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.
Originally posted by downisreallyup
reply to post by downisreallyup
You still did not address the issue of WHERE ARE ALL THE FAILED ATTEMPTS? There should be a vast number of these, both in the fossil record and among the living animals today.
It wasn't that long ago that science was absolutely positive the powered, heavier than air flight, was impossible.
Google Video Link |
Quite simply, if God doesn't exist and evolution is true, then we really don't have any purpose whatsoever, and really, every law is ridiculous. If we are mere animals, then there is no morality. Does a lion have morality? None whatsoever.
Here, why don't you go educate yourself on this site, and take an honest look at the issues of making small incremental changes vs. large changes, and how there are indeed large changes in evidence, to which evolutionary processes cannot account.
Go ahead, take a solid look at this site... I dare you. I challenge you to put aside your smugness and take an honest look at the info at this site. I doubt you will, however, because you have already admitted how you find faith repugnant and therefore it is hard to imagine that you are capable of taking an honest look with an open heart.
Theory of Evolution vs. Intelligent Design
Over a century later, science has yet to show that complex organs can be formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, and many scientists do not think that this is important.
Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by downisreallyup
Here, why don't you go educate yourself on this site, and take an honest look at the issues of making small incremental changes vs. large changes, and how there are indeed large changes in evidence, to which evolutionary processes cannot account.
Go ahead, take a solid look at this site... I dare you. I challenge you to put aside your smugness and take an honest look at the info at this site. I doubt you will, however, because you have already admitted how you find faith repugnant and therefore it is hard to imagine that you are capable of taking an honest look with an open heart.
Theory of Evolution vs. Intelligent Design
OK, I tried. But here is the 4th sentence in the introductory remarks:
Over a century later, science has yet to show that complex organs can be formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, and many scientists do not think that this is important.
That sentence is FALSE. TOTALLY FALSE.
It is not just wrong. It is a calculated lie.
Not only do scientists think this is important, many are actively engaged in discovering the wonders of biology to that exact purpose. Do scientists know the exact evolutionary path of every 'complex organ' in existence? Of course not, they wouldn't have anything to do if they did. But they most definitely know all the favorite 'irreducibly complex' candidates that have been proposed over the last 200 years (yes, 200 years, this idea predates even Darwin).
It makes no sense to waste time on a document that bases its entire premise on such an obvious lie. I will never the less continue as time permits to review the document.
Don't hold your breath for any epiphanies though. I don't give much truck to people who use such blatant lies to attract insecure people.
Also, the only favorite 'irreducibly complex' candidate I care about is ATP-Synthase, since it is present in every living creature, from the smallest microbe to the largest beast, and it is quite amazingly complex in what it does and how it does it.
Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by downisreallyup
Also, the only favorite 'irreducibly complex' candidate I care about is ATP-Synthase, since it is present in every living creature, from the smallest microbe to the largest beast, and it is quite amazingly complex in what it does and how it does it.
So your focus has moved from 'a flagellum is irreducibly complex, how could it have evolved' (because that question has been answered) to 'one of the bits of the flagellum is irreducibly complex, how could it have evolved' because scientists are still working on it.
Well, yes, scientists can't answer authoritatively on ATP-Synthase yet. But there are at least two proposed models. And work continues.
So you are saying that when they can answer this question authoritatively then you will be a believer in evolution? Of all the billions and billions of data points that confirm evolution, from biology, DNA, fossil record, real world experimentation (and accident), that one problem in organic chemistry is bottom line for you? (Oh, yeah the DNA repair thing, I haven't got to that part yet - another post).
Stay tuned then, because your bell will be rung soon.
But guess what? Scientists will move on to something else that isn't currently explained. Its what they do. Holding out for one personal favorite problem solution before you accept the rest of the body of work that has been solved already is rather pig-headed.
