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.

 

The Scientific Impossibility of Evolution

page: 8
34
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 09:57 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

You can of course cite all this right? Because making these statements and taking them seriously do require a citation or three.




posted on Sep, 21 2018 @ 06:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

You can of course cite all this right? Because making these statements and taking them seriously do require a citation or three.


Ironic that you're now learning from someone who you, on multiple occasions, have called "scientifically illiterate".

Epigenetic mechanisms are universal among prokaryotes. This study found that 93% of 230 bacterial and archaeal genomes contained the gene required for gene methylation (one of the many epigenetic mechanisms).

Epigenetics are necessary for homeostasis. Without epigenetics regulating the expression of a gene, the gene will be overexpressed or underexpressed.

"Methylation of DNA is an essential epigenetic control mechanism in mammals."
Source

Again we come back to the chicken or the egg. Which came first, the gene? Or the gene that regulates the gene?



posted on Sep, 21 2018 @ 09:51 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton


originally posted by: cooperton

Epigenetic mechanisms are required even in the most simple prokaryote. They could not be responsible for evolution because epigenetic alterations do not get passed on to the offspring, such a thought is similar to Lamarckism.

Except that epigenetic modifications to the phenotype are absolutely heritable. Study after study after study after study etc etc ( there are hundreds of articles on epigenetic inheritance) have confirmed this. Lamarck might be making a come back of sorts


It explains multiple phenotypes to one genotype (plasticity). It explains instinct quite well and the ability to evolve in just a few generations instead hundreds or thousands ( I realize this is moot for you since you don't believe in evolution). I also think epigenetics is better at explaining the famous Darwin FInches and the peppered moths.


originally posted by: cooperton
Again we come back to the chicken or the egg. Which came first, the gene? Or the gene that regulates the gene?

Yes, and that seems to be the only problem you're raising in these mutitudes of threads on the matter. That you can't understand what order in which these things had to happen doesn't necesarily support a supernatural conclusion. Everything in the universe happens in a sequential step by step process, – as far as our senses allow us to tell – it doesn't just all come together in one blink of an eye. Or maybe it does because we're exisiting in a video game....



posted on Sep, 21 2018 @ 10:15 AM
link   
How would you build a Matrix like simulation?

First, the participants would need to not be able to easily figure it out. So, when this universe was created, there were certain parameters needed to create the illusion of a deep past. I personally think that there have been so many different universes created that the diversity of what all has been created and destroyed would boggle my feeble mind.

Dinosaurs. They existed. We have proof of this. So, at one point, life on this rock orbiting this sun was a very rough existence for all life here. There were not wars as we now know them, but there were really bad ass dinos that could eat humans in a bite or two.

So, the "plan" for this simulation needed a significant amount of time to create life as we now know it. Time, is a parameter of this existence.

And, truth be told, humans may not be the actual end result.

Fred..



posted on Sep, 21 2018 @ 10:41 AM
link   
a reply to: fredrodgers1960

Well with the way we’re going, and how we’re going to be able to simulate realities indistinguishable from our own, we may be on the cusp of simulating our own universe and assigning it its own properties. Complete with its own laws on how it will work. I’m sure we’ll have it generate its own life forms based on these rules. And we’ll watch and laugh at these life forms as they try to figure out wtf is going on and how they got there. Maybe they’ll figure it out and then we’ll hit the reset button...



posted on Sep, 21 2018 @ 02:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: PhotonEffect

Except that epigenetic modifications to the phenotype are absolutely heritable. Study after study after study after study etc etc ( there are hundreds of articles on epigenetic inheritance) have confirmed this. Lamarck might be making a come back of sorts


Fascinating. I was unaware, thanks for showing me this. So Lamarck was at least partially right after all. It's funny at one point it was absolute taboo to relate evolution with Lamarckism. Now obviously evolutionists have to change the goal posts.


originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: [post=2378 and the ability to evolve in just a few generations instead hundreds or thousands ( I realize this is moot for you since you don't believe in evolution). I also think epigenetics is better at explaining the famous Darwin FInches and the peppered moths.


I agree with you, but I don't think it is evolution, it is just adaptation. The distinction is that adaptations work on already available genes, whereas evolution claims that new genes can be created at random by mutations. The epigenome only works on already existent genes
edit on 21-9-2018 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2018 @ 10:58 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton


originally posted by: cooperton
So Lamarck was at least partially right after all. It's funny at one point it was absolute taboo to relate evolution with Lamarckism. Now obviously evolutionists have to change the goal posts.

Yes, only partially right, in so much that acquired characteristics can be transgenerational.

