It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 02:29 AM

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

The slowness is fundamental to strict darwinism, but not evolution nor modern natural selection itself.

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

Genetics provides the details, however, as you noted, darwin and his contemporaries had no real understanding of the mechanisms of heredity. So genetics isn't fundamental to evolution.

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

That doesn't contradict evolution. It shows that some organisms can have traits that are maladaptive.

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

Apparently most organisms don't. As far as evolution, mutations provide the new random variation. If one population of organisms have destroyed their sources of variation, well, that population is quite probably headed for extinction. Of course, if that population is 'challenged' by the environment/conditions of existence, then its entirely reasonable to say that any members that don't have this 'mutation correction mechanism', or have a less effective one, might very well be favoured, and thus the population will be able to adapt, inspite of this correction mechanism. IOW they well evolve so as to shut down this deleterious mechanism.
Also, the fact that the mechanism itself exists demonstrates evolution. A lineage with it can under a different set of conditions be favoured, because most mutations are neutral and harmful, while very few are harmless. So suppressing inhereted mutations can be beneficial.

So if the genes and DNA can fix themselves there is no way to pass on adaptations.

DNA is already known to have mechanisms that correct mutations and limit their numbers. A 'balance' has to be struck between helpful and harmful rates of mutation.

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


This [chimp stuff] something one would not expect if the theory of common descend
was true


intelligent design is as valid a scientific theory as evolution.

Design theory is anti-scientific tho. Science cannot detect supernatural design, design theory is based on that.

(1) show how information can be reliably detected and measured

Detecting information is not detecting design. Evolution will also 'mimic' design, because all design is is finding solutions to problems. In nature the problem is the environment and the solution are adaptations.
Granted, one of the biggest holes in the evolution of humans is the missing link. There is a gap somewhere in the evolutionary tree.
Indeed, there are many gaps. First it was a gap between chimps and man. Then it was two gaps between chimps and the australpithecines, and the australpithecines and man, and then double, and then more. Each time a new intermediate fossil is found to put in the old gap, you end up with, effectively, two new ones.

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.

The consensus is that Lucy, an australpithecine, is the "missing link". Notice, the consensus, there are some researchers who don't think Lucy is quite as intermediate, but the consensus amoung workers is that she is. And then more were discovered to add to the sequences and offshoots.
Here is a good source:
Fossil Hominid FAQ

but instead something that happens in leaps and bounds.

I think that perhaps you are conflating an argument for the lack of transitional fossils in some expected lineages with the missing link between man and ape. There are a numebr of fossils that link man and ape. In general, with other species, there aren't as many 'transitional' fossils as would be expected. Normally this was considered to be a problem of the chanciness of a specimin being preserved as a fossil and found. Gould and Eldridge, two evolutionary biologists, proposed a theory (in the 70s I think), that also sought to address this issue, called "Punctuated Equilibrium". Essentially, they wanted to move away from the darwinian idea of very slow, very gradual change within linages from one form progressively to the next, with something like Ernst Mayr's (the great and recently late evolutionist) "allopatric speciation model". Breifly, Mayr's idea was that new species arise at the edges of the range of a big population, often in isolation from the big population. If thats the primary way in which species arise, G&E reasoned, then there isn't much likelyhood of finding specimins, since the 'critical' changes occured in relatively small and limited populations.

posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 03:28 PM
I didn't bother reading this entire topic, but Darwin's theory isn't the generally accepted theory. It's very old, and it's easy to see why. Scientists nowadays like Stephen Jay Gould's theory of punctuated evolution, which has much more evidence.

posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 11:00 PM
The issue of whether modern evolutionists are darwinists is a tricky one. Gould and Eldridge, who came up with punctuated equilibrium, generally, (or at the very least currently, depending on your stance) state that their idea is not contra Darwin. Gould, in his 'brick' The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, basically states that punk eek and non-gradualism are an ancilliary but important alternation/addition to the Darwinian core. So they don't see their ideas as being outside of the 'stream' of darwinism, and argue strongly against their ideas being anything like a revival of 'Saltationism' or 'Hopeful Monsters' and whatnot.

