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.

 

Another way to think of Evolution

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 12:51 PM
link   
There seems to be a gap between what is adaptation and what is mutation. Because the mutations are caused by corruption you have to assume they're random in nature, whereas adapation is cleary not random.

It's safe to say animals are not entirely products of their DNA. There is information about the environment which an animal's body will adapt to in the first stages of life. Where is this information stored? If it's stored in the brain then how is it passed on to successive generations?

You start to get into a part of cell biology which I don't often see discussed, and that is self-modifying code. Do we have a new possiblity for the non-protein-coding regions?




posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 12:54 PM
link   
I'd like to know how you can explain the existence of polar bears. Polar bears have many unique features that never existed in other bears. Unlike the dog example, where there are no new features bred into dogs, the polar bear has unique features not found in other species of bear, even though they are considered relatives of the brown bear.

is2.dal.ca...

a good link on the evolution of polar bears.



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 02:19 PM
link   
I will address the issue that you keep bringing up regarding the loss and gain of information, as well as the one you are hinting at regarding the overall beginning of life after you answer my questions, fair?


You said you agreed with the answers previously given to me.

With those answers in mind, answer these further questions:

These questions do not need explanation with the answers. The answers are truly yes and no...and truly that simple.


1) Lets say an environment where the plant growth is abundant to the point of difficult movement, and a preditor roams well prepared for this growth is the setting. The predator can easily move through this brush, while the human cannot. Lets also say that it is somewhat easier for shorter people to move through this brush. Would it be more likely for a shorter person to survive than a tall one? Yes or No.

2) Here is an easy one. If a human is dead, can he/she breed? Yes or No.

3) If it is more likely then, for a shorter person to survive, than isn't it safe to say it is also MORE LIKELY that shorter people would breed? Yes or No.

4) Referring back to your original answers: If it is more likely for shorter people to breed, then wouldn't it also be more likely for the offspring to be shorter? (please note the more likely statement) Yes or No.

5) If an overall population as described above is better suited to be short to escape a fictional predator, wouldn't then, the entire population over time get shorter due to probability? Yes or No.

I bet those guys wont simply answwer yes or no...even though they are yes and no questions. Their is no yes but...or no but. These questions are that simple. Yes or no.

[edit on 1/31/2005 by Seapeople]



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seapeople
These questions do not need explanation with the answers. The answers are truly yes and no...and truly that simple.

1) Lets say an environment where the plant growth is abundant to the point of difficult movement, and a preditor roams well prepared for this growth is the setting. The predator can easily move through this brush, while the human cannot. Lets also say that it is somewhat easier for shorter people to move through this brush. Would it be more likely for a shorter person to survive than a tall one? Yes or No.


yes


Originally posted by Seapeople
2) Here is an easy one. If a human is dead, can he/she breed? Yes or No.


no. question deemed a bit insulting



Originally posted by Seapeople
3) If it is more likely then, for a shorter person to survive, than isn't it safe to say it is also MORE LIKELY that shorter people would breed? Yes or No.


yes


Originally posted by Seapeople
4) Referring back to your original answers: If it is more likely for shorter people to breed, then wouldn't it also be more likely for the offspring to be shorter? (please note the more likely statement) Yes or No.


yes


Originally posted by Seapeople
5) If an overall population as described above is better suited to be short to escape a fictional predator, wouldn't then, the entire population over time get shorter due to probability? Yes or No.


yes. (sorry have to comment here) There's still no NEW genetic info being created, nor is there any being changed. The gene for being tall is still present, it's just not read. Just as the gene for being short wasn't a new creation since obviously the 1st 2 people you talked about were 1 tall and 1 short... so this is giving an example of how you can eliminate the prevolance (but not the existance) of one type of gene, but is not showing evolution. This short population is still human, they can still breed with tall people and create fertile offspring.


Originally posted by Seapeople
I bet those guys wont simply answwer yes or no...even though they are yes and no questions. Their is no yes but...or no but. These questions are that simple. Yes or no.


1 comment isn't bad. And you telling us not to comment is very condescending. You're trying to make sure we don't counter your points. Just as you ask us to listen to your points and take them to heart (which I am) I would ask you to do the same.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now why don't you answer my question of where you think brand new genetic info comes from when a child is born... go back and read what I wrote in the last post about it before you answer please. Answer the question I asked there.



