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.

 

So, a peer reviewed journal article stating...

page: 10
20
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2018 @ 08:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

How many of the papers which have been supplied have you read? No seriously. How many?


What papers?



They were mainly journal or web articles and some had links to supportive papers but (as I have read at least the abstract to all of them) do not present a complete or consistent proof.

edit on 28/1/2018 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 28 2018 @ 08:51 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Don't be facetious. Yoyu know that in all the threads in this forum that Raggy participates in, we've supplied numerous papers. Each and every time he has refused to read them. Called many of us atheists (which is demonstrably false for several of us) and that we "hate science". He has also had numerous threads deep sixed, for being abusive.

SO I ask again.

How many papers has he read?



posted on Jan, 28 2018 @ 08:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Simply stating that evolution is a proven scientific fact
Barcs is right, micro evolution does take place, I agree.
I want a peer reviewed journal article dealing with Macro evolution

I don't want assumption, conjecture or faith statements

As an aside, I accept evolution is a reasonable theory, I don't disagree with Christians who accept evolution, you are welcome to believe evolution
I know creation sounds like a fantasy, is really pretty silly to believe in, in this scientific world
I don't have any scientific peer reviewed articles for it either. Creation is not a secular science so it's not needed

Again, simply show me scientific peer reviewed evidence of evolution as fact

Thank you


If micro evolution exists; you know macro evolution exists too. What happens when you iterate 2,000 times on one object? It becomes a completely different object. The accumulation of micro evolution will add up over millions of years and when compared to the original, be almost unidentifiable -- it will appear to be a different creature almost surely.

We can see it when looking at Glass lizards, and it's variations that have front legs and looking at snakes in comparison.



posted on Jan, 28 2018 @ 09:29 PM
link   
a reply to: SRPrime

The problem with these creationists is they will always ask "show me when a new species appears". They don't get you can't just point and go, those parents, had a new species. Then when you show a new species has arisen, they get picky and want "no no, when a fish became a mammal" or similar goal post shifting.



posted on Jan, 28 2018 @ 11:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: SRPrime

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Simply stating that evolution is a proven scientific fact
Barcs is right, micro evolution does take place, I agree.
I want a peer reviewed journal article dealing with Macro evolution

I don't want assumption, conjecture or faith statements

As an aside, I accept evolution is a reasonable theory, I don't disagree with Christians who accept evolution, you are welcome to believe evolution
I know creation sounds like a fantasy, is really pretty silly to believe in, in this scientific world
I don't have any scientific peer reviewed articles for it either. Creation is not a secular science so it's not needed

Again, simply show me scientific peer reviewed evidence of evolution as fact

Thank you


If micro evolution exists; you know macro evolution exists too. What happens when you iterate 2,000 times on one object? It becomes a completely different object. The accumulation of micro evolution will add up over millions of years and when compared to the original, be almost unidentifiable -- it will appear to be a different creature almost surely.

We can see it when looking at Glass lizards, and it's variations that have front legs and looking at snakes in comparison.


Nice opinion piece
Head on up to the op, read, comprehend, deal with it



posted on Jan, 28 2018 @ 11:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: SRPrime

The problem with these creationists is they will always ask "show me when a new species appears". They don't get you can't just point and go, those parents, had a new species. Then when you show a new species has arisen, they get picky and want "no no, when a fish became a mammal" or similar goal post shifting.


Nice opinion piece
Head on up to the op, read, comprehend, deal with it



posted on Jan, 28 2018 @ 11:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: chr0naut

Don't be facetious. Yoyu know that in all the threads in this forum that Raggy participates in, we've supplied numerous papers. Each and every time he has refused to read them. Called many of us atheists (which is demonstrably false for several of us) and that we "hate science". He has also had numerous threads deep sixed, for being abusive.

SO I ask again.

How many papers has he read?


Nice opinion piece
Head on up to the op, read, comprehend, deal with it



posted on Jan, 28 2018 @ 11:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

How many of the papers which have been supplied have you read? No seriously. How many?


Can you show me the journals I requested, linked in any of the last 10pages

I am asking nicely Noindy



posted on Jan, 29 2018 @ 06:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: chr0naut

One other point. I'm not sure why the difference between micro and macro evolution is such a big deal. It seems to me that it's just a function of scaling. If it happens on a small scale, chances are it happens on a large scale. The laws of nature happen on small and large scales. Someone would have to explain to me why it's such a problem in evolution.


I would disagree that the difference between macroevolution and microevolution is one of scale.