The consensus amoung evolutionists is that darwin is still pretty much right. The realy challenge to darwinism right now isn't punk eek, its Kimora's Neutralism, which, and I am not familiar with it in any detail, apparently states that most changes in gene frequencies are neutral, and that this neutralism allows all sorts of variation to be 'stored up' by the population, and also that most changes in teh genome don't even have any sort of expression at the 'physical' level, and are thus 'invisible' to natural selection. But don't take my understanding to be very correct.

So gould and eldridge are manning the perimeter of the natural selection camp, whereas Kimora might be outside it.

posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 12:22 AM
Just thought I'd add to that, Darwin said that the "very slow, intermittent action of natural selection accords perfectly well with what geology tells us of the rate and manner at which the inhabitants of this world have changed." n-of-species/chapter-04.html
It is important to examine the historicaly context within this. Firstly, just from a logical standpoint, slow and intermittent does not neccesarily mean gradualist!!!
To be pedantic, one could interpret slow and intermittent to mean "punctuated equilibrium: Just A Bit Slower" lol
Secondly, gradualism in geology was the conquering theory at the time and so no doubt Darwin appealed to it as (At the time) it gave him the most sound scientific foundation with which to accord his theories.
Most importantly, as Nygdan kindly mentions, Gould is an avid Darwinist!
If you read his work (His actual work, not those ridiculous fundie books that misquote and misrepresent him) he, just like any other evolutionary biologist, researched more into the mechanism of natural (and sexual) selection.
NOTHING yet actually 'disproves' evolutionary theory, including those plants from the start of the thread.

[edit on 18-4-2005 by Gymboy]

posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 06:30 AM
I am surprised this topic has received such a dogmatic responce. No where in this thread can you find the statement "Plants have a mechanism to correct flawed genes handed down by their parents so evolution must be false". The purpose of this thread is to open people's eyes to new possibilities not old dogmas

posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 06:43 AM
I think that is because even if 10% of the offspring of the mutated parents managed to correct their genes (As the paper indicates) that simply does not disprove evolutionary theory!!!
It may indicate that those plants in particular are not as constrained by natural selection as the rest of life, but it does not disprove the theoretical foundation of evolution at all.
Of course, being the open minded guy I am, if we found that most species (Or all!) had a similar mechanism we would certainly have to relook evolution. Even then, it may not disprove it totally. If you look at the history of scientific paradigms they are continually tinkered with to fit new data. Certainly more evidence of this sort would give more credence to Gould's "species down" look at natural selection as opposed to Dawkins "Genes up" ideas.

posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 10:45 AM

Originally posted by Gymboy
I think that is because even if 10% of the offspring of the mutated parents managed to correct their genes (As the paper indicates) that simply does not disprove evolutionary theory!!!
It may indicate that those plants in particular are not as constrained by natural selection as the rest of life, but it does not disprove the theoretical foundation of evolution at all.
Of course, being the open minded guy I am, if we found that most species (Or all!) had a similar mechanism we would certainly have to relook evolution. Even then, it may not disprove it totally. If you look at the history of scientific paradigms they are continually tinkered with to fit new data. Certainly more evidence of this sort would give more credence to Gould's "species down" look at natural selection as opposed to Dawkins "Genes up" ideas.

For a third time no one has said this DISPROVES EVOLUTION!!!!!!

posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 11:02 AM

Originally posted by BlackJackal
No where in this thread can you find the statement "Plants have a mechanism to correct flawed genes handed down by their parents so evolution must be false".

True, however you are stating that it 'shakes a fundamental principle of evolution'. It really doesn't.

that simply does not disprove evolutionary theory

Indeed. If anything, this correcting ability can be seen as, well, an adaptation, one that destroys deleterious mutations. Darwin didn't understand genetics, nor that mutations were the source of random variation, but he knew that random variation existed in populations because he could see it. So variation is fundamental to natural selection. These plants destroy a sourceof their variation. If they have no variation, but are still able to adapt to their enviroment, then there'd be a problem for natural selection. However simply suriving doesn't mean that they are adapting.

posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 05:12 PM
I have to agree with the general consensus on this post. This find doesn't shake fundamental principles of evolution. It's a great find; it gives people lots to think about, and brings to mind about a million different experiments, but it hardly shakes the foundations of evolution.

posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 06:23 PM
I think that this discussion has gone off the deep end of, specific evolution proccesses and discoveries ?

