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.

 

Irreducible complexity and Evolution

page: 81
16
<< 78  79  80    82  83  84 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 04:43 AM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle
Get a room.
We don't care about your bare skin.



edit on 11/30/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 04:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Lmao
Nite Phage



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 05:02 AM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

Sounds nice.
I like polar bear rugs.
I'd love a big foot rug though.
I'd say more but..
A yeti rug would beat any polar bear hands down.

I'll be waiting!



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 05:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

You are the room Phage! How can you not see that?



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 06:03 AM
link   
a reply to: dusty1

The second link doesn't work. Not sure what your question is. Can you please be more descriptive.



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 06:14 AM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle




I have yet to see even close to evidence to refute the impossibility for evolution to explain the advanced information and complexity of the molecular machinery which would have no function without any part... What has been presented contrary to any belief or faith in having done so... Is rather delusional... what's more it's evident that the programming is inherent in the simplest of cells and would have had to have always been so for said cells to ever even been able to begin the entire process of evolution by ever surviving long enough to ever begin to do so... After all is it not evolutionists who always proclaim... "It's takes a very very long time"


Why don't you read the paper and describe why they got it wrong? And you can pick any one of the references you like to prepare your response.



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 06:27 AM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

Definition of "Species":




In biology, a species is the basic unit of biological classification and a taxonomic rank. A species is often defined as the largest group of organisms in which two individuals can produce fertile offspring, typically by sexual reproduction. While this definition is often adequate, when looked at more closely it is problematic. For example, with hybridisation, in a species complex of hundreds of similar microspecies, or in a ring species, the boundaries between closely related species become unclear. Other ways of defining species include similarity of DNA, morphology or ecological niche.


Distinguishing species was more problematic before we had DNA analysis. Now it's fairly straightforward.






posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 06:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: peter vlar

I have yet to see you say you are wrong...
So I guess I just don't believe you...
You are not as smart as you believe...
I'm not scared of being wrong...
And please don't be sorry for me... I disrespect patronization...


You know occasionally you could get off that high horse and learn something. Peter's contributions to this board are extremely valuable. I've learned a lot about paleoanthropology just reading his posts and following up on my own. I don't know why people are so immune to learn something new. What a boring life. His field is one of the most interesting because it incorporates just about every branch of science - chemistry, physics, geology, history, anthropology. It's a field for a puzzle master.

But if you believe someone is wrong, then it's up to you to explain why - and not just with verbal garbage - we're talking science here not the UK Daily Mail.



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 06:36 AM
link   
a reply to: dusty1

Yes it is theoretically possible that the gene existed before and that the gene was reactivated. It's still evolution though, and no, there is no such thing as devolution. Even if something evolves to lose a trait then evolves back later to have that trait again it is still evolution progression.

Keep in mind that evolution is the process of observing how animals change over time. Time is an independent variable. The only way for devolution to exist is if time could go in reverse, but we can't make it do that. So it stays the independent variable.

Whales are an example of this occurring in nature already. If you look at the timeline of whale evolution, they started as sea creatures, evolved to be land animals, became mammals, then slowly migrated back out to sea to become sea creatures again. One thing to note though, the fins on a whale are different than the fins on a fish. Whales have horizontal tail fins while fish have vertical ones. So even though whales re-evolved fins they aren't exactly the same either.
edit on 30-11-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 06:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Sapphire

Get a room.


LOL. In Russia we would say ---- "and don't forget the vodka".



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 07:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: cooperton

Nor would I Want to do that, only to have my conclusions blindly dismissed anyway. You guys don't believe someone who was risen from the dead, so you're not going to believe some random guy on the internet.


Hold your horses here .......
If you want to play mean, I will too.
1. your argument is non sequitur.
2. The reason I do not believe in your guy risen from the dead is because in the year 325 CE a group of political and religious hacks came together to pull the stunt of all time: to institute state religion based on a prescribed set of books that would support a predefined set of beliefs.
3. All other books that did not conform the predetermined narrative were destroyed and the people adhering to those were persecuted and many were killed.
4.this leaves the point that I'd rather believe a random guy on the internet.
5. As far as I am concerned, your ideas have not blindly been dismissed. They have been thoroughly debunked. Playing the victim card here does you no good. Simply admit you have been bu ll sh i tt ing

As I said: non sequitur. I highly recommend you to do a major in logic.



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 09:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
If evolution is all that human beings would be the apex of evolution...