I'm interested in knowledge. Truth is subjective. That is the argument that is being discussed in the whole Garden of Eden scenario. The creator is shown to be telling Adam 'the truth' and to stay away from knowledge. But the serpent convinces Eve that knowledge is better. Mankind chooses the path of knowledge over imparted subjective "truth". This exchange is the primary driver behind the Gnostic belief that the Creator in the Old Testament is "Satan", the misguided demi-urge that 'stole' some life force from the ineffible Godhead and accidentally trapped it in the material world. Christian Gnostics further identify the Serpent with Christ who came to bring knowledge to the world and return the trapped life force to the Godhead.
Edit: I don't see your problem about the 'DNA error correction', the process seems to be well described since at least 2008 (corrected by edit two). Some RNA performs 'error correction' and some does not. The process appears to have evolved from early defense mechanisms against rival molecular invaders.
Edit two: I misread the reference I reviewed, the process has been worked out since at least 2008, not 2002 when it was described.
Backtracking and Error Correction in DNA transcription
But there was already work starting to explainhow the mechanism could have evolved as far back as 2002. DNA codes own error correction
[edit on 9/1/2010 by rnaa]
[edit on 9/1/2010 by rnaa]
Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by downisreallyup
Edit: I don't see your problem about the 'DNA error correction', the process seems to be well described since at least 2008 (corrected by edit two). Some RNA performs 'error correction' and some does not. The process appears to have evolved from early defense mechanisms against rival molecular invaders.
Edit two: I misread the reference I reviewed, the process has been worked out since at least 2008, not 2002 when it was described.
Backtracking and Error Correction in DNA transcription
But there was already work starting to explain how the mechanism could have evolved as far back as 2002. DNA codes own error correction
[edit on 9/1/2010 by rnaa]
The survival of living cells crucially depends on the fidelity with which genetic information, stored in nucleotide sequence of DNA, is processed during cell division (DNA replication) and protein synthesis (DNA transcription and mRNA translation). However, thermodynamics introduces significant fluctuations which would incur massive error rates if efficient proofreading mechanisms were not in place [Hopfield (1974)].
Read all my posts again, and you will see that I have talked about ATP-Synthase from the start and I mentioned nothing about flagellum. You are confusing me with someone else. The reason I look at ATP-Synthase is because it has properties that really do appear to be irreducibly complex. You have "faith" they will find an answer, but I do not share that "faith" and I also believe that any explanation they present will be contrived, illogical, and incomplete.
The evolution of ATP synthase is thought to be an example of modular evolution, where two subunits with their own functions have become associated and gained new functionality.[5][6] This coupling must have occurred early in the evolution of life as evidenced by essentially the same structure and processes of ATP synthase enzymes conserved in all kingdoms of life.[5] The F-ATP synthase shows large amounts of similarity both functionally and mechanically to the V-ATPase.[7] However whilst the F-ATP synthase generates ATP by utilising a proton gradient the V-ATPase is responsible for generating a proton gradient at the expense of ATP, generating pH values as low as 1. The F1 particle also shows significant similarity to hexameric DNA helicases and the FO particle shows some similarity to H+ powered flagellar motor complexes.[7] The α3β3 hexamer of the F1 particle shows significant structural similarity to hexameric DNA helicases; both form a ring with 3 fold rotational symmetry with a central pore. Both also have roles dependent on the relative rotation of a macromolecule within the pore; the DNA helicases use the helical shape of DNA to drive their motion along the DNA molecule and to detect supercoiling whilst the α3β3 hexamer uses the conformational changes due rotation of the γ subunit to drive an enzymatic reaction.[8]
The H+ motor of the FO particle shows great functional similarity to the H+ motors seen in flagellar motors.[7] Both feature a ring of many small alpha helical proteins which rotate relative to nearby stationary proteins using a H+ potential gradient as an energy source. This is, however, a fairly tenuous link - the overall structure of flagellar motors is far more complex than the FO particle and the ring of rotating proteins is far larger, with around 30 compared to the 10, 11 or 14 known in the FO complex.
