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.

 

Can you prove evolution wrong? -- Part 2

page: 33
14
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 22 2019 @ 02:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

Mutation is always happening, but not all mutations lead to something that would benefit the organism in its environment.

If there’s no benefit, then there is no reproduction advantage. If there’s no reproductive advantage, then natural selection won’t happen.

So some species in some situations will evolve and some species in other situations won’t, even though there would be mutations in both cases.


Genes are basically the fundamental component that leads to evolution. We keep say mutations and of course the environment will cause this but Gene Flow and Genetic drift has a much larger play in what we might see as evolution. An interesting part to evolution is that for the first 3+ billion years of life on our planet it was stagnated at a very basic level and it wasn't until evolution created the first predator and prey scenario that life started what one could call a massive arms race of evolution.

We also have many symbiotic relationship that all came about from evolution to the point that most advance life would die out without many of these symbiotic relationships to keep each other alive. We have bacteria in our stomach that could not live outside of it and all other life could not survive in our stomach, this is a simple example of how evolution will create a situation that would be impossible without a very slow evolutionary process to some seemly impossible end state.


edit on 22-7-2019 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 22 2019 @ 02:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
a reply to: Quadrivium
Mutation is always happening, but not all mutations lead to something that would benefit the organism in its environment.

If there’s no benefit, then there is no reproduction advantage. If there’s no reproductive advantage, then natural selection won’t happen.

So some species in some situations will evolve and some species in other situations won’t, even though there would be mutations in both cases.


The problem is that mutations can only alter gene sequences which effect protein structure. Proteins are very rarely, if ever, one mutation away from forming into another useful protein. These are vast sequences, and in the case of the titin protein, over 100,000 base pairs (DNA units) long. This would require a VAST amount of beneficial mutations, all accurately picking the precise base pair over time to form the right sequence... 100,000 times?!?! No way.

It is equivalent to a monkey writing a Shakespearean epic.


Complete and utter nonsense.


Even water erosion has purpose though. The solubility laws of water balance salt-water ecosystems.


This is why my posts to you always contain "LOL!s"

Just because that is how water erosion works, doesn't mean it has some grand purpose to do exactly that. So delusional..


Humans are the theorized product of evolution, so you are stripping humans of purpose. "Life is an accident", etc, etc... This is nihilism. That's where the religion of evolution leads young minds.

It's not a good path


LOL! Evolution/science doesn't care about "good paths." Evolution is true whether we have a purpose or not. You are inventing a purpose because of religion. Science isn't wrong just because it postulates humans MAY NOT have a divine purpose, and again, there is no proof of that either way. You don't grasp the difference between function and purpose and are once again spewing fallacies.


edit on 7 22 19 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2019 @ 02:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

Complete and utter nonsense.


You are correct, we get this type of logic from someone who starts at the end and looks back and says its like a monkey randomly typing Shakespeare or nature randomly making a 747.

The reality is that lets say we had a point and in front of that point was a trillion more points and each point had a trillion more each, so on and so on. You draw a line across a trillion random points and this type of logic would be like someone walks up to you and says how is it possible that a person can randomly connect a trillion trillion points and end up at this exact one!! IMPOSSABLE!!!


edit on 22-7-2019 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2019 @ 02:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
LOL! Evolution/science doesn't care about "good paths." Evolution is true whether we have a purpose or not. You are inventing a purpose because of religion. Science isn't wrong just because it postulates humans MAY NOT have a divine purpose, and again, there is no proof of that either way. You don't grasp the difference between function and purpose and are once again spewing fallacies.



There is kind of "good paths". When a species develops a new trait it can be good, neutral or bad for the species. Good dominate traits have a better chance to propagate as compared to dominate bad traits that tend to die out.



posted on Jul, 22 2019 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Quadrivium

No you brought creationism up. Thus this introduces the aspect of Religion to the argument. Furhter more IF you've read the thread (and all the similar ones) some religious zealot will always make this about religion.

Evolution DOES occur to all species.



posted on Jul, 22 2019 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Observationalist

And I said what we know about Gravity. Its less understood than evolution. But just as apparent



posted on Jul, 22 2019 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Out6of9Balance

You seem mistaken. Evolution is reason. IT is intellectual knowledge (εἶδειν eídein), it is objective. while what you are calling "reason" aka religion aka gnosis is spiritual knowlege, which is gut feeling, which is subjective.



posted on Jul, 22 2019 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Out6of9Balance

You seem mistaken. Evolution is reason. IT is intellectual knowledge (εἶδειν eídein), it is objective. while what you are calling "reason" aka religion aka gnosis is spiritual knowlege, which is gut feeling, which is subjective.



posted on Jul, 22 2019 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

No matter how much you repeat that.



posted on Jul, 22 2019 @ 04:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Out6of9Balance

Yes it still remains true. Are you sure you are not some bot replying. It seems you are struggling to reach the minimal word requirement for posting here neighbour.



posted on Jul, 22 2019 @ 05:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs



Why does there have to be a purpose, though? It's just a fact of nature that copy errors happen during replication and that the better adapted organisms have a better chance at surviving and passing down genes to offspring.
Yes, according to today's science nearly 90% of mutations occur in noncoding DNA and are "neutral". That leaves 10% for beneficial and non beneficial mutations. What percentage are non beneficial? What percentage are beneficial?
With the margin being so small for beneficial mutations how can any organism be "better adapted" as you say?
Hmmm....
Can we try a thought experiment?
Lets say for some reason (climate change, asteroid or whatever) the climate in Australia started to change dramatically. The platypus, which has changed very little in over a couple of million years, will it adapt to the environment or will it go extinct?



