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.

 

New Proof of Recent Human Evolution

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by HimWhoHathAnEar

by melatonin
There is no moral incentive to follow what is best from an evolutionary point of view


My point exactly.


But the theory of evolution never had a moral basis anyway, like the theory of gravity, it is just a scientific theory of the real-world. You were saying that god runs through everything, so I guess I should ask again...

You believe that the theory of gravity has a moral component?

Does god also run through those little parasitic worms that live inside innocent children's eyeballs and eat them from the inside out?




God's who prefer being ignored?
Or maybe there's a god who's looking for your superior analytical ability?
Sorry, but you're an Atheist remember. Me +1, You Zero. Unless you would like to change your bet.


Why not? It's just as rational as an egotistical envious god that gets all jealous and angry if you don't worship him and perform naughty deeds in the bedroom. In fact, the judeo-christian god comes across as quite a schizoid psychopath.




posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 02:19 PM
link   

by melatonin
You believe that the theory of gravity has a moral component?


Since a Theory is a guess, I don't attach any component of reality to it. Once they figure out why it's so weak compared to the other fundamental forces, maybe we'll be getting somewhere.




Does god also run through those little parasitic worms that live inside innocent children's eyeballs and eat them from the inside out?


Suffering and Death entered the world through mans disobedience to his maker. A warning was given ahead of time.

How does Evolution answer your question? It's a hard knock life then you die! Sorry a parasite blinded you, but you'll just be in the dirt again soon anyway and your life was meaningless.

I prefer the message sent to me by my Creator, telling me that all is not lost and he's made provision for me, despite myself.





an egotistical envious god that gets all jealous and angry if you don't worship him and perform naughty deeds in the bedroom. In fact, the judeo-christian god comes across as quite a schizoid psychopath.


I don't know what got you so angry at God, but in studying the life of Christ (God in the Flesh) I don't see all this anger and stuff you're talking about.



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by HimWhoHathAnEar


by melatonin
You believe that the theory of gravity has a moral component?


Since a Theory is a guess, I don't attach any component of reality to it. Once they figure out why it's so weak compared to the other fundamental forces, maybe we'll be getting somewhere.


So the theory of gravity is a guess...interesting, I suggest you don't ignore the reality of it, could be quite messy.

'theory' in science is not the same as 'theory' in everyday language.





Does god also run through those little parasitic worms that live inside innocent children's eyeballs and eat them from the inside out?


Suffering and Death entered the world through mans disobedience to his maker. A warning was given ahead of time.

How does Evolution answer your question? It's a hard knock life then you die! Sorry a parasite blinded you, but you'll just be in the dirt again soon anyway and your life was meaningless.

I prefer the message sent to me by my Creator, telling me that all is not lost and he's made provision for me, despite myself.


ABE: so, in your mind, god is the cause of eyeball eating nematodes?

Suffering and death has always existed. The fall never happened. nematodes and other parasites existed long before people did, a few hundred million years or so probably.

The theory of evolution will, in it's usually amoral way (as no scientific theories are moral), say that is what they evolved to do. So we'll use science to solve the problem, using biological understanding of how the parasite is transmitted and survives. And we try to get the medicines required to the people who need them.






an egotistical envious god that gets all jealous and angry if you don't worship him and perform naughty deeds in the bedroom. In fact, the judeo-christian god comes across as quite a schizoid psychopath.


I don't know what got you so angry at God, but in studying the life of Christ (God in the Flesh) I don't see all this anger and stuff you're talking about.


How can I be angry at something that doesn't exist? If I did, that would be a waste of important emotional energy.

I'm just interpreting the acts of a fictional character.

[edit on 8-1-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 04:39 PM
link   
OK, in the hope of getting this thread back on topic. Here's another fairly recent (300 years ago) mutation that is leading to a line of research that could well be very productive in this day and age.


The Milano mutation: A rare protein mutation offers new hope for heart disease patients

Researchers at the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory have discovered the mechanism by which an extremely rare protein mutation shields people from cardiovascular disease. The discovery could lead to more potent drug therapies that target both cholesterol deposition and prevent future accumulation. Results were reported in the February 12, 2002, issue of the journal Biochemistry.

