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.

 

Fundamental Principle of Evolution Shaken.....

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 08:38 PM
link   
The Fundamental Principle of Evolution as theorized by Darwin in The Origins of the Species in 1859 is simply this:

The slow accumulation of mutations over time passed from one generation to the next eventually resulting in a new species

At the time of The Origin of the Species Darwin or anyone for that matter had no idea what a gene or DNA was he just theorized that there was something that would pass information from Parent to child biologically. Fast Forward to 1865 and Gregory Mendel released his theories on heredity which included genes from work he conducted on Pea Plants. In 1869 Sir Francis Galton published his book Hereditary Genius which claimed that heredity alone was responsible for a persons characteristics. In 1882 Walter Fleming discovered chromosomes. In 1886 Hugo de Vries coined the term mutation while studying primroses. In 1892 August Weismann proposed that heredity was passed by a substance with a “chemical and molecular constitution”. In 1908 Thomas Hunt Morgan demonstrated that genes were located on chromosomes. In 1944 Oswald T. Avery proposed that DNA alone is the source of all heredity. Finally, in 1952 Francis H. C. Crick and James D. Watson produced a model of a DNA molecule and proved that Genes were responsible for heredity.

So now give or take a little you are up to speed on the origins of genetics and the basis for the theory of evolution. Now here comes the crux of the matter.

A topic posted a little while ago by Schmidt1989 didn’t get much attention because I don’t think any really thought about it’s significance. The story first appeared in Nature magazine but was reported by the NY Times that scientists have found a plant that is able to fix any mutations passed to it by its parents. This flies into the face of modern evolution thinking because without mutations there could not have been any modification through decent as proposed by Darwin. So the question is do humans and other higher organisms have this automatic repair process also and if so what can explain the Origin of the Species.

More Reading

Gregor Mendel’s Theory Shaken:

Plants Challenge Genetic Inheritance Laws

Mutations cannot be the mechanism of Evolution.




posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 08:43 PM
link   
That could very well be similar to our own attempts at genetic modification. It can easily be argued that the plant has evolved to the point to where it can detect "bad" genes and modify them itself. Much like we are moving towards.



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 08:47 PM
link   
I kind of lean more to genetic adaptation than mutations, I think the only reason humans has lasted so long on earth is its ability to adapt to the environment.

Occurs I am not expert, I am just guessing here.



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
I kind of lean more to genetic adaptation than mutations, I think the only reason humans has lasted so long on earth is its ability to adapt to the environment.

Occurs I am not expert, I am just guessing here.


I would tend to agree with you here if there was some way to pass an "adaptation" from parent to child other than through heredity. However, science as to of yet has not explained any other methods for delivery of heredity. So if the genes and DNA can fix themselves there is no way to pass on adaptations.

en.wikipedia.org...


Mutations are considered the driving force of evolution, where less favorable (or deleterious) mutations are removed from the gene pool by natural selection, while more favorable (or beneficial) ones tend to accumulate.


en.wikipedia.org...(biology)


A biological adaptation is an anatomical structure, physiological process or behavioral trait of an organism that has evolved over a period of time by the process of natural selection such that it increases the expected long-term reproductive success of the organism.


As you see adaptation is tied to mutations as well.

All I can say is this is very interesting indeed. I don't claim to know what all this means but I do find it fascinating.



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackJackal
As you see adaptation is tied to mutations as well.


While that is a good point, not all 'mutations' adapt. There's plenty of animal branches that stopped and never evolved past a certain point. Many animals that went extinct because they couldn't adapt. If these plants survive another million years as they are, then maybe it's because they've mutated enough to where they don't need to. Maybe they're also halfway intelligent in this respect, and can trigger their own mutations as needed. I don't think this is a coffin nail or a booster shot to evolution at this point in time. Really it only remains to see how well this species survives over time. But you are right, one way or another it is fascinating.



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 09:10 PM
link   
I do to, I find it fascinating, taken in consideration that my daughter is majoring in biology and she probably have more knowledge than me on this matters.


But, you are right genetics play an important role on what we are and how we fight our environmental changes.

Plus I always feel that we humans are special after all, we can also use our minds to come out with ideas to keep our species proliferating and we are very good keeping our species also enhanced with technology and ways to survive again our environment.

I wonder if we are fighting the natural state of ourself in relation with nature and if that is a good idea.

If we were not a thinking species do you imagine if we still be here?

I find Darwin theory very interesting but I doubt that we came from the monkey.

We are special.



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
I find Darwin theory very interesting but I doubt that we came from the monkey.

We are special.