[edit on 31-1-2005 by Greyhaven7]

[edit on 31-1-2005 by Greyhaven7]



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 02:38 PM
link   
I'll get to it, trust me. As soon as the other guy answers. I know all about the no new information thing, I know its problems, but even with that issue, I will still show you why evolution is in place. No need to expand on the yes or no answers explaining that.....I already know what you want to say
. But yeah...1 comment isnt bad at all!



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 02:41 PM
link   
By the way, considering everyones "no new information" thoughts. Would you still then agree, that from your answers, that the loss of legs from lets say the whale, is not only possible but probable? (They have shoulder bones and there has even been a skeleton found with...well, christians are all going to deny that anyhow.)

If the answer is no, explain why if you don't mind.



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 02:51 PM
link   
evolution: (from dictionary.com)

1. A continuing process of change from one state or condition to another or from one form to another.
2. The theory that groups of organisms change with passage of time, mainly as a result of natural selection, so that descendants differ morphologically and physiologically from their ancestors.

You are not presenting cases where the descendants are different from the ancestors. Only situations where one vatiation is eliminated and the rest are left as the other variation...

1.) crabs... no new crab variations were created, but since no face crabs were killed by fishers, their abundance in the sea increased. Since the non-face crabs were captured and eaten, their abundance decreased at a far faster rate... leaving only a breeding population of face crabs with fewer non-face crabs as competition for food and other resources, thereby further increasing the face crab population. You can't prove that no face crabs existed before this incident, it more likely shows only that no one took note of them.

2.) pugs... you're taking two existing species and blending them. Not creating new ones.

3.) short people... there was a tall person and a short person. the tall one dies, and the short one lives to breed. His genes are passed on. Awesome, we now forever have a population of short people. But you didn't create the short gene, you only eliminated the tall ones.

See what I'm saying? You need NEW info to evolve. Not more of the same. More of the same only represents a shift in prevolance within a population, not the creation of a new... DIFFERENT population. More short people, and more crabs with faces doesn't show evolution. I bet there's still a crab or two that with no face if you look hard enough amongst the population... rare as they may be. And I'll bet they can and do breed with the face crabs. The face pattern is likely just a dominant alleale.



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 03:14 PM
link   
Honestly, I will get to it....just relax



New cold viruses and diseases pop up all the time. A whole heck of a lot of variants also pop up. They must have just been dormant huh.

That warning given to all of us on a prescription of antibiotics was just for fun too.

[edit on 1/31/2005 by Seapeople]



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 03:16 PM
link   
I have a hypothetical question too.

If you had a village of all short poeple.....no contact with the outside world. Would they all be exactly the same height? Why?



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seapeople
I have a hypothetical question too.

If you had a village of all short poeple.....no contact with the outside world. Would they all be exactly the same height? Why?


No. Diets cause diferentiation in height. The average height in China rose 6 inches after the western world introduced beef into their culture. Also would depend on the size of the population. You also have occurances where genetic read errors occur, where the directions stay the same, but the switches are in the wrong position so to speak, and the tall gene is read instead of the short, even though both genes are present.

Your first comment about viruses and bacteria brings me back to this comment I made earlier.

Originally posted by Greyhaven7
True... BUT....

You also have to remember how many bacteria there are in the world, and how often they reproduce.


The British Broadcasting Corporation quoted microbiologist William Whitman on the estimated number of bacteria in the world: five million trillion trillion.


I believe that's...
5,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (might have to add 9 MORE zeros, I'm not quite sure)

and they reproduce individually between every 20min to 8 hours or so.... meaning EVERY DAY, there are quadrillions upon quadrillions of generations... This makes the odds far, FAR greater than with animals, that mutations will occur just on sheer numbers. They are also much simpler organisms... which increases the odds of good mutations. And the rate of reproduction greatly increases the frequency at which mutations occur over the mass population.

as well as this ammendment I made to that comment...


OH OH OH... I missed something in my bacteria comment... they also reproduce a-sexually... so that eliminates the chance that a mutation won't pass on due to a mate not choosing the mutated bacteria... which is a HUGE issue with most animals... example:
People... If you had a mutation that caused a third arm to grow out of your head, EVEN THOUGH the mutation might make you better equipped... you can hold more things, reach higher, etc... the odds that you'd be chosen by a woman to have children with isn't good at all... but if you could reproduce a-sexually like a bacteria... then that physical unattractiveness to a mate wouldn't matter... and the mutation could pass on. See what I mean?