Since when is evolution stated as "it just is, end of story?" Generally speaking scientists cite research and evidence, they don't just say "evolution just is!" and run away when challenged.

Ask Noinden, he is the one that stated "evolution just is!" here



If an organism is very well adapted to their environment, genetic mutations experienced would mostly be neutral or harmful. That's why some species maintain their similar appearance for so long because they are adapted so well to their respective environments. Also, no species stays EXACTLY the same, even when you look at say a white shark, you will still see differences from their ancestor species, they just won't be as big of changes. Selection is a big part of it, it's not just mutations.

Selection denotes Purpose.

edit on 22-7-2019 by Quadrivium because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2019 @ 05:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Quadrivium

No you brought creationism up. Thus this introduces the aspect of Religion to the argument. Furhter more IF you've read the thread (and all the similar ones) some religious zealot will always make this about religion.

Evolution DOES occur to all species.

Again, childish.
You brought in religion my friend when you stated "Evolution just is! End of story". This is very much a faith based statement that can not be proven. That is why I likened it to when the Creationist says "God did it! End of story".
Just like your statement "some religious zealot will always make this about religion" is a faith based statement. It is a belief on your part.



posted on Jul, 22 2019 @ 05:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Quadrivium

Yes, according to today's science nearly 90% of mutations occur in noncoding DNA and are "neutral". That leaves 10% for beneficial and non beneficial mutations. What percentage are non beneficial? What percentage are beneficial?
With the margin being so small for beneficial mutations how can any organism be "better adapted" as you say?


Woah, slow down there soldier, it's not that simple. I'm assuming your claim of 90% is correct(didn't look it up myself), but you are way off in what that means.

When a mutation happens to CODING DNA, it can be helpful, harmful OR yes NEUTRAL. It's not about just coding vs non coding DNA. The vast majority of mutations to the coding DNA are also neutral, and it's very tiny % of the coding DNA that actually changes. Don't forget that many genes are not expressed in the phenotype, so often mutations will happen to code sequences that are neutral to the organism's survival. But of course that also can change over the generations.

Keep in mind that helpful, harmful, and neutral is relative to the environment. Changes more often than not do not make a lick of difference in the organism's survival.


Lets say for some reason (climate change, asteroid or whatever) the climate in Australia started to change dramatically. The platypus, which has changed very little in over a couple of million years, will it adapt to the environment or will it go extinct?


I couldn't say, I'm not a platypus expert, but no doubt it would depend on precisely what conditions changed and how drastically. You could ask the same thing of humans, or any other species on earth when it comes to major natural disasters. The last yellowstone eruption destroyed a large portion of North America, many extinctions as a result. The asteroid that took out the dinosaurs could render humans extinct if it happened today. We owe our very existence to organisms that were adapted to survive those major extinction level events. The deep sea extremeophiles for the permian extinction or the small mammals for the dino extinction event. An event like that could wipe humans off the planet, but as long as those other things survive, intelligent sentient beings could return some day.


Ask Noinden, he is the one that stated "evolution did it!"


Not in that context, though. You were asking about having a purpose, which is subjective in itself. He was saying that evolution might just be the way it is, without intended purpose. Copy mistakes in random genes as a primary mechanism, doesn't seem like intended purpose to me.


Selection denotes Purpose


No. Natural selection just means the organisms better adapted are more likely to survive and pass down genes.


edit on 7 22 19 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2019 @ 06:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

Woah, slow down there soldier, it's not that simple. I'm assuming your claim of 90% is correct(didn't look it up myself), but you are way off in what that means.

When a mutation happens to CODING DNA, it can be helpful, harmful OR yes NEUTRAL. It's not about just coding vs non coding DNA. The vast majority of mutations to the coding DNA are also neutral.

Keep in mind that helpful, harmful, and neutral is relative to the environment. Changes more often than not do not make a lick of difference in the organism's survival.


You are right, I left out the "neutral" in the 10% I mentioned, I was trying to give you an advantage
.
That actually makes the possibility of a beneficial mutation happening by chance alone, at the proper time it is needed, even less likely to occur.
You may say the needed mutation was already there before a slow environmental change began, then that alone denotes purpose.




I couldn't say, I'm not a platypus expert, but no doubt it would depend on precisely what conditions changed and how drastically. You could ask the same thing of humans, or any other species on earth when it comes to major natural disasters. The last yellowstone eruption destroyed a large portion of North America, many extinctions as a result. The asteroid that took out the dinosaurs could render humans extinct if it happened today.