I agree with you here 100%. I can beleive to a certain extent that a mayfly, dog, monkey, or horse evolved by some mindless alogrithmic process but, not humans. Humans are self aware and have consciouness, the ability to ask the questions of where did we come from and where are we going. I can stomach quite a bit but I cannot believe that Consciouness is nothing but a bunch of molecules bouncing into one another.



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
I find Darwin theory very interesting but I doubt that we came from the monkey.

We are special.


I agree with you here 100%. I can beleive to a certain extent that a mayfly, dog, monkey, or horse evolved by some mindless alogrithmic process but, not humans. Humans are self aware and have consciouness, the ability to ask the questions of where did we come from and where are we going. I can stomach quite a bit but I cannot believe that Consciouness is nothing but a bunch of molecules bouncing into one another.



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackJackal

Originally posted by marg6043
I find Darwin theory very interesting but I doubt that we came from the monkey.

We are special.


I agree with you here 100%. I can beleive to a certain extent that a mayfly, dog, monkey, or horse evolved by some mindless alogrithmic process but, not humans. Humans are self aware and have consciouness, the ability to ask the questions of where did we come from and where are we going. I can stomach quite a bit but I cannot believe that Consciouness is nothing but a bunch of molecules bouncing into one another.


Just curious, but why not? What makes us so special? How can we be so sure that dogs and mayflies aren't conscious? I mean, the only thing that we can prove is that we cannot communicate back-and-forth with other species, and even then certain animals can be trained to understand us and even respond. I think it's quite arrogant to say that humans are the only thing that's that special. And looking at how some people in this world are, I think we've still got much further to go before we can truly separate ourselves from monkeys.



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 10:18 PM
link   
The chimpanzee is our closest living relative. The morphological
differences between the two species are so large that there is no
problem in distinguishing between them. However, the nucleotide
difference between the two species is surprisingly small. The early
genome comparison by DNA hybridization techniques suggested a
nucleotide difference of 1-2%. Recently, direct nucleotide sequencing
confirmed this estimate. These findings generated the common belief
that the human is extremely close to the chimpanzee at the genetic
level. However, if one looks at proteins, which are mainly responsible
for phenotypic differences, the picture is quite different, and about
80% of proteins are different between the two species. Still, the
number of proteins responsible for the phenotypic differences may be
smaller since not all genes are directly responsible for phenotypic
characters.


www.bio.psu.edu...­Faculty/Nei/Lab/2005-glazko-et­al.pdf



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 11:22 PM
link   
Actually, gene flow and genetic drift are far more common between related species, than the survival of a mutation in a species. Tried finding the anthropolgy site I use for class but couldn't, forgot the address. If I find it I'll post it. As far as google goes too many university class description pages.


Also genetically, like Rren said we are very closely related to chimps genetics wise. But there is also a theory by a Dr. Swalterz or something, that believes oraungatangs is our closet related species, even though most science and genetic data is generally accecpted in the chimp relationship.



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 11:35 PM
link   


intelligent design is as valid a scientific theory as evolution.


Please point me to any ID papers that make testable predictions please. I'd like to see it as until they stop preaching and actually try to prove thier point with actual sound science it's still ... bad science IMO...



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000

until they stop preaching and actually try to prove thier point with actual sound science it's still ... bad science IMO...


Quite frankly that's the reason I've always believed more in evolution than creationism or intelligent design. Evolution is, for one, still admittedly a theory. Second, it's based on a logical thought process that has been illustrated and scrutinized by many individuals. To me, the more religiously motivated ideas have always sounded like someone saying "It's this way just because." I've never seen anyone try and prove any kind of intelligent design, other than pulling out the Bible. Can we see something that can be reproduced? Something that can be quantitatively measured and recorded? No, evolution cannot necessarily be reproduced either, but it has been recorded.

Granted, one of the biggest holes in the evolution of humans is the missing link. There is a gap somewhere in the evolutionary tree. Yeah, that may be because God decided to step in and try his hand at it. It may be because Grays from Zeta Reticuli decided we were worth the price of the intergalactic chemistry set they bought at Wal Mart (Yes, Wal Marts do exist on other planets; the shipping costs are astronomical...). Then again, maybe it's because we just haven't dug in the right place yet. This is a big chunk of rock to try and scrape all the surface off of until we find every bone and fossil that was ever laid to rest. Maybe we'll never find the missing link and the debate will always be there. There really isn't anyway to tell right now.



posted on Apr, 16 2005 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000



intelligent design is as valid a scientific theory as evolution.


Please point me to any ID papers that make testable predictions please. I'd like to see it as until they stop preaching and actually try to prove thier point with actual sound science it's still ... bad science IMO...