You also have to remember that viruses aren't always considered life. Many scientists do not consider them to be alive at all as they lack certian characteristics that are considered prerequisites for being considered life. Some are nothing more than strings of protiens, and many don't even have DNA, but just RNA. The only for of life I'll agree truely evolves (as I sort of stated int he quote above) is bacteria... and this is only because their super fast life cycles, biological simplicity in comparison, and sheer numbers (71.5 MILLION TIMES the current estimated number of stars in the UNIVERSE) make a year in their population like several millenia in an animal's. The odds of evolution are just that much higher for bacteria than for most other things.


[edit on 31-1-2005 by Greyhaven7]



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 03:55 PM
link   


Viruses are not included in any of the present 5 kingdoms. They do not have the basic characteristics of life; they do not grow, eat, or respond to stimuli, they can only reproduce inside a living cell, called a host cell. Once inside a host cell, a virus directs the cell to produce new virus particles from the cell material. The new viruses are released from the cell and can infect other cells. This is why antibiotics (anti = against, bio – life) will not work against viruses


from this site which had the best explanation I could quickly find as to why they aren't considered life.

The reason they mutate so often is because they have very little defense against radiation and other outside forces. For instance, exposure to ultra-violet light will kill a virus outright by destroying it's protien structure. And do you remember the total number of bacteria in the world? Well there's quadrillions upon quadrillions more viruses in the world than bacteria. 1x10^31 instead of 5x10^30 for bacteria.



[edit on 31-1-2005 by Greyhaven7]



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 05:18 PM
link   
here are the simple yes and nos, no comments.

yes, no, yes yes yes

carry on.



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Greyhaven7
1.) genetic mutations HAVE take place. (otherwise every creature would be an exact copy (blended of course between mom and dad) of it's parents).


First of all I would like to point out to that blending hypothesis of gene evolution has been proven wrong. I am not blended form of my mother and father. Genes either have to dominant or recessive, meaning if my mother is short and my father is tall, I am not in between, but rather either tall or short. Ofcourse there is incomplete dominance, but that occurs in rare cases.

Surf



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Genes either have to dominant or recessive, meaning if my mother is short and my father is tall, I am not in between, but rather either tall or short. Ofcourse there is incomplete dominance, but that occurs in rare cases.

Genes do not have to be dominant or recessive. There is no requirement. Examples of co-dominance and incomplete dominance are numerous and not 'rare.' Some genes behave differently at different levels... ie: dominant phenotype at the organismal level, but a co-dominant phenotype at the molecular level. Absolute dominant/recessive relationships actually tend to be the exception and not the rule.



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Grey Haven, you conveniently ignored the polar bear in your list of rebuttals. The polar bear has changed signifigantly from the brown bear it came from. It evolved that way, unlike a pug it has new features that not all bears have.



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Grey Haven, you conveniently ignored the polar bear in your list of rebuttals. The polar bear has changed signifigantly from the brown bear it came from. It evolved that way, unlike a pug it has new features that not all bears have.


Crap, sorry. I had typed out a few questions asking for clarification on what traits you were referring to that were unique to the polar bear, the hollow hairs with no pigment, the black skin? What exactly are you referring to? But I went to lunch at work before I posted it, and the window was closed when I got back. Having typed my thoughts, I forgot about the bear. My appologies, I didn't intend not to asnwer your comment. Please clarify and I will respond. Your link was not very informative, I need more detail. Specifically how the information presented in the link was found:

How do they know the polar bear's origins were 100,000 to 300,000 years ago? And how do they know there wasn't a closer and older ancestor living in the arctic where fossiles are rare due to the voracious scavenging of the creatures resident there (including the polar bear
). How do they know there's not a "missing link" between the brown bear and the polar bear as there is with humans.

Odd how your alias is shared with the title of a book series about the book of Revalations in the Bible... when I saw your name I was expecting a creationist point of view, I guess looks can be deceiving. Glad you could join our debate.



[edit on 31-1-2005 by Greyhaven7]



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattison0922
Ofcourse there is incomplete dominance, but that occurs in rare cases.

