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.

 

How does nature evolve instructions to stop and start?

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 29 2019 @ 11:46 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

Science is about two things: Discovery and Evidence. Science doesn't give a rat's ass what your opinion is. If you have evidence for your opinion, then present it. My post was based on observable, tested science.

When your creator shows up, science will investigate. In the meantime, there's no there there.




posted on Apr, 29 2019 @ 12:24 PM
link   
The machines in our cells display programming in their actions,
following strands of DNA - are they the life in our body?:

Machines in cells.



posted on Apr, 29 2019 @ 01:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Don’t be childish barcs, you are arguing that hair colour, body size, anything that is a change is evolution, variations within a species is not the evolution you preaching
Change is not evolution, show me scientific evidence that more information is added to DNA, not that a brown haired person can have a blond baby


Blatant lie. All of that qualifies as evolution.


www.icr.org...
Microevolution refers to varieties within a given type. Change happens within a group, but the descendant is clearly of the same type as the ancestor. This might better be called variation, or adaptation, but the changes are "horizontal" in effect, not "vertical." Such changes might be accomplished by "natural selection," in which a trait within the present variety is selected as the best for a given set of conditions, or accomplished by "artificial selection," such as when dog breeders produce a new breed of dog.


Another blatant lie, taken straight from creationist web blogs, rather than research.


The small or microevolutionary changes occur by recombining existing genetic material within the group. As Gregor Mendel observed with his breeding studies on peas in the mid 1800's, there are natural limits to genetic change.


More BS. Show me the empirical data that suggests a limit to long term change.


Every single paper listed is a lie and not teaching evolution,


Then refute the research instead of talking more bull#.


Show me species evolving by adding more DNA code from nowhere?


en.wikipedia.org...(genetics)

And no it doesn't come from nowhere.


A dog growing thicker, longer hair is not evolution, it’s adaptation within.

Asian eyes, Caucasian eyes is not evolution, it’s adaptation,


Lies.

So did you say anything truthful that entire post? Nope. Your shtick is old, give it up. If you wish to argue evolution you need to refute the hard evidence, and thus far nobody in the history of this website has EVER done it.



posted on Apr, 29 2019 @ 03:41 PM
link   
a reply to: ThatDidHappen

I'm not sure what your question is. DNA stores information. The process of forming a complete organism requires multiple steps. It's a process.

In any case, here's an article that describes how DNA can be used to mimic life in other materials.






Every living organism is constantly changing: cells divide and die, proteins build and disintegrate, DNA breaks and heals. Life demands metabolism—the simultaneous builder and destroyer of living materials—to continuously upgrade our bodies. That’s how we heal and grow, how we propagate and survive. What if we could endow cold, static, lifeless robots with the gift of metabolism? In a study published this month in Science Robotics, an international team developed a DNA-based method that gives raw biomaterials an artificial metabolism. Dubbed DASH—DNA-based assembly and synthesis of hierarchical materials—the method automatically generates “slime”-like nanobots that dynamically move and navigate their environments.


singularityhub.com...



posted on Apr, 29 2019 @ 06:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

I don’t think you are a liar barcs, just ignorant and brainwashed

I asked for evidence of evolution and all you show me is changes in skin colour, eye colour and hair thickness and nonsense stuff like that
Then call me a liar, attack me when you should be posting evidence of evolution

Don’t fight me barcs, post evidence of evolution, just post real science proving that animals evolve into other animals

I already know dogs, big little, fast or slaw are different, I want to see evidence monkeys or whatever other species evolved into mankind as you believe. Show me the empirical evidence

Or just admit it is a faith

I don’t need to go after you personally barcs, I can stand on the lack of empirical evidence, I can ask for science, you can only squirm and set up strawman arguments and attack me

🦄🌈😁



posted on Apr, 29 2019 @ 11:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423
Well that wasn't very helpful. Surely there must be some reason or interesting piece of evidence we can evaluate regarding your belief that start and stop codons specifically evolved or developed naturally*? Other than just using the word "science" a lot in your comment and claiming this belief is "based on observable, tested science." Something that relates specifically to the development of start and stop codons by purely natural* causes or causation. *: implying by accident, coincidence, chance; regardless if any or none of these words, or descriptions of the proposed causes, are spelled out or used by someone using the word "natural" or "naturally" in such contexts as your commentary. And regardless of any possible opinions one may have concerning words such as "random", or possibly "accident" in particular regarding the words I just used. See video below for the reason I had for feeling to have to point this out.

There seems to be some magic 'stick of truth'-waving going around here regarding the use of the word "science" in such claims. If that's an appropiate description for it and for anyone who catches my drift.

edit on 30-4-2019 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2019 @ 07:09 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic




Well that wasn't very helpful. Surely there must be some reason or interesting piece of evidence we can evaluate regarding your belief that start and stop codons specifically evolved or developed naturally*?