The biggest issue I have is around speciation and if a biologically incompatible genome (the new species) could ever breed successfully (in the case of sexually reproducing life).

We know that as few as 12 genes can differentiate between very similar species, so biological incompatabilities (like histology) can happen in a single mutation and there is no allowance for gradual change because the genetic mutations/traits passed in every case, are a minimum quanta. I.e: you cannot assume subdivided 'partial gene changes', because they would be eliminated by the error corrective nature of genetics. Each gene must reflect self integrity to be passed on.

We have also observed similar species where one population overcomes the other through natural selection and where gradualism and partitioned populations have not occurred.

How many disproofs of vital process steps are required to shake the 'evolution only' paradigm for macroevolution?


I'm not sure what you mean by a "biologically incompatible genome". If a new species arises, then that species breeds with its own kind. That's the definition of species.

The sum total of evolutionary change be it micro or macro is a Gaussian distribution. Outliers are simply occasional anomalies. If speciation didn't happen on a large scale, the diversity of life on this planet would look entirely different.

It would be helpful if you could post a few citations regarding minimal quanta and partial gene changes. The molecular biology of speciation will vary among species just by reason of the fact that each species has a unique genome. Again, I'd need a few citations to understand your position.



posted on Jan, 29 2018 @ 02:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
Where biological diversification has been observed in situations where gradualism and partitioning don't apply, don't you think that is a disproof?


Where doesn't it apply? Just because natural selection events can be quick, doesn't mean that those organisms haven't been experiencing genetic mutations and changes for millions of years prior.


I'm not denying that evolutionary processes occur. I am saying that there is more to biodiversity than codified in evolutionary theory, that evolution isn't the only way.


Yes, I'm sure there is more to it than we currently understand.



... and really, just one actual scientific paper wouldn't be too hard, would it? Especially if, as you said, we have observed speciation several times.


Reproductive Isolation as a Consequence of Adaptive Divergence in Drosophila...

Nope, it's not hard at all. The problem is that Raggedy Man doesn't comprehend this stuff, so it doesn't matter what any research paper says. He is only looking for catch phrases that directly say "Evolution has been empirically proved", but no research paper will say that because each experiment is its own thing. You can't prove evolution with a single research paper, you need to look at the conclusions of thousands of them to even begin to fathom all the evidence.



(P.S, my definition of 'speciation' is that the ancestor and descendent species are unable to breed producing fertile offspring. I do not include the more minor 'appearance differences' as differentiators of species).


Yep, that's generally the idea, but it doesn't happen in single generation in animals. The paper I posted above shows Diane Dodd's research on this and how speciation was confirmed.


edit on 1 29 18 by Barcs because: URL fix



posted on Jan, 29 2018 @ 04:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

It is not my place to repeatedly post sources, because YOU have been too lazy to read them. So again. How. Many. Have. You. Read?



posted on Jan, 29 2018 @ 04:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: SRPrime

The problem with these creationists is they will always ask "show me when a new species appears". They don't get you can't just point and go, those parents, had a new species. Then when you show a new species has arisen, they get picky and want "no no, when a fish became a mammal" or similar goal post shifting.


One problem I have noticed is when a thread is started asking a question (or in some cases, issuing a demand), then the rest of the thread is spent pretending all of the subsequent answers arent really helpful or informative, but without actually refuting any of the answers provided. Just repeating "reread the op, comprehend, answer it" without actually explaining how or why your answer doesnt address the question nor refuting the answer you provide. That doesnt really strike me as a quality debating tactic nor as an intelligent counter argument.
edit on 29-1-2018 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2018 @ 04:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Raggedyman
So any chance Tzar, something posted on this forum for me to refute
Pretty please...


Macroevolution is a thoroughly observed and recorded phenomenon that has withstood the test of the scientific method and rigorous professional peer review, and has more evidence to support it than theology does.

Refute that statement.


Maybe you should find another thread, make one up yourself
I have a thread about something else

You know, I thought the thread title might help the subject be understood clearly

Evidently not


You said "something posted on this forum for me to refute" so I posted something for you to refute, and you ignored it completely. Like you have ignored everything else. Because you cant refute anything we have posted. Not a single piece of evidence or counter argument have you offered. You have no claim.
edit on 29-1-2018 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2018 @ 04:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut
Where biological diversification has been observed in situations where gradualism and partitioning don't apply, don't you think that is a disproof?

Where doesn't it apply? Just because natural selection events can be quick, doesn't mean that those organisms haven't been experiencing genetic mutations and changes for millions of years prior.


