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.

 

Watch Strange, Glowing Bacteria Harpoon and Swallow DNA to Evolve

page: 2
26
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 13 2018 @ 10:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: howtonhawky

lol
you are confused
your bias smell like mainstream malarkey
the smartest thing darwin done was to choose a name for his delusions that would falsely highlight the truth while bssing everyone at the same time

You call wanting logic and empirical evidence a bias?

Yes, I am the one confused.

For sure.




posted on Jun, 13 2018 @ 11:28 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

not quite

i call it wants and needs

if there is a need created then with enough energy input a need is full filled

logic tells us that if we go hunting for a monkey fish frog and we keep at it we will find one


btw empirical evidence is the biggest joke in human history and does not exist except in the receivers own mind







seriously though the scienceers have been clinging for centuries to ever changing empirical evidence and at any point would argue their fleeting failing point to the death



posted on Jun, 13 2018 @ 12:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: howtonhawky

btw empirical evidence is the biggest joke in human history and does not exist except in the receivers own mind


BTW, I live 20 minutes away from the Creation Museum and the Ark Encounter--I know what the biggest joke(s) in human history are.



seriously though the scienceers have been clinging for centuries to ever changing empirical evidence and at any point would argue their fleeting failing point to the death

So, what's worse, "clinging for centuries to ever changing empirical evidence," or clinging to millennium-old beliefs that have no empirical data to support them, especially when those theories were created?

See, at least with one of those options, the evidence changes, and said changing evidence is studied and/or embraced by the scientists--in the other, the theory is pointed to and substantiated by saying, "Because [insert book here] says so."

Sorry, you're not going to convince of the crazy theory that you claim to have but have not yet asserted in this conversation.

And then you have the ancient-alien theory that promotes genetic manipulation (which I guess would fall under horizontal gene transfer?), which I'm not even going to get into (but I don't remove from the realm of possibility, regardless of whether it was from manipulation from intelligent alien beings or just the introduction of foreign DNA via something not of this world).

So, what is your crazy idea?

Asking for a friend.



posted on Jun, 13 2018 @ 12:24 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

nice slide down the divide there




So, what's worse, "clinging for centuries to ever changing empirical evidence," or clinging to millennium-old beliefs that have no empirical data to support them, especially when those theories were created?



you want my theory?

you have to give input to get output

honestly i am beyond theory at this point and what i know can not be expressed in any manner that most would understand especially since you bring in the divide

putting all the science and biblical stuff to the side we can not come to any true conclusions without addressing the fundamentals first

likely we could not even agree on the flow of time vs the happening now stackual theory

how could you understand me if you cant even know what stackuall means?

as i stated before...

good op



posted on Jun, 13 2018 @ 12:48 PM
link   
a reply to: howtonhawky

Glad that you liked the OP, but to be frank, I'm not trying to understand you, just wondering what your crazy idea is. Have a link to a post about it or something?

If you don't want to share, that's fine. If you don't, best regards.



posted on Jun, 13 2018 @ 01:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: howtonhawky

Glad that you liked the OP, but to be frank, I'm not trying to understand you, just wondering what your crazy idea is. Have a link to a post about it or something?

If you don't want to share, that's fine. If you don't, best regards.



what crazy idea?

i gave you the truth

what area of crazyness do you wish to delve into?

time?science stuff?dna swallowing?what are we on about i forgot everything past the point of scienceers like to cram info down peeps throats and ridicule them if they spit it up

oh yea and darwin was wrong over time on the majority of points he put forth

how about this

the only difference in darwins creation and the bible is one is forced reading and the other is optional and if you dig deep enough you can see that the basis is the same for both on many points. except the ole monkey fishfrogs



posted on Jun, 13 2018 @ 01:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: howtonhawky

what crazy idea?


Come on, man...

originally posted by: howtonhawky

So my crazy theories are being proven correct.

A theory is an idea backed with evidence, but it's still an idea. I'm asking you what your "crazy theories" are that are proven correct by the video of a dyed bacterium snatching a free-floating DNA and adding it to its unicellular body as a means of evolving via the already-known process of horizontal gene transfer.

If you haven't made a thread/threads about it and don't want to get into it, that's fine. If you have discussed it somewhere where you can share a link, please do.



posted on Jun, 13 2018 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

so i guess you did not like my first thought on the subject?

Why evolve using some preset conditions when i could just change according to my needs and environment.

as i have stated no such conversations between us could be beneficial because you and i do not stand on the same grounds.

remember stackual?

to go down this road first one has to answer the time question.

is it linear?
from outside time it is stacked...that takes on a whole new set of factors that effect much of our reality.

it is the difference between believing that the so called missing links existed before the volve theory existed


as i stated there is another line of thinking that says someone inVENTed something...you can not vent something in unless there is somewhere outside to start from

there are multiple realities surrounding us at all times people and places with different orgins than others all coming together under one great LIon of reasoning...

however the truth is hard to handle and not much room for improvement living with a full plate.





posted on Jun, 13 2018 @ 04:04 PM
link   
a reply to: howtonhawky

This, in my mind, reinforces the evidence against the 'selfish gene' theory. Genes aren't special in themselves, but serve as a means to an end when stuck together to create adaptive & collaborative mechanisms suitable for the propagation of LIFE, via the creation of a vessel suitable for the evolution of LIFE, a sweeping upwards curve on the road to sentience.