You know you could do something very novel - look it up yourself. There are hundreds of journals and literally thousands of research papers in molecular genetics. Go to Google Scholar and research your question. You people are so used to being spoon-fed crap like robots that you have zero ability to understand that THERE IS a wealth of information right in front of your nose - but you don't access it.

I'm not a teacher or an online library. Do something for yourself for a change. If you don't understand or disagree with something in the literature, then we can talk. Otherwise, this is the end of the conversation.


edit on 30-4-2019 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2019 @ 07:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423
Well, there wasn't much of a conversation anyway. I didn't ask you to teach or function as an online library. I was merely curious if you would be willing to give a reason (evidence) for your beliefs. Or curious if you would be willing to be honest about your reason or the evidence for your beliefs. Of course, I'm quite familiar with the pattern of your commentary, so I was pretty much expecting such responses devoid of any significant reason or evidence for the beliefs you express but filled with the usual 'complaints' about me daring to ask the type of questions that I asked you. I can't go look up your motivation for expressing the belief that you did, I can only analyze it based on what you tell me. Including your previous commentary on ATS about such subjects.

Which does already paint a rather clear picture to me and confirmed my earlier expectations, but I thought maybe there was a slight possibility you actually had something to add to this thread in terms of evidence or relevant science/knowledge regarding your belief that start and stop codons evolved or developed naturally. Since you stated it with such conviction as if it's a well established fact.



posted on Apr, 30 2019 @ 08:05 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

Science is not a belief system. It is not a religion. There must be hundreds of posts in this forum with references to research papers that support my position.

I, Barcs, Peter Vlar and others have continually posted links to evidence. If you didn't read them, then that's not our problem. Continually asking for the same evidence that's already in the archives of this forum is like a broken record. It's a waste of time.



posted on Apr, 30 2019 @ 08:14 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

Here's my suggestion: do a literature search on whatever it is you're interested in - molecular genetics, evolution - whatever. Make a short list of research papers that you either don't understand or don't agree with relative to your own beliefs. In other words, if you want to talk about a specific topic like the molecular genetics of gene transfer, pick out a few papers that include the research data. Then compare their results to your own (if you have any) and talk about it. That's how it's done. Posting a lot of gibberish contributes nothing to knowledge.



posted on Apr, 30 2019 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
I asked for evidence of evolution and all you show me is changes in skin colour, eye colour and hair thickness and nonsense stuff like that


That is exactly what evolution is. Small changes that accumulate over time. Yeah, denying that makes you a liar.


I don’t need to go after you personally barcs, I can stand on the lack of empirical evidence, I can ask for science, you can only squirm and set up strawman arguments and attack me


You just lied again. I posted evidence, you just deny it blindly and claim it doesn't count when academia and the vast majority of the scientific community realize what the evidence points to.



posted on Apr, 30 2019 @ 06:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs
Well I guess micro evolution is a reality, never denied that

But I want evidence that land animals turned into whales, monkeys turned into humans over time or whatever

We have walked down this road enough for you not to still be ignorant
You know what I am asking for

Evidence of macro but why ask, you already know



posted on Apr, 30 2019 @ 09:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423

I, Barcs, Peter Vlar and others have continually posted links to evidence.


Can you explain in your own words how the start and stop codon could have evolved? Keep in mind that these codons are necessary for all protein-dependent organisms (all of life). There can be no polypeptide chains (proteins) without stop or start codons. Yet you need a polypeptide chain (protein) to read the start/stop codon! So how in the name of Darwin could this have evolved?? It's the chicken and the egg paradox over and over again. step-by-step mutations could not have created this monumentous leap... Especially since genetic mutations cannot even be read unless there are start and stop codons.

Your material-reductionist faith requires more miracles than all religions combined.



posted on Apr, 30 2019 @ 10:16 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

A million monkeys...

That so called “junk DNA” is not! That is where you can find some of the “stop” codes. Which is weird because it does not seem to have even be there in the first place!

Think about it. Dinosaurs lasted how many millions of years and only got themselves extinct on account of a sudden cause of death! Why not us mammals?

We should be either giant or superhuman by now (seeing how fast compared to said dinosaurs evolved... heck, they became birds!! lol!) Yet the best we can we can do is extend our brains in the “social” direction instead of retention and capacity and etc. I agree with you but not the timeline.

But, yeah, DNA/RNA and how it works is intriguing to say the least!

Remember, that there are more than the binary combinations of computer programming involved in genetics!

Always thought provoking and thanks!




posted on May, 1 2019 @ 10:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423

I, Barcs, Peter Vlar and others have continually posted links to evidence.


