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.

 

Evolution Is Dead.

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 05:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by mattison0922
If you believe you can show rocks evolve, then you don't understand the first thing about evolutionary theory.


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.


Originally posted by mattison0922
Modification is variation within a population. I will again state individuals don't evolve, populations do.


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?




posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 05:22 AM
link   
Pointless or not it is so totally absurd as was pointed out earlier, we move and breathe, we evolve and change..Nine people get the bird flu for example, one survives with permanent antibodies, the species has evolved.

Natural selection the ultimate survivors....



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 06:14 AM
link   
whenever humans stop breaking preformance records all the time, i'll believe you.



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 10:51 AM
link   

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]



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 11:10 AM
link   

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.

Hmmmm... probably because rocks don't make copies of themselves, perfect or not. Rocks don't have traits. They have properties, chemical properties...not traits... perhaps you should reassess the definition of trait you are using. Even if you want to count chemical properties as traits. The number of unique genes in a fruit fly is roughly 20,000. The burden of proof is on you. I bet you can't come up with even a hundred 'traits' from any rock.


I never said I was a geneticist, but I do have an understanding of the recessive traits observed by Mendel.

Okay... So? Welcome the elite club of anyone who's taken a high school biology course. We've not been discussing Mendelian inheritance or dominant recessive relationships. Somehow the conversation has digressed from a reasonable discussion about the insertion of viral genomes into host genomes and the heritably of such incidents, to the completely absurd discussion of 'rock evolution.'


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.

What system can't explain uniqueness? Genetics, sexual recombination, and every class of mutations known certainly can and does explain uniqueness.



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?

Well, now you're delving into some of my favorite areas. Biological uniqueness is a consequence of the genetic variation that exists within individuals within a population. What's your problem with this? Personally, I don't believe new traits are created. Biological organism are limited in the amount of diversity within individuals. Existing traits are modified, new alleles are generated via mutation of pre-existing genetic information. Organisms don't adapt, populations do. The only example of 'adaptation' within individual organism that I can think of is inter and intraspecies lateral transfer of antibiotic resistance genes among most species of bacteria. Those organisms that are 'more fit' and better able to tolerate or remove some environmental stressor survive and pass there gene on. Those that are less fit or more sensitive to the environmental stressor don't survive and don't pass on their genetic information. The process is really quite simple.



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 12:54 PM
link   
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...

The above link is actually a better resource than the magazine, but I first heard about the doctor and his research through Discover. 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...

Of course, I'm not so sure about pet rocks, I do hear them clacking about when I go to bed.


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?



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattison0922
Hmmmm... probably because rocks don't make copies of themselves, perfect or not. Rocks don't have traits.


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.


Obviously I'm using this to illustrate a point. I'm not making a case for the evolution of rocks. Anything that produces an imperfect copy of itself can exhaust infinite combinations. Want proof? Go ahead and count from 1 to infinity. Will you not find new traits in infinite combinations of rock? Life would even exist in some of these combinations.

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.


[edit on 27-2-2005 by electric]



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 02:36 PM
link   

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.


Your right. I myself actually see the human race as degenerating. All kinds of relationships are permitted which lowers the most elite of us to near animal ranks. Not only that but it is a well known fact that the ones of us with Intellect deficiencies reproduce much quicker than the bright minded people. I don't believe in evolution at all but man is surely climbing down the level in mental and physical fitness. Adolf himself had predicted something like this. In society what could be the foundation setters of a whole news sphere of harmoniuos, hi-tech living have to take a step back so that the weaker minded and poorlyshaped peoples can feel fair in a world of survival. The fools got us outnumbered. Get used to it.



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Asia Minor
I see you're going to throw your storm trooper sensibilities into the ring here...Glad I could be the first to pop that little bubble you surround yourself with. The human race as a whole cannot possibly be de-evolving, it's simply not possible given the rules of nature - that doesn't mean certain blood lines or trait-bearing groups are not being culled every day, it just means sudden reversals of genetic fortune are the rule, not the exception to the rule.

I agree that the vast majority of people are not perfect for their environment, and are not special or wonderful or advanced in any way- but that's a good thing! Don't you see, if we were perfect, there would be no room for change! However, locked within their genes is the potential for future greatness. Todays fool is tommorows progenitor.

I don't think you've read the relevant texts (mein kampf doesn't count), and I don't think you fully grasp the mechanisms you presume to counsel us on. I think you WANT to believe that humanity is slipping down some sort of evolutionary toilet bowl, because that would justify your own bigoted emotions and flailing hatred of all those different than you.

The truth is, whether you can handle it or not, any single person could be the carrier of the next sea change in human development. A street urchin in Calcutta has as much a chance of saving the human race from perpetual inferiority as you or anyone else. Being white doesn't count for extra points. In fact, if your beloved Adolf had gotten his way and eliminated all the 'inferior' races, we'd all be a bunch of 65 IQ, deformed, violent, slack jawed inbred mongoloids by now! Haven't you ever considered the benefits of genetic mixing?

