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: 39
96
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 





Also, random mutations always happen, but are not expressed. That would be like saying that a random mutation in you right now can give you feathers and make you fly. We know that's not the case. Not to mention, we know you can remove the nucleus of the cell, where all the reproductive genes are stored, and the cell keeps working exactly the same as before. If the nucleus is there or not, doesn't matter. Same is for the genes in the nucleus. It's only used for reproduction and are expressed afterwards.


The cell without nucleus does not work as before, it looses the ability to manufacture RNA and proteins from DNA. Such cell may survive for some time (red blood cells are specialized for this, and manage to survive for about 120 days). Genes in the nucleus are not used only for reproduction, it is needed for the cell for its basic functions. Anyway, I dont understand what your point actually is..





But honestly, don't you think it's funny what the article is saying? Cells are under stress, so, chance for mutations increase, but because of the "burden" of reproduction only the right one is selected and expressed, giving the "illusion" of a selected mutation.. I mean.. Seriously? I don't know.. Maybe if it looks like bird, flies like a bird, sounds like a bird, it is a bird? Just a thought...


It depends on what do you mean by bird..




The whole argument is under the assumption that everything happens in a randomly materialistic way. You can view the same evidence and data the other way, which is, the selection is directed, and whole stress/mutation-increase/burden/selection/expression thing, is the mechanism by which this choice is expressed.. But of course, you're not allowed to look at it that way...


The process of evolution may indeed be augmented by selection, I dont think that would go against current science in any way. Organisms that are capable of quickly and efficiently producing the right mutations to adapt should be selected for. Is that what you mean?




posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   
doublepost
edit on 17/3/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   
I think the real matter at hand here is that evolution needs to stop being compared to creationism, because they are not similar at all. One is proving similarities between species and the other proves where absolutely everything started from.

I think some evolutionists may go off the deep end and actually argue that everything evolved from something ultimately but it will never be able to solve WHY we are here... but it may be a close explanation as to why there is so much diversity in the world. Natural selection may not be the dominant point either, but evolution pretty much happens. It's merely a word... technology evolves, our thoughts evolve, our bodies evolve with age...

I believe the real creation argument consists of there being a God/creator or if this place merely exists as is. Maybe some people don't want to believe that someone will ultimately always be more powerful than them... or some may not want to feel the possibility of ultimate love.

But to be honest... how can anyone be wrong? This life is so colorful, and we exist with such wonderful thought processes and experiences to be had... I don't see why anyone should feel bad about thinking about ANY idea. Obviously we have some morality as being this human race, so I'm not saying oh it's okay to go out and kill a bunch of people, so I'll say that just to dispute that remark coming
.

But when it comes to if there is more than meets the eye to this place... WHO is wrong???? We only have theories to base our beliefs off of, and they are simply the best possibility we have to show for everything. So whatever happens, I say stick with your beliefs that are true to you and listen to what others have to say. It is very fun to debate all this, but I guess I thought I'd spew some thoughts out of my mind on this thread....


Creator or not don't take your life lightly on this Earth because it is truly a gift any way you beat around the bush.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by thehonestone
 


Originally posted by thehonestone
Someone who lacks faith could easily tell themselves lies until they have built a strong delusion.


I'm sorry, but isn't it someone who has faith that can tell themselves lies? I don't have faith, I need evidence and reason to support my claims.



I doubt you truly with all your heart believe in evolution.


You're right, I don't believe it...I accept the scientific fact of it. Just like I don't 'believe' in gravity.



You seem to have some type of sense. Same goes to the big athiest. It's just easier for u to say that there is no God to accept the misery in your lives.


This actually has nothing to do with any deity or theism or atheism. It's about science. Evolution is the truth, no matter what deity or deities you do or do not believe in.



Try your hardest to find faith and truth I assure you not only will science/history tie into the biblw perfectly but you will have a peace of mind that no monkey to human theory could ever prove.