Why can't we fly?
Why can't we breath underwater?
Why can't we see in the dark?
Why do we die? Why do turtles and parrots have greater longevity?
Why can't apes speak?


Here's a real question: Why do people that know nothing about evolution keep trying to argue against it? This is pure 100% ignorance of how it works. I guess that's no surprise considering this thread suddenly got ten new pages over night repeating the same pretentious nonsense with religious folk acting like they know more about science than scientists. Just stop.
edit on 11 30 17 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 09:22 AM
link   
If god created the universe for humans, then why is it that humans can only survive in less than 1% of it? Heck humans can only survive on less than 1% of the planet they live on. They can't fly. They can't breath underwater. They can't live underground. They damn sure can't live in the mantel or the core. Yet somehow ALL the cosmos is meant for us. How is that not far fetched in any way?



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 09:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: 5StarOracle




Creation and evolution are portrayed as polar opposites..

By whom?


Exactly. It's strictly the creationists that claim evolution and creation are opposites, hence why they fight it tooth and nail. They don't argue gravity, germ theory or anything else. It's strictly evolution because it conflicts with a particular bible story. No other reason.



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 09:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423

read that paper plz



Here we go:


"All vertebrate and invertebrate animals have an innate immune system, but adaptive immunity is a uniquely vertebrate feature3. Underlying adaptive immunity are variable, clonally distributed lymphocyte receptors that are products of rearranging genes."


-True


"Such systems have evolved independently in jawed and jawless vertebrates. Almost all extant vertebrates are jawed and have variable B- and T-cell receptors built from immunoglobulin-like domains. In jawless vertebrates -- the lampreys and hagfish -- lymphocytes resembling B cells and T cells have variable receptors constructed from leucine-rich repeats"


-This is an assumption.

There is no way to determine that these traits did co-evolve, rather they are simply attributing it to "evolution did ", because they are under the biased presumption that evolution must be true. IF anything I would say this disproves evolution because surely the common ancestor would not have been lacking immunity, since all vertebrates have these adaptive immunities.


More prone to convergent evolution are the variable receptors of natural killer (NK) cells, lymphocytes that contribute to both innate and adaptive immunity, and also, in placental mammals, to reproduction5, 6. Whereas the convergence of B- and T-cell receptors is seen only between species that diverged >500 million years ago, convergence of variable NK-cell receptors is apparent among placental mammals that diverged 55-65 million years ago

-This is another assumption that it MUST have been convergent evolution - yet they only say this because they believe it had to be evolution. Yes, lymphocytes are a main contributor to various effects in mammals, but they go too far with assumptions when they claim this was the result of convergent evolution. There is really no evidence to support this claim, other than the common notion of "evolution did it"


During development, NK cells are ‘educated’ by self-MHC class I molecules to monitor other cells for the quality and quantity of their MHC class I expression


Think about this mechanism here^. The cells in our body are capable of learning various cues from other cells, and intuitively integrate this into the adaptive response. Take a real minute to think about that. We take for granted how amazing these processes are. The mechanism for the evolution of these mechanisms is inconceivable, because there is nearly an infinite number of responses that can result from the overall adaptive immunity of organisms.


The variable NK-cell receptors of mouse and human, the species most studied by immunologists, are products of convergent evolution. Whereas immunoglobulin-like domains form the MHC class I-binding site of human killer-cell immunoglobulin-like receptors (KIRs), the binding site of mouse Ly49 receptors is a different type of domain, which resembles that found in calcium-dependent lectins13. Emphasizing their independent evolution, KIRs and Ly49 receptors bind non-overlapping sites on the surface of MHC class I molecules9 (Figure 1A). Exploratory phylogenetic comparisons have identified a few other species that use Ly49 receptors (rat and horse) or KIRs (simian primates [G] and cattle) as variable NK cell receptors10. No species is known to diversify both KIRs and Ly49 receptors, but several species diversify neither, preserving KIR and Ly49 as conserved, single-copy gene


Although I Cannot access the article "transcription and genome analysis", I would like to see if the KIRs was absent in rats and horses or if Ly49 was absent in simian primates. Regardless, this diversity does not demonstrate evolution. These immunities are complete, and to forego a lacking intermediate stage to accumulate these mechanisms is totally unrealistic, and such a mechanism has never, and will never be presented, in this article or an article to come, because the adaptive immune response is too complex to have originated by random mutation. A genetic analysis from an old ancestor, without adaptive immunity, would be necessary to compare to a contemporary vertebrate to determine where the supposed random mutations could have occurred to create such a beautifully adaptive immunity. Yet these examples of incomplete organisms simply do not exist in the fossil record. Even the immune mechanisms themselves cry out their intelligence, and their ability to carefully select invaders while preserving the cells of the host organism.

