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.

 

Top Ten Scientific Facts : Evolution is False and Impossible.

page: 11
96
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 02:09 PM
link   
In my above I should have said

"Evolution does NOT always take the best route or the most efficient route. Many times it takes the "good enough" route"

Forgot to add the "not"

Later




posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 03:15 PM
link   

This applies to all scientific theories.


But that's just it. There are laws and theories. To say it is a fact would be wrong. Like the Cell theory (Which is true to an extent). We all know almost all living things are made up of cells which is almost completely true. And denying that virii exist is lying to yourself. Because if something moves on it's own and has DNA that's enough proof for me. Because it doesn't go along with the cell theory doesn't mean it isn't living. It's just not always true. That's why it's just a theory. and not a Law



There are several theories for zebra stripe evolution. Confusing predators, sexual selection, temperature regulation etc. I don't think any theory would expect there to be one step from all black/brown to stripes. The Quagga was a good example of what may have happened (half stripes-half brown).

There isn't any mass evolution because it takes so long. It will slowly evolve, yes, but when it finally reaches a state of a zebra, while the other animals are not zebras, it will be just a target. And denying it is a lie to yourself and your own knowledge. But that is a great theory that it is sexual selection that I cannot question or disprove yet.



Environmental changes are one of the driving forces of natural selection/extinction.


If evolution does exist, it should be passive, not active. So nothing is the driving force. It just wouldn't make sense. Because if something could force it self to evolve, it constantly would, I mean who doesn't want to be better, faster, stronger, more ellusive, and attract more women? That is why it has to be passive. I'm saying that if things did evolve, their climate would dramatically change and probably ckill them. Or they wouldn't be superior to the other.


Isn't the probem due to increase in certain algae and reduction in the algae they actually eat?
Yes you're right. But check this out.
www.biosbcc.net...
There was an algae that wasn't suseptable to el nino, but they could not digest it. Shouldn't one have evolved to stop this from happening? And then be naturally selected into the population to stop this from happening again. El Nino happens every 3 to 5. And in terms of the age old earth very frequently. This also supports my hypothetical situation #3.


Yes, but if the trait is selected by sexual selection, predation, environment, then it will eventually be the norm.

It doesn't matter to nature if he was guaranteed to live and guaranteed to mate. There is still less than or equal to 50% of a chance that his kid will carry the trait. Assuming the offsprign lives.



Applies to all scientific theories. But ToE does have evidence, 150yrs later the theory still exists, the only controversy is in the minds of those who wish there to be. Strict YEC Creationism is falsified. Evolution is both a theory and fact. Evolution does occur, given enough time there is no reason to doubt that something will evolve into something distinctively different - the fossil record, genetics, and morphology suggest they do.

Okay it is possible for things to mutate, and then be naturally selected, but it would be so rare for it to be passed into the existing species that it could not be the origin of species. And YEC is irrelevant because I believe the earth is over 700 years old.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Haha I agree sporty. And the fact that scientists make fun of religion is ironic, because believing some lightning bolt inside of a warm pool of water containing many proteins or that some giant star exploded and such is a religion in it self that is just as credible as the fact that there is a God.


You said you're Christian, if you're Christian you support Creationism, imo. That does not mean you support the young earth idea or any of the other BS out there.


You're right, but I meant to say, I'm not Advocating it. I've been reading everyones posts since like april and I barely decided to post. And they keep calling people stupid atheists and stupid creationists. So I'm saying on Not advocating anything. Just trying show why I don't believe in evolution.



FYI, Zerbras are losing their stripes, Evolution is not always a fast process.

How a Zebra lost it's stripes
Yale.edu
www.eurekalert.org/
ScienceDaily
Google - How a zebra lost it's stripes
It's how the zebra got its stripes. They're saying how it lost it's stripes to be a pun from an African Story. The Zebra is not evolving. Because if it were losing it's stripes it would MAKE SENSE, and it would support evolution. But it doesn't MAKE SENSE. It would make sense because it looks so different in color compared to it's enviornment and community, but it's not happening.