So once I accept the belief blindly I'll find a way to somehow fit in the contradictory Gospel accounts together into a coherent timeline? Yeah, that makes sense. And science isn't supposed to provide 'peace of mind', it provides answers to questions of the natural world.



But then again evolution has never been proved just like I can't prove that God exist. It's similar to the argument that aliens exist because we can't prove they don't and vice versa.


Except that we have all sorts of evidence that proves evolution. Lots of it. 150 years worth of it.



A rather pointless arguement, we all seem to have our minds set, but in the end you will feel embarrassed for believing something as great as a human came from a stinking animal.


...we are stinking animals. Have you never been around people who have just taken part in some form of exercise? Have you never been around people who just needed to take a shower? We are animals. We're definitely not plants.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 

No you can't have your 500 USD because your reference did not confirm what you said:



we know you can remove the nucleus of the cell, where all the reproductive genes are stored, and the cell keeps working exactly the same as before.


Instead the article says that cells might have some mechanism by which they prevent the degradation of already synthesized mRNA related to tubulin. Most mRNA in cells degrades very quickly, but there are exceptions. In short: the cell is not working exactly as before. For the most part it's no longer working at all and it will die very quickly.
edit on 17-3-2011 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 01:56 AM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 





Someone who lacks faith could easily tell themselves lies until they have built a strong delusion.


Huh? Not so, the opposite is true. Faith (not in the sense of determination or hope) without evidence is the basis of most delusions. It is not a coincidence that majority of religions and cults consider faith to be a virtue, when it is in fact a vice. Thats just one of Orwellian doublethink that is needed for delusions, including religious ones, to exist.
edit on 18/3/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 07:15 AM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


I knew you would say something like that. You are so darn biased that no matter how many articles I post that state the same thing, you will simply flat out deny it and keep repeating the same thing over and over. It's just like logically refuting a religious belief and then hearing "the bible tells us blah blah so that's the truth". So blind..., it's not even funny. The sad thing is, you yourself don't see it..


We have also monitored the behavior of cells after enucleation, trypsinization, and replating. The results in this report demonstrate that the information necessary for normal cell-shape formation, cell locomotion, and contact inhibition is present in enucleated cells and is preserved through trypsinization and replating. Preliminary results of this work have been reported elsewhere.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

or

The cytoplasts, on the other hand, for a period of 24 hr display most of the behavioral characteristics of intact nucleated cells.

www.pnas.org...

or

Reassembly of microtubular and microfilament structures associated with cell attachment, spreading, and shape formation from preexisting subunit pools is thought to occur in recovered cytochalasin Benucleated cells (5), which appear to retain many of the cell membrane-dependent functions that may be essential to rickettsial penetration.
--------------------------------------------
rickettsial multiplication appears to continue in a few surviving enucleated cells after many hours.
--------------------------------------------
Similarly, another nuclear function, i.e., host cell ribosomal ribonucleic acid synthesis (5), would not appear to be essential for growth of R. prowazeki.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...


This info was known for over 100 years ago, and it's even taken for granted in tons of studies, like this one, in which apoptosis (which is induced cell death in case you don't know) occurs also in enucleated cells, which means, cells remain alive, for tons of hours after the nucleus has been removed, until they perform the techniques to kill the cells. Genes do not control cells nor life. But whatever. Keep your 500 dollars. You probably don't even have 500 dollars. Or an open mind for that matter.

Edit:
And oyeah. It seems I was right about something else as well. I said:

Originally posted by vasaga
And oyeah..: In before "those articles are not about that but about the testing of blah blah"


Exactly how you reacted.. And you quoted it yourself, you CAN remove the nucleus of a cell and it works exactly the same. I never said you can ALWAYS do it. You need to do it properly without damaging too much of the cell, which is why most die in the process, not because of the nucleus itself, but because of the rest of the damage. The cell can live fine without the nucleus, and I have posted tons of articles showing that. But, whatever... You are right and I'm wrong, like always....
edit on 18-3-2011 by vasaga because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 


...so a cell which previously had a nucleus can survive after one is extracted...and this makes your point valid how? I'm sorry, but I have no clue where you're going. There is still preserved genetic function, it just decentralizes and eventually breaks down. It's not like you can grow the same sorts of cultures with these cells.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 


Whats your point with the enucleated cells, how is it relevant to the topic?