The earliest cellular organisms were formed by the collaborative agency of simple mechanisms formed by the adaption of material in the environment into the most primitive life-bearing organic machines & machine components. The various critters picked up & assembled within the developing cells steadily became more specialised in terms of their roles within the cellular machinery. The whole process of evolution is akin to this, the construction & adaptation of components into cooperative matrices with specialist purpose, aiming WITH PURPOSE (just like the bacteria in the OP), purposefully extending & developing 'itself' in the pursuit of more complex vessels in which it, 'the Life principle', could be made ever-more sublimely manifest.

The transcendence of 'the principle' through & via its mechanical cooperation endeavours suggests that basic units of consciousness are (or a field of conscious potential is) implicit to the fabric of the universe, with specialisation & growing complexity of the mechanism leading to ever more perfect opportunities for LIFE to become manifest in an individualistic sense, yet also with overarching cooperation being evident almost everywhere you look in the plant & animal kingdoms.

The genes are only a means to an end - they are not the end in itself. The end result of this evolutionary process of complex collaborative development & refinement of biological material, is to create a vessel through which consciousness, LIFE, can be concentrated & manifest as an individual. That individual, in its species (or across the divide between species) then cooperates with other individuals (generally) to exist in an increasingly refined adapted niche, part of the tapestry of life in the universe, each taking its place according to its kind, thereafter ever pressing ahead - if circumstance demands or presents an opportunity for this to be the case.

Having said this, I believe that at the level of sentience, we are atop the first super-prime plateau in the operation of the universal Life principle, and who knows how things may now progress. The transhumanist, mechanistic technological chimera/ cyborg 'progression' is not, imho, the assured or safest development. I have a suspicion that when man tries to adapt his biology mechanically in the pursuit of 'progress' beyond evolution's slow arc, we may then come into contact with forms of life beyond our ken, who/ which will in some manner re-establish the correct & harmonious order. Whether we progress peacefully, or allow ourselves to be co-opted into a demonic transhumanist agenda, is up for debate. Personally, I believe that at some point, the hidden 'controllers' (influencers) will try to achieve some version of the latter, and Heaven knows that might well be a time of troubles beyond imagining.



edit on JuneWednesday1816CDT04America/Chicago-050009 by FlyInTheOintment because: sentence structure, spelling



posted on Jun, 13 2018 @ 05:58 PM
link   
How do they know it wasn't just hungry?

What's it gonna eat, a tuna?




posted on Jun, 17 2018 @ 01:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman
It doesn’t have to decode the DNA. All life on this planet uses the same language. The DNA fragment has a chance of coding for one or more specific proteins.



posted on Jun, 17 2018 @ 02:33 AM
link   
Sorry, all life on the planet uses the same language
Even if we were talking language, there are thousands of different languages but we are talking DNA
Can you show me some science that backs up your claim

How does the DNA know what to become, it just guesses
How does it know what the host needs, coffee and chat
Astounding



posted on Jun, 17 2018 @ 02:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

DNA doesn't know or try to do anything by intent. DNA is a molecule. Molecules don't have intent.

edit on 6/17/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2018 @ 07:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman
Sure, this puts it simply: wiki



posted on Jun, 17 2018 @ 08:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I don't think you understand the issue here buddy
DNA is a blueprint, blueprints can be read, surely you arnt going to run another reef over pedantics
Or are you saying DNA is nothing
Might want to help epm with an answer if you agree with their premise

No wiki pages either
edit on 17-6-2018 by Raggedyman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2018 @ 08:52 AM
link   
Are you telling me that the Wikipedia page you linked teaches me how the bacteria ingests and then assimilates the foreign DNA into its own DNA
Really?
I mean really?



posted on Jun, 17 2018 @ 09:03 AM
link   
What did they observe this in? Blood?



posted on Jun, 17 2018 @ 10:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman
Not at all. Just the basics on how DNA is a common language as per your original request.

Anyway, you might want to look at a Gene Gun which basically just injects dna into a cell nucleus. It is likely the bacterium is doing the same.
edit on 17/6/2018 by EasyPleaseMe because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2018 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: EasyPleaseMe

See
When you say it is likey
Reality it means it is extremely unlikely, in this case it's actually impossible

A gene gun that I am not familiar? with is actually not the gun but the gene that is engineered (funny isn't that word phage) and injected into, that gene is tested to be "code" readable (I have bracketed the word code because it's an analogy)
Anyway, a natural gene as opposed to an injected gene is a little different

It's tricky
Ask Phage, he seems to have a lot to say

It's funny, a book doesn't have intent, it's just a book, but if you read the book....
edit on 17-6-2018 by Raggedyman because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
26
<< 1   >>

log in

join