The modular evolution theory for the origin of ATP synthase suggests that two subunits with independent function, a DNA helicase with ATPase activity and a H+ motor, were able to bind, and the rotation of the motor drive the ATPase activity of the helicase in reverse.[5][8] This would then evolve to become more efficient, and eventually develop into the complex ATP synthases seen today. Alternatively the DNA helicase/H+ motor complex may have had H+ pump activity, the ATPase activity of the helicase driving the H+ motor in reverse.[5] This could later evolve to carry out the reverse reaction and act as an ATP synthase.[6]
That is, quite simply, wrong beyond comprehension. I sorry that you personally can't imagine a purpose to life without God, but happy that you have found God gives you a purpose. However you should understand that other people don't have the same problem
My comments about DNA error correction is one of logic, not biology. Any system, no matter what kind it is, must meet the basic tests of complete logical consistency. This is my whole problem with this theory. It presents a system that appears to be logical when looking at it generally, but not when probing it critically. It is based on a set of initial postulates that are founded on circular-reasoning. The circular-reasoning is this:
1) Biological changes are caused by errors in DNA replication.
2) Beneficial changes are preserved through accurate DNA replication.
So, the very thing that allows biological changes (mutations) is the very thing that prevents beneficial changes from being preserved.
It is important to distinguish between DNA damage and mutation, the two major types of error in DNA. DNA damages and mutation are fundamentally different. Damages are physical abnormalities in the DNA, such as single and double strand breaks, 8-hydroxydeoxyguanosine residues and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon adducts. DNA damages can be recognized by enzymes, and thus they can be correctly repaired if redundant information, such as the undamaged sequence in the complementary DNA strand or in a homologous chromosome, is available for copying. If a cell retains DNA damage, transcription of a gene can be prevented and thus translation into a protein will also be blocked. Replication may also be blocked and/or the cell may die.
In contrast to DNA damage, a mutation is a change in the base sequence of the DNA. A mutation cannot be recognized by enzymes once the base change is present in both DNA strands, and thus a mutation cannot be repaired. At the cellular level, mutations can cause alterations in protein function and regulation. Mutations are replicated when the cell replicates. In a population of cells, mutant cells will increase or decrease in frequency according to the effects of the mutation on the ability of the cell to survive and reproduce. Although distinctly different from each other, DNA damages and mutations are related because DNA damages often cause errors of DNA synthesis during replication or repair and these errors are a major source of mutation.
Given these properties of DNA damage and mutation, it can be seen that DNA damages are a special problem in non-dividing or slowly dividing cells, where unrepaired damages will tend to accumulate over time. On the other hand, in rapidly dividing cells, unrepaired DNA damages that do not kill the cell by blocking replication will tend to cause replication errors and thus mutation. The great majority of mutations that are not neutral in their effect are deleterious to a cell’s survival. Thus, in a population of cells comprising a tissue with replicating cells, mutant cells will tend to be lost. However infrequent mutations that provide a survival advantage will tend to clonally expand at the expense of neighboring cells in the tissue. This advantage to the cell is disadvantageous to the whole organism, because such mutant cells can give rise to cancer. Thus DNA damages in frequently dividing cells, because they give rise to mutations, are a prominent cause of cancer. In contrast, DNA damages in infrequently dividing cells are likely a prominent cause of aging.[11]
A few questions about what you're saying:
My mom's genes felt that since we live in the cold that it should tell the baby genes to be better suited to the cold? Can mother's genes "teach" the fetus genes?
And where did the gene for abstract thinking suddenly pop in there?
What benefit does this provide to become the "fittest"?
And why aren't humans so well "adapted" that other animals can exist in much harsher environments than us?(extreme heat,cold,darkness)
And what benefit would it be that bacteria would start the evolutionary trend toward a larger creature?
And how did the evolutionary tree start the trend to birds?
And why did humans live for 100,000 years in small caves and tribes with minimal advancement, then suddenly around 4000bc great civilizations sprang up and built stone henges and pyramids?
Why is every culture since 4000bc suddenly desperate to understand a god who made them?
Why has every Athiest/Agnostic I have ever met evolved to be totally preoccupied with trying to prove there is no god?
How can we be 100% sure that the forces upon the Earth were exactly the same as they are now?
How can you tell that your perception of reality is the truth?
