It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by dave420
All the evidence suggests evolution is almost 100% correct. There are still gaps, but the scientific theory stands.
Science does think outside the boundaries of currently-accepted fact. That's how it works. You suggest something, you come up with a reproducable experiment, you perform the experiment, and if the results are consistent, and able to be used to predict outcomes, you've got yourself a theory. Creationism/ID is just gum-flapping designed to try to jam a ridiculous, baseless assertion, into scientific discussion.
Deny ignorance. Deny creationism. Deny religion.
Originally posted by Slothrop
it's really no skin off my back. the smarter kids will immediately dismiss whatever creationist propaganda is taught in public schools and get on with their studies. as for the dumber kids....
It should be emphasized that there is no real difference in the genetic processes underlying artificial and natural selection, and that the concept of artificial selection was first introduced as an illustration of the wider process of natural selection. The selection process is termed "artificial" when human preferences or influences have a significant effect on the evolution of a particular population or species. Indeed, many evolutionary biologists view domestication as a type of natural selection and adaptive change that occurs as organisms are brought under the control of human beings.
The scientific meaning of a theory has a more precise and mechanical definition: "An extremely well-substantiated explanation of some aspects of the natural world that incorporates facts, laws, predictions, and tested hypotheses" . Clearly, when scientists use the term "theory of evolution", they really mean that evolution is a large body of consistent, well-substantiated facts, laws, predictions, and observations that describe natural phenomena; they don't use the word to imply that evolution is yet to be proven. There is a popular misconception that a theory must be proven, then it becomes a fact or a law. However, a scientific theory is, most generally defined, a large body of facts and laws, so this criticism does not make sense. The weakness of the "just a theory" criticism becomes obvious because in light of other well known theories, such as Einstein's theories of Relativity, atomic theory, germ theory, quantum theory, electromagnetic theory, plate tectonics theory, etc. No one would seriously imply that any of these theories are unproven and uncertain.
Originally posted by websurfer007
If you are right, then when I die, nothing is going to happen to me, but if I'm right, when I die, perhaps God will be gracious enough to let my sinning ass into heaven...so I think I'll take my chances with creationism.
Mostly, the patterns Lenski saw were similar in each separate population. All 12 evolved larger cells, for example, as well as faster growth rates on the glucose they were fed, and lower peak population densities.
But sometime around the 31,500th generation, something dramatic happened in just one of the populations – the bacteria suddenly acquired the ability to metabolise citrate, a second nutrient in their culture medium that E. coli normally cannot use.
Indeed, the inability to use citrate is one of the traits by which bacteriologists distinguish E. coli from other species. The citrate-using mutants increased in population size and diversity.
"It's the most profound change we have seen during the experiment. This was clearly something quite different for them, and it's outside what was normally considered the bounds of E. coli as a species, which makes it especially interesting," says Lenski.
Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by 1nelove
The theory of evolution as it stands today is what I'm talking about. Dismissing 150 years of improvements because they don't suit your argument is logically bankrupt. Science learns as it goes along - it doesn't assume something then try to shoe-horn the evidence to fit. The theory has been improved upon steadily, including DNA being discovered (and fitting in perfectly with the theory), and today we have a theory that covers 99.9999999% of the processes that give us evolution.
Sorry if that offends you, but that's the way it is.
Although epigenetics in multicellular organisms is generally thought to be a mechanism involved in differentiation, with epigenetic patterns "reset" when organisms reproduce, there have been some observations of transgenerational epigenetic inheritance (e.g., the phenomenon of paramutation observed in maize). Although most of these multigenerational epigenetic traits are gradually lost over several generations, the possibility remains that multigenerational epigenetics could be another aspect to evolution and adaptation. These effects may require enhancements to the standard conceptual framework of the modern evolutionary synthesis. 
Epigenetic features may play a role in short-term adaptation of species by allowing for reversible phenotype variability. The modification of epigenetic features associated with a region of DNA allows organisms, on a multigenerational time scale, to switch between phenotypes that express and repress that particular gene.  Whereas the DNA sequence of the region is not mutated, this change is reversible. It has also been speculated that organisms may take advantage of differential mutation rates associated with epigenetic features to control the mutation rates of particular genes. 
Epigenetic changes have also been observed to occur in response to environmental exposure—for example, mice given some dietary supplements have epigenetic changes affecting expression of the agouti gene, which affects their fur color, weight, and propensity to develop cancer.