May 28, 2002—Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory researchers have discovered the mechanism by which an extremely rare protein mutation shields people from cardiovascular disease. The mutation enables the protein to curb oxidation, a harmful process in which molecules with unpaired electrons, also called free radicals, scavenge electrons from healthy tissue. It's believed to play a role in such diverse diseases as Alzheimer's, osteoporosis, and a form of heart disease known as atherosclerosis.

In atherosclerosis, free radicals grab electrons from lipids that line artery walls, sparking an inflammatory response that paves the way for cholesterol deposition. The mutated protein, however, boasts an antioxidant in the form of a sulfur-based residue that mops up unpaired electrons and prevents them from triggering arterial inflammation, according to John K. Bielicki of Berkeley Lab's Life Sciences Division.

Bielicki's research solves a paradox that has puzzled the medical world since 1980, when a middle-aged Italian man was referred to Milan's Lipid Center with high blood triglyceride levels, a risk factor for heart disease. Further testing revealed the patient also possessed very low levels of high-density lipoprotein (HDL), a good cholesterol that exports excess cholesterol from coronary arteries. This process prevents plaque buildup that impedes blood flow and contributes to heart attacks.

Patients with low levels of HDL are susceptible to heart disease, yet the Italian exhibited no signs of pathology. This unlikely combination intrigued scientists, who determined that the patient and a few dozen people from his region possess a mutated form of apolipoprotein A-I protein.

This important protein, known as apoA-I, both manufactures HDL particles and is responsible for their structure. In the mutated form, dubbed apoA-I Milano because of its origin, one of the protein's amino acids is replaced with an amino acid cysteine that has a sulfhydryl group. Somehow, this tiny change enables a handful of Italians to possess low HDL levels and remain free of cardiovascular disease.

www.eurekalert.org...

So basically what they found is that they can trace this mutation to a single couple who lived in the 18th century. Around 30 related people in a small italian village were found to have this mutation and it confers protection against cardiovascular disease.

So far, these are the only people found to have it, so it does look like a novel mutation. But it is leading to research into new cardiovascular medicines.



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by HimWhoHathAnEar
Terapin & melatonin,
I'm curious to know if you are atheists. And if so, how does evolution effect that belief. Likewise, if you believe in your creator, how does evolution effect that belief. Thx


First you thought it I might be shamed by my religion, then you thought I was running away, then you thought it was too difficult for me to explain, But I answered your question in my first reply and I wonder why you are having such a difficult time understanding. You ask How does evolution effect my beliefs, and I explained that it doesn't have any effect at all. Why should it? The evidence is plain to see in my opinion, and the logic behind it is easy to follow. My beliefs do not require me to deny evidence or to fabricate myths. Whether I believe in your god, a different god, multiple gods, Buddha, etc., doesn't change that I understand evolution to be a well documented fact.

Some choose to believe in the Judeo/Christian God and still make room for Evolution. Others Strictly interpret the Bible and proclaim Genesis as the only truth. Sadly, there are many who deny the evidence before them. Evolution is a well documented process. The exact mechanisms involved are still being discovered and the details are something we learn more of as time goes by. It is called Theory much like the Theory of Gravity, because there is still more to learn.

From Wikipedia:
"In science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of gravitation."

It is a fact that we have ample evidence of evolution, and we also have a Theory to describe how we believe it works. Natural selection and genetic drift. The evidence backs up the theory and the more we study genetics the more things fit.

If you, or anyone, chooses to strictly interpret Genesis, that's totally fine. If I choose not to, and instead let logic and science be my guide, then any particular theism I have is irrelevant to this thread. Your question has been answered.

Back to the Thread Topic... PBS has posted three new pilots for a new Science Show and they are asking us to vote on them. In one of the shows they will examine 30,000 year old Neanderthal DNA to see what it tells us about ourselves. It airs January 10th.

Here is a link to the shows web page: www.pbs.org...

And here is a link to all three pilots: www.pbs.org...



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Conclusion
No plausible prebiotic synthesis of cytosine yet exists.

Vital ‘building blocks’ including cytosine and ribose are too unstable to have existed on a hypothetical prebiotic earth for long.