You right. Sometimes evolution speeds up and sometimes it's slow as dial-up....slow to the point to where entire species' become extinct.

Example: Humans (genus - Homo) have been around for about 8 million years (that's when we branched of from apes) and ever since humans have survived ice ages, droughts and many other climate changes. Migration is not limited to Humans.

I do not believe that humans evolved from a certain branch of apes. Any Ape that stood upright is assumed to be a missing link. But just because it stands upright doesn't mean we came from it. If we did come from some upright standing Ape, or if we are the superior ape that stands up-right. There'd have to be atleast a handful of species that are upright.

I never said Migration is limited to humans. The fact that Humans have survived ice ages, droughts, and many other climate changes Is irrelevant because humans are a superior species that have been able to utilize it's body to do almost anything it wants, whether to lift a car away from a child, study universe, cure disease, or conquqer the earth. No matter how dumb it sounds. Humans are superior and cannot be considered in the same category as animals in terms of evolution and nature, Man is truely the greatest species to ever exist constantly proving that nature barely applies to them, because they have been able to survive On Land, in the grass lands, in the artic, in the desert, in the water, in the air, even in space.



That happend to humans. At one point after one of the ice ages there were only an estimated 10,000 humans remaining, and that's homo sapiens, modern man....now that's on the verge of extinction.

Again, no matter how stupid it is for me to do this I have to deem humans irrelevant.


That's happened many times, and many times species become extinct or they migrate, or maybe evolution speeds up.

Great point, what about animals that can't move, that we know existed before moving ones.



In the past 50 million years there has not really been a "huge" climatic change....at least not huge enough that the change produced conditions that we do not already have on earth today. It's been the same climate for a long time....

Note: The ice ages did not cover the entire earth, only a good portion of the hemispheres.

Wait a second dude, come on. You don't think the whole climate would change on half of the earth and the other half not be effected?

What about Global Warming? (let's not debate on it's existance) It's been the cause of everything to rises in temperature to lowering of tempatures, and lowering and raising of water levels. Rapid Change of Climate.



There is no definitive point that an evolutionary change takes over. It's a process.

And maybe it's just time for the species to become extinct. Ofcourse, that's gonna be hard with human intervention.

Panda bears would have long been extinct. There are only 1000 left today. Sometimes there is no current explanation for why evolution does what it does.

A panda cub is no larger than a new born kitten, no hair, eyes are closed....way under developed unlike most bear cubs. With or without evolution it's a mystery why they lasted this long.


But evolution is why species vary, in theory. It stops them from dying or being extinct, El nino happens EVERY 4 years or so. Come on they shuold be able to digest the new algae after it's happened around 250 times.



what do you mean?


I'm saying that if there was mass evolution into a zebra, because I believe that it is the only way possible for the evolution into a zebra, be succesful.



[edit on 25-3-2006 by RDouglas]



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 04:36 PM
link   


Wait a second dude, come on. You don't think the whole climate would change on half of the earth and the other half not be effected?

Ofcourse it would, that's not what I meant....

Most people assume the the earth was covered in ice and snow during the ice age.....but that's not the case. Im not saying there were not any climate changes, there were just no changes then that we do not have today...extreme cold, deserts, tropicals, etc...

ice age map (crappy, I can't find a good one)

RDouglas, I stick with human evolution a bit more than others....Ive studied it a bit longer and it interest me alot more. Sorry if I don't touch on any of your other questions or points you brought up, don't think I'm gaffing you off


There is distinct pattern in human evolution that can clearly be followed, it leads from one species to the next. From Ororin tugenensis (sp)(6my) to A. africanus to Homo erectus and then to modern Homo Sapiens.

Genetics, bone structure, diet and much more all show a progressive pattern that leads upto modern humans....it's evolution.

Let's say modern humans have been around for 100,000 - 150,000 years, this is the estimate that many have come with, assuming that our dating methods are correct. And many other human look alikes, hominids, whatever have been around for much longer...along with mammels and reptiles and everything else. With all the above information being fact and evolution being false (not really, just assuming), not going on, does'nt happen.....that would mean that God or some higher force just put us here at the same at a time when there two other homo species' still surving on earth...neanderthalenis and H. Heidelbergensis.....is that the case? Is that how modern man came to existence?