The problem with your brand of eugenics, it doesn't allow for mutation. It assumes that all people are the way they are, and their children won't be any different. That's simply not true, and you're wasting your life stoking the impotent flames of your ego by thinking so.

News Flash! - Two stupid parents can have inteligent offspring. Maybe you wouldn't be so pessimistic about the human race if you didn't hate 2/3 of it because of their particular skin tone. Just a thought...



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 04:07 PM
link   

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).



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 04:04 AM
link   
and for the rest of us we can sit back and read the darwin awards, proving that stupid people die from being stupid every day.



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 04:35 AM
link   


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).


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



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 08:28 AM
link   

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


This is Above Top Secret, not a forum regarding genetics. Who says people are not allowed to express alternative views on the biological meaning of evolution? If everyone's view was the same as the textbooks view, it would be pointless reading the posts here.



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 09:21 AM
link   
yes take the websites moto in hand deny ignorance



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 01:28 PM
link   
It's more a question of devolution than evolution!

Regarding intellligence my generation's intelligence has fallen in recent years, but natural selection is now non-existent, everything we've created is not natural!

Everything that is man-made has influenced our evolution or devolution! So it is not true evolution!

It has be nature!


Anyway, there is a fine line between adaptation and evolution, is there not?!



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 01:36 PM
link   

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.

Okay, since rocks don't make copies of themselves perfect or not, what's your point.



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.

Unique combinations are produced all the time as a result of recombination. So?


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.

Okay... maybe... show some support, back up your claims. When has this ever been observed to happen?


How can you then argue that the modified non-coding region was unassociated with evolution?

By virtue of the fact that non-coding DNA is incapable of altering a phenotype until it becomes coding DNA, which requires the input of start codons, promoter elements and stop codons, at the very least. Non-coding DNA, by virtue of the 'non-coding' statement doesn't alter phenotypes.

You can make up whatever scenario you wish, but you're not supporting your case.


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.

I don't accept this. I tend to believe traits change within themselves, but new traits are not generated... for the most part. I can think of a couple, but those are the exception and not the rule. Please provide an example of a NEW trait that has evolved.


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.

I would never state that a single celled organism evolved into a multi-cellular organism, thus I have no difficulty.


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.

What new traits?



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 03:30 PM
link   

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...

Thanks. I've got an extensive library at my disposal... can track down the original ref. If I need to.


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.

Nope... total, ignorant American. Speak English or Die!!!! (JK)


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?

No problemo... there's no such thing as too much info.... just too little time.


Remind me again, why are you discussing rock evolution?

Strange progression. The discussion started off as the integration of viral genomes into host genomes and the ability to pass said viral information on via DNA. Somehow we digressed from that reasonable topic to the completely unreasonable topic of rock evolution. As to why I persisted: I don't know.... I guess I can't just walk away from something letting someone feel like they stumped me with a question I can't answer... even if the question borders on totally absurd.


The mechanisms of evolution are quite clear, why are they being debated?

Actually, it's one of my favorite things to debate... sort of a hobby area of mine... pretty much my main hobby area.


Isn't that sort of like debating the boiling point of water?

I don't think so. But then again, the boiling point of water is subject to change... it's certainly higher at the Dead Sea than it is the top of Everest.


As far as I know, the hard questions surrounding evolution have been asked and answered.

I respectfully disagree. I think most of the hard questions are totally ignored, or blown of by the science community. This is another area where I don't disagree with my colleagues.


Rocks don't evolve because rocks don't breed. Simple enough really...

Agreed. Chalk my ongoing discussion with electric up to morbid curiousity.


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?

It is an interesting topic... one of the few in science that becomes heated so quickly that isn't directly related to morality. Most people I discuss it with believe themselves to be well informed, but tend to turn tail and run when the heat really gets poured on.



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 04:23 PM
link   
I think it's a bold statement to say that we're finnished evolving. Modern humans are forced to their brains as a defence mechanism unlike our ancestors. Not only are we becoming a more cognitive species, our genetic cross-breeding is becoming a more regular thing due to the "melting pot" theory. This idea is evident in dogs. Dogs were cross bred to expliot the strength of several species. Not to sound racist, I believe that within our diversity of race, we have our own unique strenghts and weaknesses. I can see future humans merging into a single race...which is a form of evolution in itself.



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 04:40 PM
link   
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.

Anyhow, recombination does adequately describe a process by which DNA modifications caused by viral infection of cells - to any region of the genome - can result in gene modifications. 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.



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 05:00 PM
link   

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.

Oh yes, a Rubik's cube would have made your point much more clear.



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.

This is statement is based on what.... oh yeah.... nothing. It's not a question of probability at all, if anything it's a question of chemistry, not mathematics, but occuring in a complex system, means there's more at work than chemistry... there's natural selection. There is nothing, no law, whatever that dictates non-coding regions of a genome will eventually become coding regions. There exists significant speculation that this has occured, but is DEFINITELY NOT an absolute that's written into the DNA molecule.


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.

Then whats the point? You can speculate and make up all the stuff you want, and it's not doing anything to further this discussion... until you start speaking in terms of facts that is.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join