Good response. I was not sure how you were going to approach the question.





Not in that context, though. You were asking about having a purpose. A purpose is subjective. When talking about the validity of evolution they don't just say "evolution did it" and even if so, the statement is justified because of all the evidence.

I disagree totally on this point. He made a faith based statement. You called me out when you thought is was a comment from me but you give Nioden a pass. Unjustified by me yet justifiable by him.




Now I remember you, LOL. Welcome back, good to see you upgraded your knowledge since our last encounter.

Looks like you have had some mutations of your own



posted on Jul, 22 2019 @ 06:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Quadrivium

Childish? That seems to be a go to avoidance technique for people around here who don't want to engage. Its not childish, its the lay of the land.

What part of science is so hard to grok for you?Science does not deal with subjectivity. The purpose of evolution (for example) is purely subjective. T he objective part is that it occurs, and we know HOW, and to a certain extent why.

Its not belief.

But you decide to shut this down by calling it "childish".

Slan leat



posted on Jul, 22 2019 @ 06:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Quadrivium
That actually makes the possibility of a beneficial mutation happening by chance alone, at the proper time it is needed, even less likely to occur.


Nothing to do with your original point, but okay. Please go up and re-read my post. Maybe I edited it in when I proofread, but I explained how mutations can happen to genes, but not be expressed until generations later, so they don't have to happen at the exact "right" time. There is no right or wrong time, a gene can be neutral for millions of years. When an environment changes, the standard of beneficial, neutral or harmful changes.


You may say the needed mutation was already there before a slow environmental change began, then that alone denotes purpose.


I did say this, but the mutations happen to random genes, so claiming purpose is baseless, especially since so many others go extinct because of them.

Don't get me wrong, you can believe that if you want, there's nothing wrong with it, but genetic mutations are random copy errors, so hardly looks purposeful.

Think of the Yellowstone super volcano eruption I mentioned. There were very little beneficial survival traits if you were the general area of that (and general area spans over several states and thousands of square miles, although the entire earth was affected). Beneficial, harmful, neutral can change in an instant. Much luck is also involved in those big events. Sad thing is Yellowstone could erupt again at any moment.


I disagree totally on this point. He made a faith based statement. You called me out when you thought is was a comment from me but you give Nioden a pass. Unjustified by me yet justifiable by him.


Different context, so it doesn't matter. Claiming a purpose is not the same as posing an explanation for something.


edit on 7 22 19 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2019 @ 06:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Quadrivium

Childish? That seems to be a go to avoidance technique for people around here who don't want to engage. Its not childish, its the lay of the land.

What part of science is so hard to grok for you?Science does not deal with subjectivity. The purpose of evolution (for example) is purely subjective. T he objective part is that it occurs, and we know HOW, and to a certain extent why.

Its not belief.

But you decide to shut this down by calling it "childish".

Slan leat

Please stop. Your ignorance is showing.
1. I have a not avoided anything (nor will I) and when have I not engaged?
2. Your statement had nothing to do with science. Your statement "Evolution just is! End of story" was faith based. You are dealing in absolutes that you take on faith.
3. You showed it to be faith based by your very last statement.
"The objective part is that it occurs, and we know TO A CERTAIN EXTENT WHY.
If you only know to a certain extent, then your statement "Evolution Just is!, End of story" is false.

4. I did not call "it" childish, I called you childish.



posted on Jul, 22 2019 @ 07:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs


I did say this, but the mutations happen to random genes, so claiming purpose is baseless, especially since so many others go extinct because of them.

Don't get me wrong, you can believe that if you want, there's nothing wrong with it, but genetic mutations are random copy errors, so hardly looks purposeful.

It looks very purposeful, to me at least.
You may remember some of my views from the "Part 1".
It would seem that some mutations do happen "at just the right time". I state this as belief, not fact.
I also believe it purposeful because life will find a way. The purpose is survival.




Different context, so it doesn't matter. Claiming a purpose is not the same as posing an explanation for something.


We will have to agree to disagree here (see my above statement to Nioden for clarification).



posted on Jul, 22 2019 @ 07:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Quadrivium

Back to the Ad hominem I see.

My statement has EVERYTHING to do with science. Evolution is a natural phenomenon. In that it occurs, no matter what you or I believe. Purpose implies that it is part of something designed. Rather than something that happens. What is the purpose of Gravity? What is the puropse of the strong and week nuclear forces? OR magnetism. They are consequences. Nothing more.

Your own inherent biases are making it seem to you that it must be with purpose.

Evolution just is. In that it occurs. Not that it occurs for a reason. I work in the science, I have researched in the evolution sphere, even if that is not my primary work. Scientific phenomenon do not have a purpose. To ascribe one to them, is as I repeatedly have said is to anthropomorphize them. To ascribe human characteristics to something.


So stop implying this faith based.



posted on Jul, 22 2019 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Quadrivium

It does not matter if it looks purposeful to you, that does not make it with purpose. Your biases are peaking out.




top topics



 
14
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join