Implicit in the scenario you have just described is an absence of partitioning.

Your scenario implies that the various mutated genomes are spreading within a homogeneous population of mutated and unmutated organisms and later a change in selection pressures wipes out those less favoured.

In a population without other selection pressures, the expansion of the numbers of a mutated genome could be expected to increase exponentially until resource contention with the unmutated population arose (this resource contention is a selection pressure as well).

The issue is, the carriers of the mutant genes are still cross breeding with the unmutated population. It is a clear example of microevolution but but not of speciation. As soon as the cumulative genetic changes reach the tipping point that prevents successful breeding, the genomic branch terminates. There is no way for 'speciated' changes to produce offspring.

The European Peppered Moth is an example of microevolution fully demonstrated, but the observed changes were agreed to be speciating, two such changes in a period of approximately 200 years/generations. There was neither partitioning of the various populations, nor could there be more than 100 steps of gradulaism in each case.



I'm not denying that evolutionary processes occur. I am saying that there is more to biodiversity than codified in evolutionary theory, that evolution isn't the only way.
Yes, I'm sure there is more to it than we currently understand.

... and really, just one actual scientific paper wouldn't be too hard, would it? Especially if, as you said, we have observed speciation several times.



Reproductive Isolation as a Consequence of Adaptive Divergence in Drosophila...


I agree that this paper totally answers what Raggedy was requesting (and my particular slant on it) and is also interesting that behavioral mate selection preferences followed such a small and otherwise unrelated trait change.

It is important to note that, to achieve the different traited populations, they were partitioned artificially and bred for many generations. I.e: the experiment included both partitioning and allowance for gradualism. The subject flies were not part of the same environment and an identical situation as a homogenous mutated and unmutated population mix would be in nature.

(Interestingly, the very word 'homogenous' has epistemological roots in 'one kind'. Perhaps it is therefore technically an invalid word to use?)

In cases where we observe, what we assume must be speciation, between highly similar species there is often an absence (as far as we can tell) of such partitioning factors and of the expected gradualism of many small changes.

This paper, dealing with behavioral mate preference issues, adds a factor for consideration, which might be otherwise overlooked. Thank you for posting the link.


Nope, it's not hard at all. The problem is that Raggedy Man doesn't comprehend this stuff, so it doesn't matter what any research paper says. He is only looking for catch phrases that directly say "Evolution has been empirically proved", but no research paper will say that because each experiment is its own thing. You can't prove evolution with a single research paper, you need to look at the conclusions of thousands of them to even begin to fathom all the evidence.


(P.S, my definition of 'speciation' is that the ancestor and descendent species are unable to breed producing fertile offspring. I do not include the more minor 'appearance differences' as differentiators of species).
Yep, that's generally the idea, but it doesn't happen in single generation in animals. The paper I posted above shows Diane Dodd's research on this and how speciation was confirmed.


I am once again confronted by a sense of wonder at natural processes.

How could the trait related to food source cause a change in mate preference? Did they also have a different odor or color or some other feature undetected by us that was mechanism for mate preference? Perhaps the selecting mate detected that they weren't 'well fed' by their standards and therefore would not be a particularly successful mate?



edit on 29/1/2018 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2018 @ 06:12 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

Well maybe I missed it amongst all the noise on this thread
How about having another go and let's play

I hope you are not referring to your silly article on the meaning of words
That doesn't deserve a reply

That wasn't even relative to my op



posted on Jan, 29 2018 @ 07:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: chr0naut

One other point. I'm not sure why the difference between micro and macro evolution is such a big deal. It seems to me that it's just a function of scaling. If it happens on a small scale, chances are it happens on a large scale. The laws of nature happen on small and large scales. Someone would have to explain to me why it's such a problem in evolution.


I would disagree that the difference between macroevolution and microevolution is one of scale.

The biggest issue I have is around speciation and if a biologically incompatible genome (the new species) could ever breed successfully (in the case of sexually reproducing life).

We know that as few as 12 genes can differentiate between very similar species, so biological incompatabilities (like histology) can happen in a single mutation and there is no allowance for gradual change because the genetic mutations/traits passed in every case, are a minimum quanta. I.e: you cannot assume subdivided 'partial gene changes', because they would be eliminated by the error corrective nature of genetics. Each gene must reflect self integrity to be passed on.

We have also observed similar species where one population overcomes the other through natural selection and where gradualism and partitioned populations have not occurred.

How many disproofs of vital process steps are required to shake the 'evolution only' paradigm for macroevolution?