Intelligent Design as a Theory of Information


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William A. Dembski
Abstract: For the scientific community intelligent design represents creationism's latest grasp at scientific legitimacy. Accordingly, intelligent design is viewed as yet another ill-conceived attempt by creationists to straightjacket science within a religious ideology. But in fact intelligent design can be formulated as a scientific theory having empirical consequences and devoid of religious commitments. Intelligent design can be unpacked as a theory of information. Within such a theory, information becomes a reliable indicator of design as well as a proper object for scientific investigation. In my paper I shall (1) show how information can be reliably detected and measured, and (2) formulate a conservation law that governs the origin and flow of information. My broad conclusion is that information is not reducible to natural causes, and that the origin of information is best sought in intelligent causes. Intelligent design thereby becomes a theory for detecting and measuring information, explaining its origin, and tracing its flow.Entire Paper



posted on Apr, 16 2005 @ 12:33 AM
link   
McCory says:

"Quite frankly that's the reason I've always believed more in evolution than creationism or intelligent design. Evolution is, for one, still admittedly a theory."

I think you're confusing "theory" with "hypothesis". A "hypothesis is an assumption we make (based on examination and some evaluation) and then run trests against. Once the hypothesis is shown to answer most of the questions and explains that particular portion of the Univberse better and more simply than any other hypothesis, and can also be used to predict happenings, then -- and only then -- is it a theory.

Admittedly, Darwin's original assertions have had to be modified many times, because we find more and more complexity in the way life forms evolve. Nonetheless, all the changes to Darwin have been modifications, not basic changes, and it has stood the test of time quite well.

"Second, it's based on a logical thought process that has been illustrated and scrutinized by many individuals."

True. The basis for most people accepting a theory (not a hypothesis, mind you) is a logical though process called "Occam's Razor"

"To me, the more religiously motivated ideas have always sounded like someone saying "It's this way just because." I've never seen anyone try and prove any kind of intelligent design, other than pulling out the Bible. Can we see something that can be reproduced? Something that can be quantitatively measured and recorded? No, evolution cannot necessarily be reproduced either, but it has been recorded."

Actually, evolution can be reproduced, simply by taking a short-life-span critter, changing its environment, and seeing how it evolves to keep from dying out. I don't know if you're familiar with the light gray versus dark gray moths and theri evolution due to a change in the environment (acid rain, in this case).

There is an excellent discussion of this, as well as information on adaptation and speciation, at users.rcn.com... .

"Granted, one of the biggest holes in the evolution of humans is the missing link. There is a gap somewhere in the evolutionary tree."

I wasn't aware of that. Certainly we have a pretty consistent line (actually parallel lines) from proconsul (which I gues is the modern ancestor of man and chimpanzees) throug australopithecus and the rest of the guys.

"This is a big chunk of rock to try and scrape all the surface off of until we find every bone and fossil that was ever laid to rest. Maybe we'll never find the missing link and the debate will always be there. There really isn't anyway to tell right now."

You're absolutely right; we've only in the past 150 years relly started to ask serious questions and do serious research on who we are and where we come from. Earth is big; its history is long. We will find out more and more as we continue to look.



posted on Apr, 16 2005 @ 01:02 AM
link   
i totally agree with you offthestreet

hes absolutely correct in his assertions and they can be backed up with Mountains of research
ill testify to that


offthestreet your getting my last 'coolest guy on ATS' award
even tho i disagree slightly with your chemtrail/contrail theory

im all with you on this one

plus; about the plant being "able to correct the mutations its parents gave it"

this is not a hole in evolution at all; in fact , it can prove it even further if you look at it the right way

RNA , or ribonucleicacid , is a chemical found in every cell of our bodies
the purpose of this chemical varies depending on which version we are looking at
i recall there is Messenger RNA, Transfer RNA and so on *(correct me if i got it wrong)

well; as i was saying
one of the versions of RNA is responsible for "cleaning up mistakes in our DNA code"
it runs up and down the DNA; looking for something wrong; when it finds it ; it replaces it with the correct part Cytocine Thymine Actinine Guanine and i forgot the 5th one *there is 4 usually but sometimes i believe a 5th one exists in other instances to replace one of the 4 i listed above*

my memory of Biology class is admitedly foggy; but i remember the basic concept

anyhow;
the particular plant named in the top of this thread; could have a very active RNA that corrects all those mutations right away; so that it can start from a clean slate and develop its own individual mutations that are relevent to its current enviorment

what would be interesting to know is the history of this plant
has it moved around alot?
has its enviornment changed often over the last million years??