So if evolution is not real (let's all assume) how would one explain why we have new species'? Some are older than others, many date back to tens of millions of years while some only a few hundred thousand years and others a couple million years. Does God or some higher being put these species' on earth every time they are "created" from nothing?

One day are we gonna look outside and see a new species similar to us walking around naked.....if not for evolution that would have to be the case. Without evolution there would be a definate ok, they're not here yesterday.....and now here they are today.

Anyways, here's a good link, it was posted on ATS awhile back. The PBS science page is great, imo. It's gives a basic overview on many hot topics.
PBS-interactive human evolution site

PBS-evolutionary change


[edit on 25/3/2006 by SportyMB]



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 12:37 AM
link   
A few random and very simple thoughts of my own:

1. Why did different sexes evolve and what came first, the female or the male?
If the female, then how did she give birth to a male without a male? If hermaphroditic, then why the need for separation of the hermaphrodite into 2 distinct donors of one set of information, when the the higher form of evolution would be that both sets of information are maintained hermaphroditically and different sexes are not necessary as they waste energy?

2. DNA is a program. What are the odds, given enough time, that a program will evolve from nothing? If we all go sit in a hangar, and stare at a blank space on the floor, will a fully functional airplane eventually evolve on the spot, without the interference of some outside source of intelligent intent?

3. Why didn't the better evolutionary traits stick with the more advanced evolutionary models? For example, regenerating appendages and other body parts? Redundant systems? Wings? Night vision? Hermaphroditic replication? Underwater breathing? Superior balance? Superior speed and agility? Wouldn't the natural outcome of advancing evolutionary models, include the best of the best from each species along the evolutionary trail?



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
A few random and very simple thoughts of my own:

1. Why did different sexes evolve and what came first, the female or the male?
If the female, then how did she give birth to a male without a male? If hermaphroditic, then why the need for separation of the hermaphrodite into 2 distinct donors of one set of information, when the the higher form of evolution would be that both sets of information are maintained hermaphroditically and different sexes are not necessary as they waste energy?


Sexual dimorpism allows greater variation in offspring compared to "cloners". This enables a better response to environmental threats such as parasites/disease.

Maintaining hermaphroditism may be more costly than having sexually dimorphism - but some species are hermaphrodites, so obviously it works for their situation. Some species have the ability to change sex according to social cues, again it works for them.

The book "the red queen" would answer your questions from a ToE point of view. But the progression would be DNA swapping (such as horizontal gene transfer)>gamete swapping>sexually separate species. There would be many intermediate steps between them.


2. DNA is a program. What are the odds, given enough time, that a program will evolve from nothing? If we all go sit in a hangar, and stare at a blank space on the floor, will a fully functional airplane eventually evolve on the spot, without the interference of some outside source of intelligent intent?


Hoyle's "jumbo in a junkyard" analogy was a misinterpretation of ToE. A fully functional organism would not be produced in one step from component parts. ToE does not do "poofing" the only "poofters" are creationist/paleyists


However, if we apply the mechanisms of ToE (NS, reproduction, mutation etc) then it may be possible. Check out the evolved radio...

www.hpl.hp.com...


3. Why didn't the better evolutionary traits stick with the more advanced evolutionary models? For example, regenerating appendages and other body parts? Redundant systems? Wings? Night vision? Hermaphroditic replication? Underwater breathing? Superior balance? Superior speed and agility? Wouldn't the natural outcome of advancing evolutionary models, include the best of the best from each species along the evolutionary trail?


Evolution just produces what is sufficient to survive and reproduce, and organisms are specialised for their niche.