Genes do not control cells nor life.


Genes control proteins, which IS life. Are you familiar with transcription and translation processes? Thats the way how cell replenishes its proteins. If the nucleus is removed, no new RNA transcripts for ribosomes are being created, thus protein synthesis becomes inhibited, and degraded proteins are not replenished, and cells slowly die. Not even talking about the regulatory function of genes, for example facilitating adaptive responses, and not just replenishing proteins that are always present. It may take a relatively long time for the cell to die, depending on the protein degradation half-life, but to say that the enucleated cells can work "exactly as before", or "it doesnt matter if the nucleus is there", or "genes are used only for reproduction", that is simply false.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by vasaga
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


I knew you would say something like that. You are so darn biased that no matter how many articles I post that state the same thing, you will simply flat out deny it and keep repeating the same thing over and over. It's just like logically refuting a religious belief and then hearing "the bible tells us blah blah so that's the truth". So blind..., it's not even funny. The sad thing is, you yourself don't see it..

I'm not biased. I just happen to know a lot more than you about the subject at hand. You, on the other hand are very biased. You've decided that it's what it's and pick sentences out of context to support your uneducated opinion.

For example:


We have also monitored the behavior of cells after enucleation, trypsinization, and replating. The results in this report demonstrate that the information necessary for normal cell-shape formation, cell locomotion, and contact inhibition is present in enucleated cells and is preserved through trypsinization and replating. Preliminary results of this work have been reported elsewhere.

All this is related to tubulin. It was already established in the previous article that tubulin mRNA might not degrade quite as quickly as typical mRNA. This does not confirm what you said: "cells function just like before". It merely states that this one particular function is not dependant on fresh mRNA (certainly not the case for vast majority of functions).

And here:

The cytoplasts, on the other hand, for a period of 24 hr display most of the behavioral characteristics of intact nucleated cells.

This article clearly states: Enucleated cells have without exception failed to survive for an extended period,.. How is failure to survive in any way normal?



The cell can live fine without the nucleus, and I have posted tons of articles showing that. But, whatever... You are right and I'm wrong, like always...

Some prokaryote cells survive for a while without a nucleus (red blood cells quite a long while). However they're not living "just fine". They're not even living anymore in a sense that they've lost their way to adopt to most (like almost everything) changing variables. Eg. you may replate them to a medium with a different nutrient source. In 99.9% of cases they will not start to utilize the new source of energy because they have no means to produce the necessary enzymes (that was lost with the nucleus).

Oh and if you really think that cells do just fine without DNA then how about you dip your hand into Ethidium Bromide for say 5 minutes?
edit on 18-3-2011 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros
reply to post by rhinoceros
 

I'm not biased. I just happen to know a lot more than you about the subject at hand.
Lol.. Uhuh.. Lemme guess, you trust all that your school books tell you, and those are definitely always right.


Originally posted by rhinoceros
You, on the other hand are very biased. You've decided that it's what it's and pick sentences out of context to support your uneducated opinion.
Taken out of context..? Really..? Fine.. Whatever suits you.. And this is nothing more than another religious argument. "You took my bible out of context to enforce your opinion".


Originally posted by rhinoceros
For example:


We have also monitored the behavior of cells after enucleation, trypsinization, and replating. The results in this report demonstrate that the information necessary for normal cell-shape formation, cell locomotion, and contact inhibition is present in enucleated cells and is preserved through trypsinization and replating. Preliminary results of this work have been reported elsewhere.