Not only that, but convergent evolution implies that this trait evolve twice, independently. Their explanation is this:


These genes arose by duplication of an ancestral KIR gene in a non-placental mammal ~140 million years ago



This is a baseless assumption. To support this HUGE claim they source a paper about the diversity of KIR3DX in cattle... It is frustrating that these sorts of claims are permissible in such highly esteemed research articles. But it is allowed to slide, because "evolution must have done it".



That independent evolution of four families of variable NK cell receptors has been revealed by study of 4,000 extant species of placental mammal indicates that this phenomenon might have occurred many times during their 132 million-year history



Note here they admit how unprobable this scenario is, and still have yet to explain a mechanism that would have sufficed the gap from the original, to the functional gene. Not only did this monumental leap supposedly happen once, but many times. The more simple explanation is that these organisms were created with the ideal immunity for their organism.



Implicit to the generation of a new family of variable NK cell receptors is that an older family collapsed



Another challenge that is often overlooked. With the result of genetic mutations, especially instances in which, for example, proteins coded by genes with over 100,000 base pairs such as the muscle protein titin, there must be some sort of intermediate purpose for these genes as they span this tremendous gap between functional sequences. Which makes it all the more unlikely is that beneficial random mutation is extremely rare, and to consider this, in the case of titin, would require 10s of thousands of beneficial random mutations, althewhile remaining a viable gene strand in the process, to be able to bridge the gap to the functionality of this muscle protein.


The same logic applies to these immunity genes. Especially considering that one wrong mutation could result in a totally self-destructive immunity that targets a host protein and therefore renders the organism totally inviable.


Even intelligent humans, in the creation of artificial antibiotics, run into the same difficulty - they preserve the organism while selectively destroying the invader. If intelligent humans struggle to keep up the fight against adaptable microbes... then how much more intelligence would be required to create a mechanism to persistently defend against unwanted invaders? We see such a meticulously intricate network when studying the adaptive immune response. For this reason, to attribute it to random mutation seems totally out of the question. The more you learn about these living mechanisms, the more intelligent you realize that it is.



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 10:10 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

This is your standard reply: "It's an assumption". It's not an assumption if it's in the experimental data. And it's there.



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 10:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: 5StarOracle




Creation and evolution are portrayed as polar opposites..

By whom?


Exactly. It's strictly the creationists that claim evolution and creation are opposites, hence why they fight it tooth and nail. They don't argue gravity, germ theory or anything else. It's strictly evolution because it conflicts with a particular bible story. No other reason.

Well they also tend to disagree with climate science too, but that's usually for other reasons (though they are just as unscientific).



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 11:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

It's not an assumption if it's in the experimental data. And it's there.



"Bow, bow and pay tribute to the theoretical dogmatists. For they are the purveyors of truth, and if they so choose to put their thoughts into the experimental data then it foregoes as absolute in the realm of certainty. And there shall be no dissent!"

But seriously, show me where they prove this statement, or prove it yourself:


These genes arose by duplication of an ancestral KIR gene in a non-placental mammal ~140 million years ago


I am not going to believe it just because "it's in the experimental data"

edit on 30-11-2017 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 12:05 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

If you don't have any experimental data to refute it, an intelligent person would accept what's written. If a person doesn't accept what's written (and we've said this a thousand times) that person has to present the data that proves the published work is wrong.

When you can do that let us know. In the meantime, your response is just verbal garbage.



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 12:12 PM
link   


When you can do that let us know. In the meantime, your response is just verbal garbage.



It was an attempt at humor, take it or leave it.


originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

If you don't have any experimental data to refute it, an intelligent person would accept what's written. If a person doesn't accept what's written (and we've said this a thousand times) that person has to present the data that proves the published work is wrong.


No no no, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. We are NOT supposed to assume it is true until proven otherwise, that is the obligation of those making the claim. And there is no evidence to prove that statement, it is a baseless assumption:


These genes arose by duplication of an ancestral KIR gene in a non-placental mammal ~140 million years ago







 
16
<< 78  79  80    82  83  84 >>

log in

join