If by 'evolutionists' you mean folks who accept that biological systems evolve by means of becoming adapted to their environments, then put me in that camp. Even so, from where I'm sitting, current evolutionary theory could use a rethink or at least a shift in focus. But I wouldn't necessarily call it "moving the goal posts".


originally posted by: cooperton
I agree with you, but I don't think it is evolution, it is just adaptation. The distinction is that adaptations work on already available genes, whereas evolution claims that new genes can be created at random by mutations. The epigenome only works on already existent genes

I would say it depends on what you mean by 'adaptation'. It can be a problematic term for some because it covers a wide scope of meaning depending on context, which can create misunderstandings and misconceptions.

Same with natural selection - it's a term and concept that drives me nuts. There must be a dozen different types of selection by now. They've got one for every situation, so you can't be wrong. Selection is happening all over the place, this way and that way, up and down, even in space now... it's like it's on steroids. Too big to fail. (Hence the quote in my sig)

I digress...
And yes, the epigenome works on the genome. New genes are created via a myriad of mechanisms, quite compelling.



posted on Sep, 21 2018 @ 11:23 PM
link   
One major thing that I think gets overlooked in this whole argument is time.

To me it seems that time is the major factor in evolution and people tend to underestimate just how long a 1,000,000 years is. Then you have 10,000,000 and then 100,000,000 and 1,000,000,000 years.

We can look back at human ancestory in the 10,000's and 100,000's of years. Within this amount of time, which actually is a very small amount, we have adapted from simple survival skills to what we know and can do today. It is through this constant adaptation, that over long long periods of time, leads to evolution.



Evolution: 
Evolution consists of changes in the heritable traits of a population of organisms as successive generations replace one another. It is populations of organisms that evolve, not individual organisms.

Link



posted on Sep, 22 2018 @ 03:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton
For example, a heart is useless without lungs, and lungs are useless without a heart.

So how do fish function without lungs, then? (they do have a heart). And primitive blood pumping system (aka "heart") evolved before lungs, or at least concurrently with the early respiratory systems. And there's a whole variety of them, such as "book lungs" in spiders. Nature is inventive.

The biggest sign of the reality of evolution for me is whales: they have very clearly evolved from four-legged, land-dwelling mammals.




www.youtube.com...


www.youtube.com...



posted on Sep, 22 2018 @ 04:25 AM
link   
How about more modern indications of evolution in animals?

Example of help in domestication,



Pet rabbits less afraid of people because their brains have shrunk

Researchers found alterations in regions involves in their response to fear, the amygdala and medial prefrontal cortex.

Scientists at Uppsalla University in Sweden raised domestic and wild rabbits in similar conditions and used high-resolution MRI scanners to study how domestication affected their brains.


Continu ed




Female ducks fight back against ‘raping’ males

Now, in the most detailed analysis yet of duck and goose vaginas, researchers have established that females of these species have evolved vaginal features to thwart unwelcome males.

Tim Birkhead at the University of Sheffield in the UK and colleagues examined vaginas and the corresponding phalluses from 16 wildfowl species. They discovered that the longer and more elaborate the male member, the longer and more elaborate its female recipient was.

Source 2

Reference: Is domestication, evolution?





Animal evolution during domestication: the domesticated fox as a model

Summary
We review the evolution of domestic animals, emphasizing the effect of the earliest steps of domestication on its course. Using the first domesticated species, the dog (Canis familiaris) as an illustration, we describe the evolutionary specificities of the historical domestication, such as the high level and wide range of diversity. We suggest that the process of earliest domestication via unconscious and later conscious selection of human-defined behavioral traits may accelerate phenotypic variations
Source study




edit on 22-9-2018 by dreamingawake because: source link text errors



posted on Sep, 22 2018 @ 09:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: cooperton
New genes are created via a myriad of mechanisms, quite compelling.


I agree with your post except for that statement. From what I read the past day, most of the observations of population adaptations can be attributed to epigenetic inheritance, such as antibiotic resistance: Source

"Adaptive resistance emerges when populations of bacteria are subjected to gradual increases of antibiotics. It is characterized by a rapid emergence of resistance and fast reversibility to the non-resistant phenotype when the antibiotic is removed from the medium."

The key part is that these populations quickly resort back to baseline expression once the antibiotic is removed. Indicating this was not evolution, it was a transient epigenetic inheritance that allowed for antibiotic resistance. Like you said previously, epigenetic inheritance seems to be the underlying mechanism of most supposed observations of evolution in action.



posted on Sep, 23 2018 @ 04:15 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Learning? You really are kidding yourself neighbour. I simply am insisting you cite scientific statements, with peer reviewed papers.


tell you what, read The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution and get back to me after reading it.