I'm not sure what you mean by a "biologically incompatible genome". If a new species arises, then that species breeds with its own kind. That's the definition of species.


What others of its own kinds? Surely the final speciating mutation affects only one organism. There is no 'kind'.


The sum total of evolutionary change be it micro or macro is a Gaussian distribution. Outliers are simply occasional anomalies. If speciation didn't happen on a large scale, the diversity of life on this planet would look entirely different.


I agree. Speciation must be occurring on enourmous scale. Biodiversity tells us that.

But the required evolutionary mechanisms for speciation are not universal. In some observed situations of obvious speciation, the mechanisms of gradualism and/or population/environmental partitioning are absent.


It would be helpful if you could post a few citations regarding minimal quanta and partial gene changes. The molecular biology of speciation will vary among species just by reason of the fact that each species has a unique genome. Again, I'd need a few citations to understand your position.


Although genomes are different, there are also great similarities, especially in phylogenetically 'related' species.

I'm looking for papers but essentially, I was referring to the error correcting and preventing mechanisms that are implicit in transcription, and replication and which prevent replication of 'partial' information.

For instance, the first level is that each base is part of a pair. Always adenine-thymine and guanine-cytosine, you can't have adenine-cytosine or adenine-guanine or thymine-guanine pairings.

On top of that, the base pairs are organized into triplets, each triplet being a codon that is transcribed to a particular protein and each codon being part of an error correcting mechanism, Codon Distribution in Error-Detecting Circular Codes - NCBI PubMed

The summary to this, though, is that because each codonprotein is a discrete unit and protected by error correction. Genomics don't have infinite divisibility of function. They have fixed step sizes and when you add the further constraints of the non-viability of certain configurations, the steps are quite large.

edit on 29/1/2018 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2018 @ 10:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Crap
Straight of the bat, the Bufoon you quoted called the idea a concept
What does concept mean?
concept
ˈkɒnsɛpt/
noun
noun: concept; plural noun: concepts

an abstract idea.
"structuralism is a difficult concept"
synonyms: idea, notion, conception, abstraction, conceptualization; More
theory, hypothesis, postulation;
belief, conviction, opinion, view, image, impression, picture
"the concept of society as an organic entity"
a plan or intention.
"the centre has kept firmly to its original concept"
an idea or invention to help sell or publicize a commodity.
"a new concept in corporate hospitality"

And the outcome of the experiment
Some alleles were slightly changed

Does that meen to you, "NEW INFORMATION was added to the gene"?
CAN YOU PROVE THAT. DOES THE EXPERIMENT PROVE THAT???

Kinda stupid article with nothing valid, baffling with bulldust
Like saying a dark moth is different to a less darker moth

Of coures there is a difference in amalyse activity, there is more starch to deal with, thats OBVIOUS

This is so stupid and dumb, it beyond primary school stuff

We fed a bunch of food to flies and they adapted to the food
Wow, who would have thyought that

Thats crap Barcs and you should know it, I am not surprised you dont know it.
Science is beyond so many on this forum


The mere fact that you would post an article that states
Flies who mate, eat a different type of food, become acustomed to that food and adapt to their enviroment is beyond belief, pathetic.
Duh

edit on 29-1-2018 by Raggedyman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2018 @ 10:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
Implicit in the scenario you have just described is an absence of partitioning.

Your scenario implies that the various mutated genomes are spreading within a homogeneous population of mutated and unmutated organisms and later a change in selection pressures wipes out those less favoured.


Yes, every individual organism has a slightly different genome, that's how it works. No organisms are "unmutated." Mutations happen every time a cell replicates or an organism reproduces.


In a population without other selection pressures, the expansion of the numbers of a mutated genome could be expected to increase exponentially until resource contention with the unmutated population arose (this resource contention is a selection pressure as well).


Why would it increase exponentially?


The issue is, the carriers of the mutant genes are still cross breeding with the unmutated population. It is a clear example of microevolution but but not of speciation. As soon as the cumulative genetic changes reach the tipping point that prevents successful breeding, the genomic branch terminates. There is no way for 'speciated' changes to produce offspring.