this is important because all of these sudden enviornmental shifts could have caused the RNA to become overactive so that the plant would have higher chances of survival

keep in mind im only speculating , a hypothesis if you will


Also, in response to the flawed statement that Chimps dont have conciousness or self-awareness

i believe you have been proven incorrect over 35 years ago
thats quite a long time ago

i will go dig up the actual name of the Scientists and the research they did in regaurds to this
basically what they did was

they put a huge Mirror in the jungle near where a group of chimps lived

well one of these chimps found the mirror and began to look at it curiously
then once he realized it was HIM in that mirror
he turned around and USED the mirror to pick ticks off his back!!!

amazing isnt it!?
the chimp was self aware = Concious of himself and his surroundings

if you wanna make any other statments about how "monkeys dont make technology", or"chimps are incapable of communication with humans through sign language"
or any of that other rubbish ill devote myself to digging up all the reasearch to prove you wrong

i support those little critters they are quite smart

just read the awesome book

The Dragons of Eden
by Carl Sagan

or
Shadows of Forgotton Ancestors
by Carl Sagan

its all about this subject
just go to a book store pick it up and skim thru it

you will love it


Carl Sagan didnt attain 20+ honorary PHDs for nothing
hes was one of the smartest men to ever walk this planet earth
just go check it out



posted on Apr, 16 2005 @ 01:06 AM
link   


I think you're confusing "theory" with "hypothesis". A "hypothesis is an assumption we make (based on examination and some evaluation) and then run trests against.


Sorry; it's been a long time since I learned the definitions and never really bothered looking them up. I was just going off the general title it's been given as the "Theory of Evolution"

I didn't realize evolution had been officially reproduced, although I was always curious why it hadn't. Now I know better


The "missing link" in the human evolutionary chain is something that has been discussed for as long as I can remember, and it's always been one of the arguments in favor of creationism (at least the arguments I've heard.) It's also been theorized that bigfoot is the missing link. This link doesn't talk about the missing link per se, but it does mention Lucy, the skeleton found in 1974 that people had considered to be the missing link for a while.

www.eurekalert.org...

I'm sure you can do a google for "missing link" and find countless results that might explain it with better sources than I can give.



posted on Apr, 16 2005 @ 01:29 AM
link   
While on the subject of evolution vs creationism has anyone heard of Chuck Missler ?

He is a well respected physisist and he proves such things as creationism through physics. He also explains in science terminology about light, time travel, black holes as well as talking about ufo's and aliens and more.

Just wondered if anyone else has checked out his tapes, radio shows, seminars etc..... ? and what they thought ?

Check it out and see.

www.khouse.org...

www.khouse.org...

www.tennesseebill.com...

Peace Out,




posted on Apr, 16 2005 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by MCory1
Granted, one of the biggest holes in the evolution of humans is the missing link. There is a gap somewhere in the evolutionary tree. Yeah, that may be because God decided to step in and try his hand at it. It may be because Grays from Zeta Reticuli decided we were worth the price of the intergalactic chemistry set they bought at Wal Mart (Yes, Wal Marts do exist on other planets; the shipping costs are astronomical...). Then again, maybe it's because we just haven't dug in the right place yet. This is a big chunk of rock to try and scrape all the surface off of until we find every bone and fossil that was ever laid to rest. Maybe we'll never find the missing link and the debate will always be there. There really isn't anyway to tell right now.


I have read (articles only in scientific magazines, so no current link, sorry) that the idea of evolutions missing link discrediting it so, is just a major misunderstanding of evolution. I can't seem to find the article right now, so someone please correct me if I am wrong. I do believe the basic idea is that evolution is not so much a gradual thing, or at least not as some believe it, but instead something that happens in leaps and bounds. Again, correct me if I am wrong, I'm tired and not thinking completely straight



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 01:20 AM
link   
Truthisout there says:

"While on the subject of evolution vs creationism has anyone heard of Chuck Missler ?"

"He is a well respected physisist..."


No.

Chuck Missler is not a well-respected physicist, because he is not a physicist at all. Mr. Missler is a graduate of the USNA, which means he's pretty smart, but so are a lot of pilots, including Ron the bass player in my band, who graduated from West Point and then, after 20-odd years in the Army, retired as a colonel and now works for Boeing. There are a lot of folks who retire from the military as commissioned officers and then go to work for the aerospace industry.

They are not physicists, and neither is Mr. Missler.

" and he proves such things as creationism through physics. He also explains in science terminology about light, time travel, black holes as well as talking about ufo's and aliens and more."

I haven't seen any of that. Where do you see this information about Missler?

I got my information from Missler's own site, www.khouse.org... .

Where did you get yours?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join