Even if cytosine and ribose could have existed, there is no known prebiotic way to combine them to form the nucleoside cytidine, even if we granted unacceptably high levels of investigator interference.

Building blocks would be too dilute to actually build anything, and would be subject to cross-reactions.

Even if the building blocks could have formed polymers, the polymers would readily hydrolyse.

There is no tendency to form the high-information polymers required for life as opposed to random ones.


Above from this source

www.answersingenesis.org...







Here are some arguments against chemical's turning into life from a Creationism viewpoint. I find myself more interested in this portion of the debate because without the foundation it's hard to build on higher levels IMO.







[edit on 8-1-2007 by HimWhoHathAnEar]



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by HimWhoHathAnEar
Here are some arguments against chemical's turning into life from a Creationism viewpoint. I find myself more interested in this portion of the debate because without the foundation it's hard to build on higher levels IMO.


I understand that you are desparate to poke holes in the theory of evolution, but this is a bit off target. This is an issue for abiogenesis, which we know took place, we just don't know the details and people are working on it. When our people figure it out, we get back to your people.

Nice try though


So anything to add about human evolution?

ABE: you should have had the bit you extracted from AIG as an external quote [ex][/ex]. Just a note for future reference.



[edit on 8-1-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 09:08 PM
link   

by melatonin
When our people figure it out, we get back to your people.


You appear desparate to get rid of me. IF your people figure it out you let me know. And yes actually I do have more to say, but if you're just gonna belittle everything I say, I'm not gonna waste my time.



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by HimWhoHathAnEar


by melatonin
When our people figure it out, we get back to your people.


You appear desparate to get rid of me. IF your people figure it out you let me know. And yes actually I do have more to say, but if you're just gonna belittle everything I say, I'm not gonna waste my time.


I don't think it was belittling at all. It is a fact. Abiogenesis is an issue for chemistry/biochemistry.

Even if we assume that some ID created the first replicator, evolution is still a valid process. As I said, not an issue for ToE. But of course, we don't just plug a gap with a non-answer, we try to figure it out.



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 09:28 PM
link   
The entire house of cards is built on life having come about from non-life. Then, that life had to be complex enough to reproduce. How much genetic information would it take for reproduction? That's my question, so now apply the condescending tone and school me please.



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 10:33 PM
link   
i'm not exactly qualified to explain abiogenesis, seeing as i'm not really well versed in chemical biology

however, here's a link that gives a tiny overview
Understand Evolution and Abiogenesis



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by HimWhoHathAnEar
The entire house of cards is built on life having come about from non-life. Then, that life had to be complex enough to reproduce. How much genetic information would it take for reproduction? That's my question, so now apply the condescending tone and school me please.


Read my last post, ToE is a theory that describes the origin of species, not the origin of life.

Replication is reproduction. A replicator is required. Many theories are posited for abiogenesis, none have enough evidence to be convincing. But we know it occured, at one point on earth - no life, then - life.

If you want to discuss it, open a thread.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Terapin
Link

www.nature.com...

Recent research has given proof of Human evolution as recent as 3000 years ago. The research was done regarding Human Lactose Intolerance and in addition to demonstrating an adaptation in East African peoples it also demonstrates Convergent Evolution.

I discussed this with a Christian friend and their comment was that it "wasn't proof of Evolution, it was just people Adapting over time"(ie. Generations). As we all know, Adaptation over Time is indeed a definition of Evolution. This may be the smoking gun that finally offers recent proof to the nay sayers.

Take a look at the NY times article posted above for the details and give us your thoughts.


[edit on 11-12-2006 by Terapin]

Edit to fix long link.

[edit on 17-12-2006 by mrwupy]


i havent been following the thread so dont have a go at me if ive missed something.

Being a christian i think that what most christians dispute is the evolution between species. Monkeys into Humans, that type of thing. Its a known fact that creatures adapt because of surroundings. But nothing can move from species to species thats just a load of trash. Reason: why arnt there creatures around that are in the process of changing?