It's a clear example of EVOLUTION, not micro evolution. There is no difference between micro and macro. Evolution is ALL "micro" changes. Every single change is small, the small changes just accumulate. You are misunderstanding this and how it relates to speciation. No, the branch doesn't always terminate. Sometimes they are isolated from one another, as demonstrated in the experiment I posted. I already explained that speciation is a process that takes thousands of generations at bare minimum. You don't have a sudden change of species causing the offspring to be unable to breed with the parent generation. Changes like that would take a very long time to render breeding nonviable. This is why your point makes no sense to me. There isn't enough genetic change from one generation to the next to speciate. When you look at humans specifically, it's like questioning whether a homo sapien from 200,000 years ago could breed with a human today. It's not about breeding from one generation to the next where you suddenly have a new species in a single generation trying to breed with the old. It doesn't work like that.



The European Peppered Moth is an example of microevolution fully demonstrated, but the observed changes were agreed to be speciating, two such changes in a period of approximately 200 years/generations. There was neither partitioning of the various populations, nor could there be more than 100 steps of gradulaism in each case.


Now hold on a minute here. 200 years is not the same as 200 generations and there is no set speed or rate of speciation. For European pepper moths, there can be as many at 7-8 generations within a year period depending on the temperature and conditions, so 200 years would be more like 1400-1600 generations and that's only if you follow the ancestry of one single moth, not factoring in the millions of other moths experiencing genetic mutations and sharing genes.


I agree that this paper totally answers what Raggedy was requesting (and my particular slant on it) and is also interesting that behavioral mate selection preferences followed such a small and otherwise unrelated trait change.


Unfortunately Raggedy doesn't agree, but I could have told you that on the very first page of this thread. We kind of knew this would happen, regardless of what paper is posted.


It is important to note that, to achieve the different traited populations, they were partitioned artificially and bred for many generations. I.e: the experiment included both partitioning and allowance for gradualism. The subject flies were not part of the same environment and an identical situation as a homogenous mutated and unmutated population mix would be in nature.


Again, there is no such thing as an "unmutated" population. Everything mutates. Your objection here is irrelevant. Of course they were isolated and given slightly different environments, that's the point of the experiment. To show that isolation for enough generations can lead to speciation.



In cases where we observe, what we assume must be speciation, between highly similar species there is often an absence (as far as we can tell) of such partitioning factors and of the expected gradualism of many small changes.


How so? Are you really suggesting that genetic isolation doesn't occur in nature or am I not understanding your point?


(P.S, my definition of 'speciation' is that the ancestor and descendent species are unable to breed producing fertile offspring. I do not include the more minor 'appearance differences' as differentiators of species).


This is a fair definition if you put thousands of generations in between ancestor and decedent. You are right that sometimes minor appearance differences do not always indicate a new species, but it always depends on how far back you trace the lineage. That is the reason why minor differences can breed to the entire population group, it's because they aren't different species.


How could the trait related to food source cause a change in mate preference? Did they also have a different odor or color or some other feature undetected by us that was mechanism for mate preference? Perhaps the selecting mate detected that they weren't 'well fed' by their standards and therefore would not be a particularly successful mate?


It's not just mate preference, it's about the compatibility of the genomes to viably combine. You do realize they can combine genes without them directly mating, right?


edit on 1 30 18 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2018 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Thanks for proving to me that your thread is pointless. You didn't even read the paper, you just searched for catch phrases. Why even bother, if you won't address any of it? The change in frequency of alleles is exactly what evolution is. Sorry about your illiteracy.


Does that meen to you, "NEW INFORMATION was added to the gene"?
CAN YOU PROVE THAT. DOES THE EXPERIMENT PROVE THAT???


Yes, it does, because if the information was the same, they would be able to breed. Every time an organism reproduces there are dozens to hundreds of copy errors leading to changes in the code, which does create new gene sequences. Yes, the experiment proves that because they mapped the genomes.


edit on 1 30 18 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2018 @ 12:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: Raggedyman

Thanks for proving to me that your thread is pointless. You didn't even read the paper, you just searched for catch phrases. Why even bother, if you won't address any of it? The change in frequency of alleles is exactly what evolution is. Sorry about your illiteracy.


Does that meen to you, "NEW INFORMATION was added to the gene"?
CAN YOU PROVE THAT. DOES THE EXPERIMENT PROVE THAT???


Yes, it does, because if the information was the same, they would be able to breed. Every time an organism reproduces there are dozens to hundreds of copy errors leading to changes in the code, which does create new gene sequences. Yes, the experiment proves that because they mapped the genomes.



Piss poor
Read the papper again, read my reply
That was stupid
Use the journal article to prove your point
You have nothing
It was stupid

Back it up, it doesn't say what you think it says, read it
You are scientificaly ignorant

Where does it say new information was added to the genome

Stand up
edit on 30-1-2018 by Raggedyman because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
20
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join