[edit on 26-3-2006 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by RDouglas

But that's just it. There are laws and theories. To say it is a fact would be wrong. Like the Cell theory (Which is true to an extent). We all know almost all living things are made up of cells which is almost completely true. And denying that virii exist is lying to yourself. Because if something moves on it's own and has DNA that's enough proof for me. Because it doesn't go along with the cell theory doesn't mean it isn't living. It's just not always true. That's why it's just a theory. and not a Law


But there is no real distinction between a law and a theory. There is the "law of gravity" but many physicists believe it will eventually require adjustment, so it is really just a theory. Evolution is a fact and a theory. It is a fact because species do change over time, speciation is observed in the lab. The theory is the historical extrapolation.


There isn't any mass evolution because it takes so long. It will slowly evolve, yes, but when it finally reaches a state of a zebra, while the other animals are not zebras, it will be just a target. And denying it is a lie to yourself and your own knowledge. But that is a great theory that it is sexual selection that I cannot question or disprove yet.


The whole population would evolve. It may be due to an isolated population which evolves apart from another population of the same species, eventually they will not be able to inter-breed, thus speciation. Or, it could be from expansion into a new area from a contiguous population (the former is allopatric speciation, I think the other is parapatric, and there is also sympatric). If their ancestor had an advantage by having progressive development of stripes, then if the mutations occur this trait will develop.


If evolution does exist, it should be passive, not active. So nothing is the driving force. It just wouldn't make sense. Because if something could force it self to evolve, it constantly would, I mean who doesn't want to be better, faster, stronger, more ellusive, and attract more women? That is why it has to be passive. I'm saying that if things did evolve, their climate would dramatically change and probably ckill them. Or they wouldn't be superior to the other.


From the individuals point of view it is passive. They have no say in what mutations or environmental challenges occur. They will either be able to adapt or perish. In the case of the marine iguana, they may or may not adapt, the problem for the marine iguana and also the panda is their small populations, they have very restricted gene pools and therefore less chance of adaption when required. There are driving forces for evolution - the filter of nature, those that are best adapted to the environment survive and reproduce.


Yes you're right. But check this out.
www.biosbcc.net...
There was an algae that wasn't suseptable to el nino, but they could not digest it. Shouldn't one have evolved to stop this from happening? And then be naturally selected into the population to stop this from happening again. El Nino happens every 3 to 5. And in terms of the age old earth very frequently. This also supports my hypothetical situation #3.


I think this is the problem with specialisation of some species, add this to a small gene pool and extinction is likely. Now an occasional El-Nino may devastate the species but not cause extinction, but if we add warming oceans then they have a troublesome future. If they can not adapt they will become extinct. You could apply the same line of thought to Pandas - they require a certain food and habitat, without them they perish. Of course, they could evolve to eat something else, maybe they will, maybe they won't.


It doesn't matter to nature if he was guaranteed to live and guaranteed to mate. There is still less than or equal to 50% of a chance that his kid will carry the trait. Assuming the offsprign lives.


But not all characteristics are transmitted by sex-linked recessive genes. If the offspring with the fittest combination of alleles survive and reproduce more than those without it (which they will), it will increase in frequency. Doesn't matter if it's only 50% or even 25% that have the mutation, if they survive and reproduce more than others, the genes will increase in frequency.

For instance, if for some reason people in East Africa became under pressure to endure long distance running to survive and reproduce, the genes that have been found to be linked to such a trait would increase in frequency and their offspring will be more likely to possess this trait.

www.newscientist.com...


Okay it is possible for things to mutate, and then be naturally selected, but it would be so rare for it to be passed into the existing species that it could not be the origin of species. And YEC is irrelevant because I believe the earth is over 700 years old.


But it's not so rare, if it is passed on to 50% of their offspring it seems fairly easy to pass the genetic advantage on. Now beneficial mutations are rare but they do occur.

Anyway, what is your explanation for the origin of species? I guess it's more likely that we were produced by a man in the sky from dirt using his/her special powers? If so, you have a problem with the fossil record. Unless he/she occassionally decides to add a new species. When I see a new homonid suddenly appear, I may accept this idea.