All this is related to tubulin. It was already established in the previous article that tubulin mRNA might not degrade quite as quickly as typical mRNA. This does not confirm what you said: "cells function just like before". It merely states that this one particular function is not dependant on fresh mRNA (certainly not the case for vast majority of functions).
You are the one taking it out of context. You are the one taking what the general report is all about, and applying it to that sentence. The sentence clearly states, that the cells maintain the information necessary for locomotion, which is the movement of the cell, meaning, it certainly is against your statement of them "not even living anymore". And that's only one of the three they mentioned...

And of course, that's the main article you're using, ignoring the other ones..


Originally posted by rhinoceros
Oh and if you really think that cells do just fine without DNA then how about you dip your hand into Ethidium Bromide for say 5 minutes?
That's irrelevant. It alters the DNA, resulting in faulty cellular reproduction. Also, I think, you're not really aware of what I mean. When I talk about a cell working just fine, I'm talking about a single individual cell. Of course the community of cells dies out if they can't reproduce. If they would remove the balls from all men so none of them could reproduce, humanity will die out too. It does not mean, that you as an individual, will die immediately without them. You can survive without them and perform everything fine without them, provided they don't leave you bleeding to death. Same for a cell and its nucleus.
Imagine for a second that they remove all the nuclei from all the cells from your body. Do you die as a direct cause of it? Of course you don't. You die overtime because your body can't replenish itself anymore. The nuclei is an indirect cause, not THE cause. The real cause is the wearing down of your body parts. You do not lose any function directly when you lack nuclei once your body is fully formed.

And another funny thing, by saying that cells can't survive without a nucleus you are leaning towards intelligent design, with the "irreducibly complex" stuff, because that would mean that if the cell lacks one component, it will lose all function. Obviously, that's not the case. You're not an intelligent design supporter are you..?


Originally posted by rhinoceros
And here:

The cytoplasts, on the other hand, for a period of 24 hr display most of the behavioral characteristics of intact nucleated cells.

This article clearly states: Enucleated cells have without exception failed to survive for an extended period,.. How is failure to survive in any way normal?
If they remove your brain, how long do you survive? Exactly, you die instantly. The nucleus is not the brain and cells can survive fine without the nucleus. If they couldn't, they would die instantly. They lose their capability to reproduce, and to make proteins. All the other function are perfectly intact, and they are still functional. Like, locomotion, stated above.. Is that so hard to understand? Of course they die after an EXTENDED period of time, not able to replenish themselves.. They don't die immediately..


Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by vasaga
 


Whats your point with the enucleated cells, how is it relevant to the topic?
Genetic determinism? If that's not true, the current evolutionary model is not true. This does not mean evolution does not happen, it just happens in a different way..


Originally posted by Maslo


Genes do not control cells nor life.


Genes control proteins, which IS life.
No they don't. Genes have the instructions to produce proteins. They are not functional until there's a signal from the environment. Genes can't activate or deactivate themselves, so in that sense, they already lose the capability of controlling anything, if they can't even control themselves. It's the perception of the environment by the cell that activates genes. There's a reason there's something we call epigenetics.
www.annualreviews.org...


Originally posted by Maslo
Are you familiar with transcription and translation processes? Thats the way how cell replenishes its proteins. If the nucleus is removed, no new RNA transcripts for ribosomes are being created, thus protein synthesis becomes inhibited, and degraded proteins are not replenished, and cells slowly die. Not even talking about the regulatory function of genes, for example facilitating adaptive responses, and not just replenishing proteins that are always present. It may take a relatively long time for the cell to die, depending on the protein degradation half-life, but to say that the enucleated cells can work "exactly as before", or "it doesnt matter if the nucleus is there", or "genes are used only for reproduction", that is simply false.
Lol.. You're stating exactly the same as I've been stating the whole time.. Like I said on the last page...:


Originally posted by vasaga
The only difference is that they can't reproduce and they can't manufacture protein. Lots of people believe the cells die because they lack the nucleus, but they stay alive without it. They just die over time because they can't replenish proteins that are worn out without the nucleus, but they are very much alive and functional without it.