Genes do not have to be dominant or recessive. There is no requirement. Examples of co-dominance and incomplete dominance are numerous and not 'rare.' Some genes behave differently at different levels... ie: dominant phenotype at the organismal level, but a co-dominant phenotype at the molecular level. Absolute dominant/recessive relationships actually tend to be the exception and not the rule.

As I have said there is incomplete dominance, and others. I meant rare in the sense that they are much more less common compared to complete dominance.

True phenotypically speaking and genotypically speaking gene differs in behavior, but lot of people I know use it in a genotypical sense, and me too.

I don't know if complete dominance is the exception or not, but it sure is more common than the others.

My point in my last post was that the author lacks even the fundamentals of the blending hypothesis, but goes in detail about the complex subject of mutations.

Surf

[edit on 1/31/2005 by surfup]



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by surfup

Originally posted by Greyhaven7
1.) genetic mutations HAVE take place. (otherwise every creature would be an exact copy (blended of course between mom and dad) of it's parents).


First of all I would like to point out to that blending hypothesis of gene evolution has been proven wrong. I am not blended form of my mother and father. Genes either have to dominant or recessive, meaning if my mother is short and my father is tall, I am not in between, but rather either tall or short. Ofcourse there is incomplete dominance, but that occurs in rare cases.
Surf


It's called polygenetic inheritance or multifactorial inheritance.
Link to what I'm talking about so you can inform yourself.
And it does control height in most species.

And when I used the term blending I meant the combination of whole genes... meaning some traits from mom and others from dad, I'm not saying individual genes intersplice with individual genes like a zipper. For instance, I have facial features from my mother's side, but a hairline type from my father's side (which I know is odd, since hair type is usually derived from the mother's side). Do you understand what I'm saying?

If I'm incorrect, please inform me as to the truth and provide links supporting your evidence.

Thanks





My point in my last post was that the author lacks even the fundamentals of the blending hypothesis, but goes in detail about the complex subject of mutations.


Seems to me you should refer the 1st part of that comment to yourself Surf.

[edit on 31-1-2005 by Greyhaven7]



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 09:53 PM
link   
Forget it, there's no getting through to the other side in these arguments.

Heh, that obviously goes both ways.

You didn't say it was all god - I predicted it. That's always the way it is.

There's the religious folk who adamantly believe in god on the side of Creation and or ID, and the secular folk who want to try as hard as possible to define existence without calling in the 'god' card.

I want the truth as much as you - I'm saying that at present, Evolution is good enough, and it's getting better. I'm all for advancing it. I'm not all for just saying "God" every time I have a problem with a formula, and then saying that it's anything.


Your argument about "tall humans would still be humans" is a good one, but you're looking at one single change.

The change between -48 and -46 degrees in temperature is small. So is -46 and -44, and -44 and -42, and -42 and -40, and so on, down to 46 and 48. They're all pretty similar.

But, -48 to 48 is a huge difference. Over time, a large number of small changes makes a big difference. -48 is cold, and -46 is less cold, but still cold.

Are -48 and 48 both cold? Relative to 500 or something, they would be, but let's talk relative to 0.

Human is human in every change - but over a hundred million years, things can change enough to make human 'not so much'.



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 11:22 PM
link   
Greyhaven to clarify my question.

First polar bears are known as Ursus Maritimus and are classified as marine animals.

The clear, hollow fur that aids in bouyancy and camoflauge.

Feet are partially webbed, and the pads of the feet have short stiff hairs, which help with traction on snow and ice.

Their teeth are made for eating meat, most bears although omnivorous have teeth more similar to herbivores.

The fur also completely absorbs UV rays. This makes them so warm that in the summer they have been known to build dens to keep cool.

That first link wasnt very good. So here's a better link to someone more knowledgable on the subject. He is using the polar bear as "proof" of evolution in answer to Kent Hovind's $250,000 challenge.
www.geocities.com...

To me it seems unlikely that these features are inherent in all bears, and those listed above are just the short list. It seems to me that these are unique to the polar bear, and it is not just another bear, as the pug is just another dog.

Also the reason they believe polar bears to be related to brown bears is that they can have fertile offspring together, as far as I can tell.

Thanks Grey, I forgot all about those books when i picked this name. LOL



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join