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.
Originally posted by mattison0922
If you believe you can show rocks evolve, then you don't understand the first thing about evolutionary theory.
Originally posted by mattison0922
Modification is variation within a population. I will again state individuals don't evolve, populations do.
Originally posted by WyrdeOne
According to Discover Year in Science 2004, a molecular biologist from the University of Brasilia took DNA samples from the hearts of 13 sufferers of the disease. He found that in each case, sequences of the parasite's DNA had hijacked one particular region in a specific chromosome of the hosts heart tissue.
Unbelievable!!! I can't believe I've not heard of this before. This is truly astonishing.... Wyrde.... what the hell do you do? How to come across so much great info. I'm still playing catch up on the other thread where we're having a discussion.
But.... you've inspired me... I'm not really good about doing this kind of thing but....
You have voted WyrdeOne for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.
The biologist went on to infect chicken eggs, and found that a quarter of the chicks born had altered DNA, and all their offspring evidenced the parasites DNA modification without ever being in direct contact with the parasite. The parasite actually worms its way into your DNA. There's no way of knowing exactly what the infected DNA does to us, but it's got to be doing something.
As I stated this is amazing. You don't have a .pdf of the primary article do you? I need to read this. But, preliminarily this is my assessment. The chicken egg experiment clearly demonstrates that the parasite is capable of modifying chromosomes with its own DNA. But, if it doesn't typically infect that kind of tissue, germ line tissue, then it won't be passed on to the next generation. Generally parasites have one particular location they are comfortable in. Though... based on what you've presented it's entirely plausible that it could be passed on.
[edit on 27-2-2005 by mattison0922]
Originally posted by electric
Why not? A rock producing imperfect copies of itself could end up with more traits than a fruit fly. Prove me wrong, don't quote stuff out of a textbook to rebut my claims.
I never said I was a geneticist, but I do have an understanding of the recessive traits observed by Mendel.
This system cannot explain uniqueness by any other means than saying mutations occur due to cell damage caused by environmental factors such as X and Gamma radiations.
Well, I will then put forward a question to you: If evolution only occurs through hertible/reoccuring traits, then how does this system account for biological uniqueness? How are new traits created in such a system? How can an organism adapt to changing environmental conditions then pass this trait on to futher generations?
Originally posted by mattison0922
Hmmmm... probably because rocks don't make copies of themselves, perfect or not. Rocks don't have traits.
Originally posted by E L E M E N T
The Human species has finished evolving. And I apologize to those who think, we will eventually be like aliens or some advanced (physically) species. It won't happen.
Once a species becomes "intelligent", evolution dies. With our intelligence, we protect, the old, the weak, the disabled. It isn't survival of the fittest, or even natural selection anymore. Physically, this is about as far as we get.
Kind of disappointing.
Originally posted by E L E M E N T
The Human species has finished evolving. And I apologize to those who think, we will eventually be like aliens or some advanced (physically) species. It won't happen.
Once a species becomes "intelligent", evolution dies. With our intelligence, we protect, the old, the weak, the disabled. It isn't survival of the fittest, or even natural selection anymore. Physically, this is about as far as we get.
Kind of disappointing.
And what makes you think that 'intelligence' is not part of the evolution? here is a real scenario: Europe has become old; in the near future, over 50% of the population will be old (over 70 years old). This has many evolution-like effects: yellow and dark-skinned people will take over Europe: blacks, asians, etc. The white 'race' will be almost eliminated. That's evolution.
Evolution is a fact of life, and will never stop. Get over with it (you and all the millions of ignorant people that go against it).
Originally posted by cheeser
Dictionary meaning of 'Evolution'
'Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.'
what you are saying, directly has nothing to do with 'EVOLUTION'.
read the meaning clearfully
Originally posted by electric
You've taken what I said completely out of context. Here is what I originally wrote:
I can show that a rock could be capable of evolution providing two simple rules are met.
1) The rock must be able to produce imperfect copies of itself.
2) Rocks with undesirable traits must not be able to reproduce.
Now we come all the way back to modifications in the non-coding regions not considered as evolution, according to you. If any part of the genome has been modified, then a new, potentially unique, combination is produced.
This new combination could set the stage for a new trait, or a new combination of an existing trait, which could later be observed in a population.
How can you then argue that the modified non-coding region was unassociated with evolution?
Now even further back, if you accept new traits are a result of mutation, then viral imprints or insertions can be directly attributed to evolution.
If you don't accept new traits are possible at all, then you'd have a difficult time explaining how to get from single-celled animal to human.
And yes, I have no problem with referring to new traits before they're observed. As far as I see it, the new trait must start somewhere.
Originally posted by WyrdeOne
mattison
Found a link, not the best, but it'll do. If you live near a library with a good collection of magazines, check out the January 2005 issue of Discover, the year in science special. The actual research isn't presented, of course (it's a laymens publication), but the findings are.
www.sciencenews.org...
There are a few good sites written in Spanish, I wasn't sure if you spoke the language or not, so I just went with the one english language write up that I found.
Sorry to bog you down on the other thread, I know I dumped a lot of material on your lap all at once. Maybe if you spent less time discussing rock evolution..hmmm?
Remind me again, why are you discussing rock evolution?
The mechanisms of evolution are quite clear, why are they being debated?
Isn't that sort of like debating the boiling point of water?
As far as I know, the hard questions surrounding evolution have been asked and answered.
Rocks don't evolve because rocks don't breed. Simple enough really...
I get the feeling you're banging your head against a wall arguing evolution with anybody who doesn't already believe in it. I mean, how do you point out the sky to someone who refuses to look up from their feet?
Originally posted by electric
Real rocks don't reproduce, no. As I said, I used a rock as a point of illustration to show evolution in a non-living system. Perhaps I should have used a Rubic's cube instead.
It's not a question of if, it's a question of when will a non-coding section recombine with a regulation section that effects a gene, or when will a non-coding section combine in such a way with a gene that it has start and stop codons. It's a simple question of mathematical probability.
Do I have proof of this occuring? No. I'm only presenting ideas about how adaptation/immunity could occur. I'm not a biologist, I work in information systems. Nothing that I have presented was meant to be given as known facts.