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by funky monk
But nothing can move from species to species thats just a load of trash.


actually, viruses and bacteria do it all the time
we have irrefutable evidence of evolution of viruses
one flu developing into an entirely new species



Reason: why arnt there creatures around that are in the process of changing?


look around you
every creature is in the process of changing their species
we just can't tell because our lifespans are too short
every form is a "transitional" form
there is no such thing as complete evolution
evolution is a neverending process



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by funky monk
why arnt there creatures around that are in the process of changing?


Actually, there are indeed species that are in the process of changing, or "transitional Species" as they are called. There is even significant fossilized evidence of transitional species. The claim of why are there no species in the process of change is often used by creationists in their anti evolution stance. The evidence is there for all to see and I will give you one living example:


Carsonella rudii, a bacterium that lives in symbiosis in the cells of a certain kind of plant-sap drinking insect, is so reduced and so utterly dependent on its host nuclear genome that it can be regarded as a transition between a symbiont and an organelle (like mitochondria). It is a genuine transitional on its way from bacterium to organelle.

From a recent paper in Science (Nakabichi et al, Science 314, 26)


OK, That is just bacteria you say...Well then look at the evolution of fish to land dwellers for another example:


An excellent set of fossils that cover the transition of water dwelling fish to modern tetrapods already exist, but a new find, Tiktaalik roseae, shows some remarkable transitional features such as robust front limbs fringed by fin rays instead of digits.

One particular gap has been between the Middle Devonian Eusthenopteron, a fish with some transitional features and the earliest known tetrapods, Acanthostega and Icthyostega. Tiktaalik, dated at 382 million years ago, falls into this gap, and shows many more transitional features, including robust fins that are capable of supporting the body, transitional patterning of the bones of the pectoral fin, a spine and ribcage capable of supporting the weight of the animal and significant features in the skull such as loss of the gill cover and a longer snout.
Daeschler et al, Nature 440, 757–763 (2006).
Shubin et al, Nature 440, 764–771 (2006).


I am certain that when you take the time to do more research, you will readily find many other transitional species. Life is amazing in it's abundance and it is well worth your time to look deeper into it's depth and history. There is nothing to say that God did not invent evolution, if you wish to believe that, but to deny evolution, is like sticking your head in the sand because you want to see the truth.

[edit on 26-1-2007 by Terapin]

[edit on 26-1-2007 by Terapin]



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 07:33 PM
link   
I like to think of it this way:

Did God made everything or did nothing made everything?

I dont understand those of you who say evolution is real and there is no God to make things in the first place. What started things off?

I mean God may have made things to evolve and I might just be wrong. But I dont look into the subject very often.

I hope that makes sence.



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by funky monk
I dont understand those of you who say evolution is real and there is no God to make things in the first place. What started things off?


what you're doing there is making a common misconception
you're confusing chemical abiogensis and evolution

though
here's the thing
it's much easier to say that matter and energy have always existed than to say some sort of deity created them
because, to the best of our knowledge, there has always been SOMETHING in the universe, before the big bang there was an infinitely small and infinitley dense mass known as a singularity



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 08:01 PM
link   

I like to think of it this way:

Did God made everything or did nothing made everything?


The answer to that has nothing to do with evolution (in the common ancestry sense of evo)



I dont understand those of you who say evolution is real and there is no God to make things in the first place. What started things off?


If evolution (all of it) is indeed true it doesn't mean that God does not exist. Only that the interpretation[s] of Scripture ('kinds' and all that) are innacurate. Look up the Biblical stuff used to argue against evolution and you'll see there's not much there. Ask (or google) any Theistic Evolutionist (ie, Christian Evolutionists.) Man being an evolved Primate or even if all life shares a common ancestor (LUCA) does not mean God does not exist or that Scripture is wrong. It's an interpretation. One that many Christians don't agree with.



I mean God may have made things to evolve and I might just be wrong. But I dont look into the subject very often.

I hope that makes sence.


I wouldn't be quick to put any limitations on God. Truth is truth... and it's His.

Regards and God bless,
-Rob



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 08:05 PM
link   
hrm, thanks for that.

Your right, God doesnt have any limits. I might just wait to ask him when i get up there.



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 08:13 PM
link   
Rren!!!!

thank you for coming back
your absence has been a contributing factor to the stagnation of O&C



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join