In other words, as long as the proteins are intact, they survive and function normally/exactly the same as before. The cells are the ones controlling the production of the proteins, but they need the nucleus for it. If their proteins would not wear out, they would not die at all. Once the cell is fully formed, it doesn't need the nucleus for itself. It needs it only for reproduction and replenishing worn out parts (also reproduction, but, of something else). It doesn't matter if the nucleus is there, in the sense of how they work as fully formed individual/single entities. It matters for their reproduction and replenishment.. You can compare it with removing the hard drive from a pc when everything's already loaded into the RAM. You can't access a new program, and you can't copy anything, but the pc is still functional in every other way, and you can use everything that was already loaded.

The genes definitely do not control proteins, they are used to produce it. Saying the genes control protein is like saying you control carbon dioxide, or you control heat, or you control lactic acid. We know that's not true.
Also, about the lack of adaptation, adaptation is by definition changing the way the cell works. That's not really relevant when what I'm arguing is that their main behavior remain the same as before as long as proteins are not worn out...

Seems like I stayed around longer than I wanted to..



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by vasaga
You are the one taking it out of context. You are the one taking what the general report is all about, and applying it to that sentence. The sentence clearly states, that the cells maintain the information necessary for locomotion, which is the movement of the cell, meaning, it certainly is against your statement of them "not even living anymore". And that's only one of the three they mentioned...

Movement is not a property that defines life by itself. Water moves along a vertical gradient. Does this imply that water is living?



Imagine for a second that they remove all the nuclei from all the cells from your body. Do you die as a direct cause of it? Of course you don't. You die overtime because your body can't replenish itself anymore. The nuclei is an indirect cause, not THE cause. The real cause is the wearing down of your body parts. You do not lose any function directly when you lack nuclei once your body is fully formed.

Don't lose any function apart from being able to synthesize almost any new protein (or respond to almost any alternating variable) which is essential for normal function.



And another funny thing, by saying that cells can't survive without a nucleus you are leaning towards intelligent design, with the "irreducibly complex" stuff, because that would mean that if the cell lacks one component, it will lose all function. Obviously, that's not the case. You're not an intelligent design supporter are you..?

It's not any component. It's the genetic material. This does not imply irreducible complexity.



If they remove your brain, how long do you survive? Exactly, you die instantly. The nucleus is not the brain and cells can survive fine without the nucleus. If they couldn't, they would die instantly. They lose their capability to reproduce, and to make proteins. All the other function are perfectly intact, and they are still functional. Like, locomotion, stated above.. Is that so hard to understand? Of course they die after an EXTENDED period of time, not able to replenish themselves.. They don't die immediately..

So, now "not dying immediately" = "surviving just fine". Interesting..



No they don't. Genes have the instructions to produce proteins. They are not functional until there's a signal from the environment. Genes can't activate or deactivate themselves, so in that sense, they already lose the capability of controlling anything, if they can't even control themselves. It's the perception of the environment by the cell that activates genes. There's a reason there's something we call epigenetics.

There are many different types of regulatory mechanisms. An example of autoregulation is, when a gene controls its own transcription by monitoring the level of its end product (protein) in the cell. For example when there's a lot of proteinA in the cell, the transcription of geneA is blocked straight on DNA by an interaction of proteinA with proteinB which may for example form a complex that binds to DNA upstream of geneA blocking its transcription. Likewise a gene may for example produce mRNA all the time, but regulate it's translatation. So for example if there's a high level of proteinC in the cell, some of it may bind on mRNAC blocking its translation. Only when levels of proteinC go down, some mRNAC is free to be translated and again levels of proteinC go up. These are simplified examples, but nevertheless demonstrate that genes can (and do) control themselves.
edit on 19-3-2011 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   
Ok. Let's take a step back here. What is life?