[edit on 26-3-2006 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 01:35 PM
link   
I wasn't referring to the junkyard analogy. It was a legitimate and original question that popped into my head. Even if one piece of an aircraft fell into the hangar at a time (which is still requiring intelligent design for the pieces), how long would it take to arrive at a complete and fully functional aircraft? But since you mentioned it doesn't work on the principle of whole parts tossed willy nilly, but rudimentary particles, let's start with the basic building blocks of an airplane. If, over the course of millions of years, oil, chunks of iron, and the various basic elementary components that the parts of an airplane are composed of, were to somehow accidentally fall out of the sky in just such a place as an airplane hangar, would we end up with a fully functional airplane? Or any working parts at all? Let's say we just want to end up with a working tire? possible? Or how about a working altimeter? No? How about a nut and bolt? Carpeting fibers? Curved sheets of glass? Anything?


As regards two sexes being better suited for this environment, genetically: Well then, that's pretty cool. Sounds kinda pre-planned.

As regards evolution providing only for what is needed
Why then didn't people who lived on islands surrounded by water, keep their ability to breathe under water? Obviously they would subsist off the life in the water, and being able to breathe while under the water, would naturally be the better evolutionary step, make their life expectancy greater, as would wings, regenerating body parts, superior agility and balance, redundant systems and for gads sakes, night vision.. Why would these features be bred out by evolution? Every single one of those features would be handy for any species that lived on land or by the water. To be fair, a dolphin wouldn't need wings. But everything on the land could surely use a pair. The survivability of a species with wings, would go up immensely. That seems almost mandatory as a keeper, as would a few of the others I've mentioned.



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
I wasn't referring to the junkyard analogy. It was a legitimate and original question that popped into my head. Even if one piece of an aircraft fell into the hangar at a time (which is still requiring intelligent design for the pieces), how long would it take to arrive at a complete and fully functional aircraft? But since you mentioned it doesn't work on the principle of whole parts tossed willy nilly, but rudimentary particles, let's start with the basic building blocks of an airplane. If, over the course of millions of years, oil, chunks of iron, and the various basic elementary components that the parts of an airplane are composed of, were to somehow accidentally fall out of the sky in just such a place as an airplane hangar, would we end up with a fully functional airplane? Or any working parts at all? Let's say we just want to end up with a working tire? possible? Or how about a working altimeter? No? How about a nut and bolt? Carpeting fibers? Curved sheets of glass? Anything?


Well OK, sorry for the misinterpretation. My reply still applies though. If the basic elementary parts are able to reproduce then evolution can occur. Of course, they can not, so it's a moot point. As I linked in my last reply, if we make a computer simulation that applies the mechanisms of ToE such a thing has been shown to happen i.e. transistors can evolve to produce a working radio.



As regards two sexes being better suited for this environment, genetically: Well then, that's pretty cool. Sounds kinda pre-planned.


Each to their own



As regards evolution providing only for what is needed
Why then didn't people who lived on islands surrounded by water, keep their ability to breathe under water? Obviously they would subsist off the life in the water, and being able to breathe while under the water, would naturally be the better evolutionary step, make their life expectancy greater, as would wings, regenerating body parts, superior agility and balance, redundant systems and for gads sakes, night vision.. Why would these features be bred out by evolution? Every single one of those features would be handy for any species that lived on land or by the water. To be fair, a dolphin wouldn't need wings. But everything on the land could surely use a pair. The survivability of a species with wings, would go up immensely. That seems almost mandatory as a keeper, as would a few of the others I've mentioned.


But there are limits to flight. What is the largest bird? Would you be prepared to change arms/hands with opposable thumbs for wings? Each species evolves to fit a niche. That is all. If a bird doesn't use their wings for flight, then they will lose this ability - maybe they will use them for something else, for example, the ostrich which uses them for mating display.

We are long evolved from our aquatic ancestor. Why would people living near the sea re-evolve gills? Wouldn't it hinder their terrestrial existence? Why not just build boats and submarines? Do you not think homo sapiens are pretty well adapted already? If we were nocturnal maybe we would have a higher degree of night vision but our ancestors were diurnal. Look at species that have moved into dark caves, they have lost their eyes, it really is a case of use it or lose it. Why maintain or evolve something you do not need or use?

