04:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Woodcarver
Here is a hint. Evolve means change.

Oh look, it's changing:





edit on 10-9-2016 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2016 @ 08:03 AM
link   
Nvm misread the post
edit on 11-9-2016 by Cypress because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2016 @ 09:54 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

Do you mean to present the blind watchmaker's fallacy?

Machines are built by humans. Every machine you have ever seen was built by a human or another machine which was built by a human. We know where machines come from. No mystery there.

However life is created by chemistry.



posted on Sep, 11 2016 @ 10:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tempter
Viruses can withstand losing a lot of their DNA. Why? They're simple and not truly alive. Ok, I've hard that before.

But whyyyy?

Why are they in a state which reproduces and animates yet does not exhibit other functions of life?

Why are they special?

I dunno. I think truth may only exist at a level small enough we cannot probably ever visually observe. For instance, the atom is just and artists mock up but when I was a kid I assumed they had seen it.
edit on 11/9/2016 by Gyo01 because: (no reason given)

edit on 11/9/2016 by Gyo01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2016 @ 12:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: whereislogic
However life is created by chemistry.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Not appeals to the great "We Don't Know (Yet) but Mother Nature did it anyway, she found a way"- God of the agnostic gaps.



posted on Sep, 11 2016 @ 12:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver


However life is created by chemistry.

Still machines though. Electrochemical machines.




top topics



 
32
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join