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.

 

Radiant

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2020 @ 12:28 PM
link   
I arrived at a theory myself only to discover that it was a theory in science too regarding the influence of radiation on creation and evolution.

Our DNA is bombarded by background radiatation from the Sun and Cosmos continually through our lives. Also it responds to what we eat and the chemical influences on our make up from our environment. Even our feelings, experiences and just about any other influence will play a part. The very sunlight destroys DNA very quicky when it is exposed. It seems to me that this constant bombardment keeps the DNA ever having to survive its own battle against the elements, it changes and can't be constant copies. Is our species diversification the result of approx' 3.5 billion years of mutation by irradiation? Our DNA as we pass our genes on to the next generation is always changed slightly. It is a slow process of evolution and this mutating produces differences. These differences are refined and squeezed through the "olive press" of what is best suited to survive and prosper.

I can't see how DNA could be encouraged to change in any other way than as a result of sunlight, background radiation and chemical influence. Obviously, the radiation and chemical effects are strong enough to destroy our DNA blueprint as we see so much cancer in ourselves and other life. There certainly is no hiding place from Creation. Cancer is our cells going wrong and losing their way because of damage as the information guide is changed and instructions can no longer be followed exactly. Each time cells copy something changes because of DNA being affected.

We are in this era increasing the background radiation on earth significantly and exposed to so much chemical diversity now. It will bring a great deal of accelerated mutation.

en.wikipedia.org...


An evolutionary radiation is an increase in taxonomic diversity that is caused by elevated rates of speciation[1], that may or may not be associated with an increase in morphological disparity.[2] Radiations may affect one clade or many, and be rapid or gradual; where they are rapid, and driven by a single lineage's adaptation to their environment, they are termed adaptive radiations.[3]


pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... Cosmic radiation and evolution of life on earth: roles of environment, adaptation and selection - PubMed


Cosmic radiation and evolution of life on earth: roles of environment, adaptation and selection



edit on 11-8-2020 by Kakamega because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 11 2020 @ 12:33 PM
link   
I love that our evolution has been in some way influenced by the radiation of stars that were dead long before life started here.

"We are a way for the universe to know itself"



posted on Aug, 11 2020 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: wheresthebody

Yes, me too. It is amazing isn't it. I wonder if the process of aging is greatly speeded up a result of radioactive and chemical bombarment. In that sense some of our worse behaviour, "sins" really do destroy us by the consequences of destructive behaviour too.



edit on 11-8-2020 by Kakamega because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2020 @ 01:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Kakamega

So can you show me some mutations, any mutations that are good radiation caused mutations. Mutations caused by radiation, outside of swamp monsters and Godzilla, they are pretty good but not sure they are valid



posted on Aug, 11 2020 @ 01:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Yes, the whole diversity on life on earth are examples. I did use the word "theory". It seems quite logical. WHow do you think evolution happened and is continuing to happen then? What are its triggers?



posted on Aug, 11 2020 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Kakamega

No, it is not logical it’s stupid
Radiation destroys, radiation does not increase DNA information it destroys DNA information.

I have a theory as well, about the alpha gamma rays and men turning into big green monsters, but that’s stupid as well, we can call it a hulking theory but it’s stupid hulking theory.



posted on Aug, 11 2020 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Kakamega

How is it one can postulate so many mutations that never
result in deformations?
edit on 11-8-2020 by carsforkids because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2020 @ 01:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: Kakamega

How is it one can postulate so many mutations that never
result in deformations?


But there have been many mutations for the worse. Young animals and young people get cancer. Some species even died out when evolution met with a dead end of making things worse. It is a process over billions of years. That is a long time. We have all the fossils to tell us what has happened.

It is only as theory, but it seems logical.


edit on 11-8-2020 by Kakamega because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2020 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Come on, it is academically accepted. I wish you would contribute whay you think about life's evolution. You are being negatice.


edit on 11-8-2020 by Kakamega because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2020 @ 06:52 PM
link   
Changes caused by ionizing radiation are dose dependent. We're exposed to radiation all day long just from the sun, not to mention other sources of radiation reaching the Earth. Mutations are not exclusively bad. Most are somatic, meaning they are not inheritable. For instance, if you develop melanoma, the gene that was damaged which caused the melanoma is not passed on to a future generation (there are inheritable cancers not necessarily caused by ionizing radiation).



Question

Mutation occurs quite naturally through mistakes made in copying your DNA. When your cells divide mutations introduce more variety into the genes of a species in terms of survival... this makes it more likely to survive and breed. (ref: AQA Science, Nelson Thornes p.112). My question is can nuclear radiation not only cause cancer but also possibly cause mutation so that future generations become better adapted to the environment?

Answer

The short answer is "yes!" - although large doses of radiation from something like an atomic bomb or nuclear power station explosion are obviously very bad, any type of lower-level radiation doesn't cause specifically "good" or "bad" mutations, it just causes changes. As we heard in last month's podcast, these random changes happen all the time and may or may not be passed on to the next generation. But if there is a selective pressure, then we see beneficial mutations start to spread through populations. It doesn't matter what causes them, only that they have to be passed on, so they'd originally have to arise in the sperm or egg-producing cells for humans and other animals.


"Selective Pressure" means that beneficial mutations are passed on to future generations i.e. evolution.



posted on Aug, 17 2020 @ 03:30 AM
link   
Myth: Mutations provide the raw materials needed to create new species. The teaching of macroevolution is built on the claim that mutations—random changes in the genetic code of plants and animals—can produce not only new species but also entirely new families of plants and animals. (Nobel Lectures, Physiology or Medicine 1942-1962, 1999, “The Production of Mutations,” by H. J. Muller, 1946, p. 162.)

The facts. The data now gathered from some 100 years of mutation research in general and 70 years of mutation breeding in particular enable scientists to draw conclusions regarding the ability of mutations to produce new species. After examining the evidence, Lönnig concluded: “Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability.” Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig is a scientist from the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Germany who has spent some 30 years studying mutation genetics in plants.

So, can mutations cause one species to evolve into a completely new kind of creature? The evidence answers no! Lönnig’s research has led him to the conclusion that “properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations.” (Mutation Breeding, Evolution, and the Law of Recurrent Variation, pp. 49, 50, 52, 54, 59, 64, and interview with Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig.)

Consider the implications of the above facts. If highly trained scientists are unable to produce new species by artificially inducing and selecting favorable mutations, is it likely that an unintelligent process would do a better job? If research shows that mutations cannot transform an original species into an entirely new one, then how, exactly, was macroevolution supposed to have taken place?

More quotations that may clear up an intentional false impression people are impressed with regarding mutations and their long term effect* on life as a whole (*: after what is termed “natural selection”):

W.-E. Loennig: Gesetz der rekurrenten Variation (the quotations I'm talking about are in English)

No X-Men or Heroes type of mutations, sorry (referring to those shows/movies and many like it that shape people's impression of mutations in this system of things).
edit on 17-8-2020 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
3

log in

join