Edit: so here is a trade-off - colour vision with good depth perception or night vison with good perception of moving objects, take your pick...

www.dogstuff.info...


[edit on 26-3-2006 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 02:22 PM
link   
Why would the gill need to go at all, and why not wings AND arms with hands and opposable thumbs? My sugar glider (marsupial), has opposable thumbs and arms and flaps of skin he glides up to 200 ft in the air on.



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
Why would the gill need to go at all, and why not wings AND arms with hands and opposable thumbs? My sugar glider (marsupial), has opposable thumbs and arms and flaps of skin he glides up to 200 ft in the air on.


Because gills are specialised for breathing under water. Whilst lungs are for breathing out of water. This is why newt larvae have gills under water and lose them when they develop and leave the water.

So now you want us to have flaps of skin to enable gliding? If we had similar flaps of skin do you think they would be useful for humans? Maybe if we all lived on the top of windy hills where people generally do hang-gliding it would be useful. But do you think it would get us off the ground or glide between trees and enable some sort of advantage in any way?



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 02:37 PM
link   
Why not something that does both jobs interchangably? Afterall, that would be the best possible scenario for survivability.

Yes, why not? Why not flaps of skin or wings? Why not night vision? Why not regenerating appendages? Why such soft skin? Did it help our survival to be so fleshy?

And Bees. Don't get me started on bees! Bees flip me out.



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
Why not something that does both jobs interchangably? Afterall, that would be the best possible scenario for survivability.

Yes, why not? Why not flaps of skin or wings? Why not night vision? Why not regenerating appendages? Why such soft skin? Did it help our survival to be so fleshy?

And Bees. Don't get me started on bees! Bees flip me out.


lol, fair enough.

I think every ability has advantages and disadvantages, it all has a cost. species will have what is required to survive and reproduce according to their niche. If we could direct our own evolution maybe we would have retractable gills, wings, built in night-vision goggles, the ability to change sex at will depending on mood etc etc.

But we don't.

What's wrong with bees then...



[edit on 26-3-2006 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 02:47 PM
link   
Have you ever studied bees? They have brains the size of a few grains of sand, but have a highly complex social structure and communications network. It's bizarro!



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
Yes, why not? Why not flaps of skin or wings? Why not night vision? Why not regenerating appendages? Why such soft skin? Did it help our survival to be so fleshy?

Yes please...no bees...although that would make for another thread


Evolution is sometimes just "good enough".....it takes less time to make a species "good enough" to survive than it does to 'pimp' one out with the latest and greatest....night vision, wings, gills, etc...etc.....

example: Wings - requires lighter bone density, makes the body more fragile.



[edit on 26/3/2006 by SportyMB]



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
Have you ever studied bees? They have brains the size of a few grains of sand, but have a highly complex social structure and communications network. It's bizarro!


My partner is just finishing a degree in zoology and has just done an essay on Von Frisch's bee dance theory, so I know a bit (I help edit their work).

Yes, they are quite amazing, doesn't give ToE problems though. Many species of insects have complex social structures. They provide an advantage.

[edit on 26-3-2006 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 03:14 PM
link   
Bone density. So pterdactyl's had fragile bones?

Guys, you're moving the bar all over yonder. That horizon is infinitely receeding!

On the one hand, the issue can be explained by appealing to "only what's needed", on the other hand, the issue can be explained by appealing to randomness or high order or high disorder or, whatever the bar needs to be in order to keep that baby in the corral!



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
Guys, you're moving the bar all over yonder. That horizon is infinitely receeding!

On the one hand, the issue can be explained by appealing to "only what's needed", on the other hand, the issue can be explained by appealing to randomness or high order or high disorder or, whatever the bar needs to be in order to keep that baby in the corral!


?

who mentioned randomness, high order, high disorder etc...

But, of course, for ToE mutations are random...