Can you explain in your own words how the start and stop codon could have evolved? Keep in mind that these codons are necessary for all protein-dependent organisms (all of life). There can be no polypeptide chains (proteins) without stop or start codons. Yet you need a polypeptide chain (protein) to read the start/stop codon! So how in the name of Darwin could this have evolved?? It's the chicken and the egg paradox over and over again. step-by-step mutations could not have created this monumentous leap... Especially since genetic mutations cannot even be read unless there are start and stop codons.

Your material-reductionist faith requires more miracles than all religions combined.


How does a polypeptide chain read a codon? Please provide an example. Thanks



posted on May, 1 2019 @ 10:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423

How does a polypeptide chain read a codon? Please provide an example. Thanks



The ribosome (a polypeptide) reads the codons to orchestrate translation of mRNA into a peptide chain. When it reaches a stop codon it stops the amino acid amalgamation. This is basic biology.



posted on May, 1 2019 @ 11:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423

How does a polypeptide chain read a codon? Please provide an example. Thanks



The ribosome (a polypeptide) reads the codons to orchestrate translation of mRNA into a peptide chain. When it reaches a stop codon it stops the amino acid amalgamation. This is basic biology.


The ribosome is an ancient molecule of the RNA world. It was self replicating and didn't require codons (as far as I know). The evolution of the ribosome (and other molecules) is the reason why the RNA world disappeared and the DNA world began.

So I don't know what your question really implies. As far as I can see, the ribosome is a classic example of evolution - the gradual transformation of molecules with limited functionality into molecules with higher functionality.



posted on May, 1 2019 @ 01:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423

The ribosome is an ancient molecule of the RNA world. It was self replicating and didn't require codons (as far as I know). The evolution of the ribosome (and other molecules) is the reason why the RNA world disappeared and the DNA world began.


There is no evidence for such a world though. Even the most rudimentary organisms require ribosomes, transcription and translation.



So I don't know what your question really implies. As far as I can see, the ribosome is a classic example of evolution - the gradual transformation of molecules with limited functionality into molecules with higher functionality.



My question is: translation of mRNA into proteins requires ribosomes, but translation doesn't exist without ribosomes. So how could DNA mutations have led to the production of ribosomes, let alone stop codons, if there were no ribosomes yet to read the mRNA data?



posted on May, 1 2019 @ 02:01 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

The ribosome self assembles from various components. This article describes the machinery. As I said in my previous post, ribosomes are very ancient molecules. The ribosome evolved to fit into the DNA world where codons carried the stop/start signals. If a self assembled ribosome started reading the codon, then that was a leap in evolution.


Ribosome self-assembly leads to overlapping
reproduction cycles and increases growth rate
Rami Pugatch ∗ †, Yinon M. Bar-On ‡
∗Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva, 84105, Israel,†Quantitative Life Science Section, The Abdus Salam
International Center for Theoretical Physics, Strada Costiera 11, 34014, Trieste, Italy, and ‡department of Plant and Environmental Science, Weizmann Institute



In permissive environments, E. coli can double its dry mass every ∼ 21 minutes. During this time, ribosomes, RNA polymerases, and the proteome are all doubled. Yet, the question of how to relate bacterial doubling time to other biologically relevant time scales in the growth process remains illusive, due to the complex temporal organization of these processes. In particular, the relation between the cell’s doubling time and the ribosome assembly time is not known. Here we develop a model that connects growth rate to ribosome assembly time and show that the existence of a concurrent ribosome self-assembly step increases the growth rate, because during ribosome self-assembly existing ribosomes can start a new round of reproduction, by making a new batch of ribosomal proteins prior to the completion of the previous round. This overlapping of ribosome reproduction cycles increases growth rate beyond the serial-limit that is typically assumed to hold. Using recent data from ribosome profiling and established measurements of the average translation rate, rigid bounds on the in-vivo ribosome self-assembly time are set, which are robust to the assumptions regarding the biological noises involved. Utilizing these physiological parameters, we find that at 21 minutes doubling time, the ribosome assembly time is ∼ 6 minutes — three fold larger than the common estimate. We further use our model to explain the detrimental effect of a recently discovered ribosome assembly inhibitor drug, and predict the effect of limiting the expression of ribosome assembly chaperons on the overall growth rate.



arxiv.org...
edit on 1-5-2019 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2019 @ 05:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Barcs
Well I guess micro evolution is a reality, never denied that

But I want evidence that land animals turned into whales, monkeys turned into humans over time or whatever

We have walked down this road enough for you not to still be ignorant
You know what I am asking for

Evidence of macro but why ask, you already know


Already posted the whale evolution evidence. You literally do not care. You just pretend it doesn't count every single time, just like Coop. You have never ever refuted a single piece of evidence for evolution in the history of this website. Not even one. You are too dishonest to waste any more time on.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join