Wasn't this the original thread topic ? "Fundamental Principle of Evolution Shaken....."

They are in fact shaken ! We are not debateing who is right or wrong. Just that the Fundamental Principle of Evolution is looking pretty shakey these days.

There is just way too many gaps in periods, time alanaysis questions, complete chemical changes, DNA changes etc......... and the list goes on and on.

However I do believe in evolution from the point that all things are evolving.
I also beleive that God created and evolution is just a natural proccess of Gods law. Plus the fact is. It's a lot easier to accept creation than thinking we came from monkeys !

I am not sure about you ? But I didn't !

posted on Jun, 5 2005 @ 02:10 AM
As has already been pointed out, humans do not have the type of repair capability you cited. Intrestingly though, that very same gene is now being experimentally used to repair defective human DNA, including cancerous cells. The initial results appear very promising.

posted on Jun, 5 2005 @ 02:25 AM
My view on these auto repair systems inside us might be easyest explained with a computer analogy.

In computers, programs are writen in programming languages then compiled to become computer code.

Viruses and random corruptions of files can modify files so that their code is still readable by a computer and executed, with virusses you'll have the virus being reexecuted from this new file and spreading furhter and with random corruptions that leave executable code, you'll have graphical, cosmetical, textual or audio fragments in your media, or maybe totaly no difference in how it looks and functions, with auto repair functions, as long as the apps and data stay executable and readable by the computer, it wont try to fix them.

Other actions by virusses and random corruptions of files and data will leave the files unreadable, crashing or imposible to execute on a system resulting that the auto repair features of OS's or applications kick in and recover or repair the data or application so that it is OR fully replaced by a backup of the original OR is repaired/cleaned up so that it can start again.

So with our genes, if the mutation/corruption of the genetic code results in a working set of genes, the repair system will see no need to repair them.

If the mutation/corruption of the genetic code results in a non working set of genes, the repair system will repair it or replaced it with a backup that can most likely be found in what scientists call the "trash DNA".

posted on Jun, 5 2005 @ 10:30 AM
Nygdan fantastic no biased and truthfull information and debating

Good thread this find is indeed very interesting.

However I can not agree with anyone who says Evolution is looking shaky.
as well said ID and many theories are just being used to try and use blind faith, rather than the reality of evidence experiment and proof, to try and make sence of the world from their viewpoint. Its Biased IMO though thats a paradox in its own way!

As already pointed out every theory/premise is modified to fit the FACTS and yep Darwin may not have written the full answer fillig in all the bits to one of the biggest and most important puzzles to us. But Fact shows that he was very much on the right road though only just stepping on to it.

So broadly when Darwin noticed the lizards on the gallapogos islands who had evolved to swim in the sea and graze sea grass of the rocks. Yep he was stupid to think that Lizards some time in the past had adapted both physically and in their social and individual behaviour to survive there. Nope some ID or being elsewhere created a new lizard like the old ones. But hey this happened on a volcanic island created recently in geolical time so God or ID obviously had one of the Seven days of and did some flexi-time. He/She/It/They/ID whatever your belief is then returned recently to deliver some of the new and improved lizards and I suppose guys at the same time created new types of designs elsewhere..
OMG im worried what happens if they have no flexi left, as the environment and the earth changes, and say the next ice age whos going to make new Wooly Elephants? OMG!

Im not belating anyones beliefs or faith. Im not trying to Knock or being Arogant but I admit that I find it both scary and amazing the amount (40% of americans recently) Believe in Creationism. I believe it you really look at the facts and look at the world around us. If you look at it from a objective and Non Biased point of view creationism is debunked!

"The park cave with the greatest animal diversity is Clough. This cave is probably home to seven species of invertebrates that live no where else in the world. This includes a scorpion, a harvestmen and several species of spiders. The cave is at low elevation and is warm and seasonally wet. Tree roots provide food for many animals in Clough. Guano from an active bat colony provides additional food for invertebrates. There are several species of bats in Clough, including the rare, Townsend's Big-eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii). "
Nice Cave Site
Cave Life 2

You see same differant species but same Family. Like us and th chimps.