Why do you care if others accept your reality?
Why is the universe so orderly?
What determined the laws of the universe.
What keeps them from changing?
If you throw a smashed up rolex watch into a dryer and turned it on, how long would it take before the watch would reassemble itself?
Just wondering.
Absent an absolute moral authority independent of fallible humans, the only meaning “wrong” could have (pertaining to conduct) would be “in opposition to X,” or “falling short of X’s standards,” which are only persuasive to those who have already accepted X.
Calvin Freiburger
genetic drift = more randomness that's all
It could be said this proves even less.
Absent an absolute moral authority independent of fallible humans, the only meaning “wrong” could have (pertaining to conduct) would be “in opposition to X,” or “falling short of X’s standards,” which are only persuasive to those who have already accepted X.
Calvin Freiburger
Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by downisreallyup
My comments about DNA error correction is one of logic, not biology. Any system, no matter what kind it is, must meet the basic tests of complete logical consistency. This is my whole problem with this theory. It presents a system that appears to be logical when looking at it generally, but not when probing it critically. It is based on a set of initial postulates that are founded on circular-reasoning. The circular-reasoning is this:
1) Biological changes are caused by errors in DNA replication.
2) Beneficial changes are preserved through accurate DNA replication.
So, the very thing that allows biological changes (mutations) is the very thing that prevents beneficial changes from being preserved.
This problem has a straight forward, logical answer: not all DNA coding errors are correctable. Physical damage is correctable, mutations are not.
From Wikipedia:
It is important to distinguish between DNA damage and mutation, the two major types of error in DNA. DNA damages and mutation are fundamentally different. Damages are physical abnormalities in the DNA, such as single and double strand breaks, 8-hydroxydeoxyguanosine residues and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon adducts. DNA damages can be recognized by enzymes, and thus they can be correctly repaired if redundant information, such as the undamaged sequence in the complementary DNA strand or in a homologous chromosome, is available for copying. If a cell retains DNA damage, transcription of a gene can be prevented and thus translation into a protein will also be blocked. Replication may also be blocked and/or the cell may die.
In contrast to DNA damage, a mutation is a change in the base sequence of the DNA. A mutation cannot be recognized by enzymes once the base change is present in both DNA strands, and thus a mutation cannot be repaired. At the cellular level, mutations can cause alterations in protein function and regulation. Mutations are replicated when the cell replicates. In a population of cells, mutant cells will increase or decrease in frequency according to the effects of the mutation on the ability of the cell to survive and reproduce. Although distinctly different from each other, DNA damages and mutations are related because DNA damages often cause errors of DNA synthesis during replication or repair and these errors are a major source of mutation.
Given these properties of DNA damage and mutation, it can be seen that DNA damages are a special problem in non-dividing or slowly dividing cells, where unrepaired damages will tend to accumulate over time. On the other hand, in rapidly dividing cells, unrepaired DNA damages that do not kill the cell by blocking replication will tend to cause replication errors and thus mutation. The great majority of mutations that are not neutral in their effect are deleterious to a cell’s survival. Thus, in a population of cells comprising a tissue with replicating cells, mutant cells will tend to be lost. However infrequent mutations that provide a survival advantage will tend to clonally expand at the expense of neighboring cells in the tissue. This advantage to the cell is disadvantageous to the whole organism, because such mutant cells can give rise to cancer. Thus DNA damages in frequently dividing cells, because they give rise to mutations, are a prominent cause of cancer. In contrast, DNA damages in infrequently dividing cells are likely a prominent cause of aging.[11]
Note that the great majority of mutations are neutral, making no difference to the cells operation. Of the remainder, most are deleterious to the cell and are lost along with the cell. The smallest number are immediately beneficial to the cell. And that mutation that is beneficial to the cell, may in turn be neutral, deleterious, or beneficial to the organism as a whole.
It is the small number of mutations that end up being beneficial to the organism that drives Darwinian 'slow' evolution. It is the accumulation of neutral mutations that create a pool from which Gouldian 'Puncuated Equilibrium' to selects.