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 12:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: cooperton
New genes are created via a myriad of mechanisms, quite compelling.


I agree with your post except for that statement. From what I read the past day, most of the observations of population adaptations can be attributed to epigenetic inheritance, such as antibiotic resistance: Source

"Adaptive resistance emerges when populations of bacteria are subjected to gradual increases of antibiotics. It is characterized by a rapid emergence of resistance and fast reversibility to the non-resistant phenotype when the antibiotic is removed from the medium."

The key part is that these populations quickly resort back to baseline expression once the antibiotic is removed. Indicating this was not evolution, it was a transient epigenetic inheritance that allowed for antibiotic resistance. Like you said previously, epigenetic inheritance seems to be the underlying mechanism of most supposed observations of evolution in action.


they adapted, but they did not evolve because that adaptation did not become hardwired into their genetics. like the difference between getting a temporary tan and giving birth to a generation with greater concentrations of melanin as a result of years of successful tanning. or the inverse, giving rise to a community of pale humans as a result of lower UV exposure. the peppered moths exhibit in the UK is another excellent example.

admit it, cooper. you dont actually understand evolution and all of your arguments hinge on misrepresenting MES rather than debunking it.



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 07:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: wildespace

So how do fish function without lungs, then?


Gills. Fish are even more of a mind-boggling scenario. gills without a heart pumping oxygen to tissues is useless, and a heart pumping blood to tissue without gills retrieving oxygen is useless. It's a simple concept that both are needed. How both of these could have developed simultaneously is beyond anything that the empirical evidence warrants as a possibility, not to mention the pressure of drowning immediately if both heart and gills aren't present.


originally posted by: TzarChasm

they adapted, but they did not evolve because that adaptation did not become hardwired into their genetics.


Prior to me citing the counter-evidence, you and the others were citing it as evidence of evolution. You are not alone, scientists jumped to the same conclusions, but now are facing the inevitability of the truth. They can only tip-toe around the elephant in the room for so long.
edit on 24-9-2018 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 07:58 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

"Scientists jumped to the same conclusions". So you are saying you know better than specialists? Just asking for clarity here. If you do, please do explain why you are superior in your clarity.



posted on Sep, 25 2018 @ 06:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

"Scientists jumped to the same conclusions". So you are saying you know better than specialists? Just asking for clarity here. If you do, please do explain why you are superior in your clarity.


I was referring to Scientists conducting the antibiotic resistance experiments who concluded it was proof of evolution. Surely enough, if the antibiotic pressure is removed from the antibiotic resistant strain, they resume baseline non-antibiotic resistance in a couple generations. This fully demonstrates it is not evolution taking place, but some sort of epigenetic inheritance:

Source

This study demonstrated that it was epigenetic alterations that allowed antibiotic resistance, which also explains the quick resort to normalcy once the antibiotic is removed. This is of course not evolution at all, and more like Lamarckism as we discussed earlier. Many scientists originally thought antibiotic resistance was evolution in action, it may take a while for them to admit their mistake.



posted on Sep, 25 2018 @ 09:37 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton


Prior to me citing the counter-evidence, you and the others were citing it as evidence of evolution. You are not alone, scientists jumped to the same conclusions, but now are facing the inevitability of the truth. They can only tip-toe around the elephant in the room for so long.


enough adaptation becomes micro evolution, enough micro evolution becomes macro evolution. it works in gradients that are determined by whether the adaptation has become genetic and whether the carriers have propagated to form a new species.



posted on Sep, 25 2018 @ 03:34 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Again, why is this not proof? You are making statements, with out backing them up. You made the claim. Prove it is thus.



posted on Sep, 25 2018 @ 04:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
enough adaptation becomes micro evolution, enough micro evolution becomes macro evolution. it works in gradients that are determined by whether the adaptation has become genetic and whether the carriers have propagated to form a new species.


originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

Again, why is this not proof? You are making statements, with out backing them up. You made the claim. Prove it is thus.


For the love, would you just read the article?

the article

It demonstrated that there are no new genes, no microevolution. Antibiotic resistance culminates due to epigenetic changes, which resort back to normal levels of expression if the antibiotic is taken away. I am not just "saying it is this way", they proved it is this way.
edit on 25-9-2018 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2018 @ 07:07 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

More than a single article would be required neigbour. That paper also is NOT saying what you think it does. Thus I question that you have read the article. I read it when it came out
I further question your understanding of what evolution is, to question it as you do.







 
34
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join