[edit on 26-3-2006 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Complex live organisms cannot rearrange themselves into an organism of a higher form as claimed by evolutionists



Placing "replicable design-coding" at the END OF A LONG SERIES OF EVENTS in which the design-coding is not only repeatable, but visible errors that occur are producing predictable outcomes--is turning cause-and-effect on its ear.

It's impossible. We know this.

If it were not impossible, the $6.29 cents I have in the bank would reproduce into $62.90 or $126.15, on its own, without my "help."

Right?



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin


But, of course, for ToE mutations are random...



[edit on 26-3-2006 by melatonin]


Hey melatonin,

Been sifting through this link for a while... may come a little easier to you though - link


Introduction

"The phenomenon of directed (adaptive) mutations has kept the attention of biologists for several years. It contradicts the darwinian theory of evolution and the central dogma of molecular biology, which are the two corner-stones of the current paradigm in biology. According to the phenomena, directed mutations arise not as a result of a blind variation on the genetical level and consequent selection (as the paradigm insists), but by some sort of purposeful behavior of the cell as a whole. However, no mechanisms for this behavior has yet been identified."
--Vasily V. Ogryzko, NIH Bethesda Maryland

[....]



Summary


There is no hard evidence yet that directed mutation is definitely happening. In fact, the evidence against directed mutation is just as substantial as that for it. As for what the field has to work with now, the models (specifically those proposed by Hall and Cairns) are a combination of directed mutation and random spontaneous mutation. It appears more like directed mutation via high intensity spontaneous mutations. All of the mechanistic theories provide some insight into the situation. They all might contribute in one way or another also. There may be different modes of indecued mutation depending on the organism and the circumstances. There is nothing here to say that the mechanism must be consistant through all of the findings. There may be an example of reverse transcription in a species of E. Coli that signals a useful change in the DNA by a new protein. The biggest thing to keep in mind through all of this is that there are no hard theories or facts in this area. Speculation is the basis of most hypothesis, but it has to start somehow.

Much more work has to be done in the field to substantiate the claims of directed mutation and evolution in order to displace our present theories and paradigms of evolution.


Lot of info to sift through but I've been giving it a go.

Cheers,
-Rren

(edit) That was supposed to be a "link" not a "lick."



[edit on 26-3-2006 by Rren]



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 03:16 AM
link   
Hi Rren,

Hope your well


I'd heard of such mutations before. Isn't it more of a case that there are predictable mutations under certain circumstances at certian parts of the genome? So the genome is biased towards certain mutations due to intense selection pressures?


Masciarelli
I'm curious about "their non-random operations." Does 'non-random' suggest that the very instructions for all possible morphological changes are front loaded or pre-programmed into living things, needing only a given catalyst to get things going?

James Shapiro
No. Non-random means that they operate under certain conditions (e.g. after genome damage or viral infection) and that these systems make characteristic kinds of changes. When a retrovirus-like element inserts in a new genomic location, it carries with it a defined set of regulatory signals that can affect the reading of nearby DNA sequences in very particular ways. This is an example of non-randomness. In addition, some changes (such as those in the immune system) can be targeted to specific locations by the presence of particular signals in the DNA or by activation of transcription. These phenomena show us that cells are capable of altering their genomes in non-random but not rigidly specified or pre-determined ways

....

Yaakov
When the major genome restructuring occur in maize plants occur, are they random restructuring or non-random. Additionally, are the chromosome rearangements, mutations and spread of transosable elements observed in drosophila random or non-random producing more advanced offspring?

James Shapiro
The changes occur non-randomly in the sense that they follow certain predilections (e.g. some mobile elements insert near the start sites of transcription, others prefer to insert in protein coding sequences). Often these changes have major effects on phenotype. If we set up the situation properly, we can often see quite high frequencies of changes that are advantageous to the organism, as in my own work on adaptive mutation in bacteria. Most of this experimental work has been done with microbes, and there we know for certain that important adaptive traits (e.g. antibiotic resistance) have evolved by natural genetic engineering processes.




www.iscid.org...

[edit on 27-3-2006 by melatonin]




top topics



 
96
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join