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 


...that's a difficult question that I would hesitate to answer...my question to you would be if you would consider life. What criteria would you use and why would you use it?

Most generally life is a set of autonomous functions found in certain assemblages of matter.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 05:29 AM
link   
reply to post by edsinger
 


The birds and wings thing is simple feathers are a evolutionary jump from scales. When it got colder during the ice age the dinosurs who just happend by chance to have the genitic mutation for scales slightly rased from the body (so they would hold air underneath like hollow polerbear hairs) survived is they could keep warm. Natral selection is not the only way geans change mutation also plays a part. In human terms mutations a mostley bad BUT in animals if they are lucky their mutations are benifical (if they make them more adapted to their enviroment) they will be pased on. also the way genitics work is there are two varatitions on each gean (The domanant and the resesive) alial so this means one geantic trate cant be brougth in to the phenotype with out one more trate being brought in also this could be anything from eye coulor to toe shape it is simple you are right that some genic trates cant be explaned as they are random it is an alcamy of chance+mutation+natralselection+more than one phentype brought in from the junk DNA squance= EVOLUTION I agree that charles dawin didnt have all the answers but he had the simple parts pined down



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 06:18 AM
link   
When I look at animal adaptation of camouflage, I just cant believe it is possible through natural selection. There should have been some kind of environmental feedback that the species has been able to pick up & adapt (if at all it had evolved from a different species). Even if it was able to pick up the environmental clues (visual?), how has the animal adapted such that it is camouflaged from the prey's persepective?





posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 07:11 AM
link   
I love these threads but don't wish to get embroiled in yet another, so I just want to make a small contribution directed at Nygdan as he was the first poster here to pedal a much drafted response which continually gets a voicing but has no validity or truth in it.


Originally posted by Nygdan
Evolution is a fact


Nygdan please, evolution is not a fact, it's a theory. There are few, if any, facts in it. It's a nice idea to line all your flora & fauna up and morph likenesses into some imaginary tree of life but the reality is, I'm afraid, very different – your tree is more akin to a web, and a web with many glaring holes in it. This is why there is, a continues to be, much ongoing research, study & debate on the subject. It's interesting to note that as genetics brings true science to biology, and was once hoped it would validate its central claim, it has only moved the goal posts and raised more questions than it's answered. Not a bad thing as it has reignited claims made by the theory and continues to stimulate debate and further research.

Cheers.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 07:25 AM
link   
reply to post by chocise
 





Nygdan please, evolution is not a fact, it's a theory.


Evolution is both a fact and a theory. You should learn the definition of what scientific theory means. Cell theory or germ theory of disease are "just theories", too. That does not make them any less true or proven.

en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 21/3/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 07:36 AM
link   
I see, so your fact is a theory which contains no facts.

Interesting.

I like Einstein's Theory of Relativity as it's backed up by a purely objective series of established facts, y'know, mathematics. Evolutionary Theory isn't, it's subjective and open to conjecture.

Thanks for posting.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by chocise
 


Evolution is based on mountains of evidence and facts, just like the theory of relativity. Educate yourself:
Evidence of common descent
Evidence for Evolution
30 observed instances of speciation

Evolution: PROVE IT!




Proven facts (premises):
1. mutations in the DNA happen e. g. each offspring is slightly different from the parent (mutations supplement variation (changes) to population)
2. natural selection promotes positive changes and supresses negative changes in a population, according to environment
3. if two populations of the same species became separated by some reproductive barrier (rivers, mountains..), there is NO mechanism to synchronize these inevitable changes in both populations, so over time they will inevitably diverge to the point that they wont be able to interbreed anymore - speciation

This three FACTS alone are enough to deduce that evolution happens. And proof by deduction is also a valid way to obtain scientific knowledge. So even if we didnt have paleontology, developmental biology etc., just biochemistry (the 1st point) and population genetics (2nd and third points) is enough to prove evolution, even macroevolution - speciation.



edit on 21/3/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
96
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join