So im sure the cave scorpions think they are 'special' too and are annoyed that some are espousing that their land cousins have a 1% differance in DNA coding! they are really upset saying they didnt come from their land cousins forget the evidence the God of Caves created them specialy. apparently in a recent cave census about 40% of the cae scorpions think this is a fact.

Did ID or the creator run out of Blueprints or inspiration for these living things created in sometimes sealed environments, he just popped into sealed caves like 30,000 yrs ago on his next flexi day and brought the plans for the spiders and stuff but just took their Eyes and Skin Pigmentation of the plans? pretty lazy and uninspiriring IMO for an omnipresent being. Oops sorry yep right he was doing it on purpose to test our faith in him, like putting the dinosaur bones in the ground. Yep it all fits now around 50 odd thousand years ago (ive heard from that to 12000) everything was created but the creator had some time of so tired after making the fake dinosaur stuff along with making the whole electromagnetic spectrum give us false faith testing data again, of course Hubbles observations were wrong the universe aint that old redshift is a test of my faith. So as so tired came back to the earth recently to the lizards on the gallopigus, the mammoths and stupid if faithfull cave scorpion population!

BTW evolution theory is not an 'old' theory its evolving itself and changing to fit the FACTS and the world around us. yep its changed slightly to fit reality but it certainly hasnt been disproved or even challenged with provable observable or factual information or data.

I think you will find that creationism/id whatever you call it is very much older mindset/theory in humanity. Infact probably back to when humans first talked.

You see again the facts are there to see if people care to look on this issue. Lots of recent and I emphasise INDEPENDENTLY funded real scientific research im sure I ll be flamed but I hate to mention it to lots of people but it looks very much like the idea of Humans being 'Special' or whatever is itself being challenged. Yep Im special I adore human life and the spirit sanctity and uniqueness of us. But we learnt to communicate and talk, as we ae doing now. That was a more important spark in human evolution and life than any other ability.

But maybe just maybe chimps are evolving to actually 'talk'. It has been proved now that chimps can communicate. I emphasise 'proved' by repeated and recorded over many years of Scientific Work.

Take the time to Listen to this!

This link will probably blow you away a bit, but take the time to listen to this Recent documentary about 20-30 min real file but amazing...can you hear the chimp talk? and besides that the 'consciousness' of the subject is in no doubt.

To the earlier Poster who mentioned Chimp communication it was Washoe the chimp. Through sign language. Another time this chimp who could both read (sign language) and write sign language) was taken by its handlers once and went to a lake. Washoe was totally interested in the ducks. Very excited. Washoe had never seen a duck before in addition had never been
taught or exposed to the Sign Language for duck.
Washoe watched them and after a while of silence and absorbtion in the subject got excited went to its handler and signed the following pointing to the ducks.
" Water - Bird" it made the two signs together.

Please read book 'The Chimp on the edge of the Human Mind' proffessor R.Williams paragon press
Washoe Friends Website

That stupid chimp had in that moment done things that many humnas seem to have difficulties with

1. It came up with something new, created a new word. It was creative

2. Showed intelligence, i.e. taking past knowledge and experiance and using them in the present to adapt that info and knowledge to its environment

3.It did it on its own volition with no prompting. originality.

Please do some reading research on the facts about chimpanzee DNA, Individual and Societical Behaviour, Tool Making, and the facts of their communication abilities before you believe creationism or cant accept the premise of them truly being very close to us.

Societical Similarities in Violence between Chimps and Humans
Jane Goddal
Chimp and Human Communication Research Group

One final thought if you cant see the chimp in the human or vice versa
.... why do humans have a cocyx bone at the bottom of our spine? If we didnt evolve from the great ape family why do we have the same physiology there as a chimp? but hey its been proven to be a remnant of tails. But hey chimps dont have tails too, but other monkeys do, but they evolved and they no longer needed a tail. But Humans, nah never my great great Grandmother to the power of 10 to the 6000000 Did not have a tail! well it is a bit freaky for me to but the facts mean she probably did !


As I have said no disrespect to anyones views on this. I respect faith but not blind faith. I realise I Have gone off thread slightly but I feel it is important.

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in