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.

 

What is evolution?

page: 12
5
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 



“There is no devo, only evo. Devo is a lie constructed by creationists to confuse and de-educate their audience.”

Oh. Well either I missed that conclave, or you have this confused with something else.
www.evomorpho.org...


“I just noticed that your avatar is the composite image of the flagella structure that creationists so often use to misinform their audiences with.”

Oh yeah, I got the image from an excellent American Institute of Physics article. I’m not really clear on how you would use that to misinform anyone though. About all you could do is point out that these little motors are composed of rotor, stator, bearings, drive shaft, universal joint and a propeller, all made of about 25 specialty proteins. They can run at thousands of rpm’s, and reverse on a dime. And interestingly enough, they are driven by protons. Sounds like they were just an accident waiting to happen, right?





posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 12:41 AM
link   
reply to post by txpiper
 






“There is no devo, only evo. Devo is a lie constructed by creationists to confuse and de-educate their audience.”

Oh. Well either I missed that conclave, or you have this confused with something else.
www.evomorpho.org...


I suspect that stereo misunderstood your use of the term 'evo-devo' and that you didn't read the article you linked.

The 'devo' in the term, as defined in the article is short for 'development', not, as the casual reader and I suspect, stereo, would have read it to mean 'de-evolution'. There is no such thing as 'de-evolution'.

And the article does not in any way remove survival from 'the issue' or anything even close to that. It says that the current focus in biology overwhelmingly takes a structuralist approach. The authors are recommending more emphasis on the functionalist point of view, not at the exclusion of structure, but as an additional aid.

While it is true that some 'evo-devo' biologists think they are mounting a challenge to the MES (or at least the 'neo-Darwinist' part of the MES), others see it as extending the MES (and it sounds like the authors of your article are included in this group).

But none of them are doubting the fact of evolution. They are 'just' taking a different approach to analyzing what is going on. And guess what? If it turns out that they have a better, simpler, description for how evolution happens, it will be accepted and become the mainstream model for that part of the process that it is successful at. No problem, that is the advancement of science.



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 03:39 AM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 



The 'devo' in the term, as defined in the article is short for 'development'

I know.

It seems this was just a point of confusion. I have seen evo-devo used as an abbreviation, probably in magazines and was using it in that context. I was not aware of the term "devolution". Devolution





[edit on 13-6-2010 by txpiper]



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 03:12 PM
link   
This is an interesting story that touches on some of the things we have discussed:

www.livescience.com...



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 



You dismiss the notion of time although the 55 million years of time allows for many generations and a great deal of evolution.

This was in response to my comments about whale evolution. But a new study that looks at fossil and molecular data says that there was not nearly this much time involved. It apparently took about 15-20 million years to get from Pakicetus to the time when “modern whales began to appear in the ocean”. After that it was off to the races for 5 million years and then the evolution all but stopped.

Whales Evolved in the Blink of an Eye
“Around 35 million years ago, when modern whales began to appear in the ocean, whale evolution ignited. Whales began as basically similar body types and evolved into everything from porpoises to blue whales over the next 5 million years, said study lead author Graham Slater of UCLA....Those differences were probably in place by 25 million years ago, at the latest, and for many millions of years, they have not changed very much," Slater said."
LiveScience Link

I found it interesting that ScienceDaily presented, both in title and substance, this same story in a completely different manner, deemphasizing the supposed fast evolution and omitting the 5 million year notation altogether.

How Whales Have Changed Over 35 Million Years
ScienceDaily Link










[edit on 13-6-2010 by txpiper]



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by txpiper
 


I thought you meant devo as in devolution. I've heard that word used in all of the creationist lectures I have attended. BTW, when I say that I mean physically in the audience and not watching youtube.

The image that you show is a composite image created from many images. It is not a single image. The image does not represent a particular objects, but is a schematic of the object.

Flagella myths



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


I don't really understand your complaint about the flagellum image. The motors are very much precision assemblies. It is not as if creationists are out there subverting the public with electron microscopes.




This image is quite old at this point, taken from this 1992 paper. I'll see if I can find something more recent.



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 01:10 PM
link   
This is more recent and the paper it comes from emphasizes the accuracy of the generated models of the assemblies. The paper is here



After opening with an interesting apology to Darwin, this paper goes on to explain the cryo-electron tomography method.



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 08:30 PM
link   
Okay so my only question is, if mutation is the cause of change in traits, doesn't open up the possibility of randomness? Wouldn't it be more likely a result of habitat adaptation or diet? I just can't seem to agree that 'mutation' is the best word here. Randomness conflicts with logic in my opinion. How can you have randomness in an ordered system?



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 



How can you have randomness in an ordered system?

The better question would be how were countless millions (trillions if you believe in major extinction events) of orderly bio-systems produced by entirely random mutations and random natural selection. Evolutionary theory portrays NS as a very precise chooser mechanism, but it is not that in real life.



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 11:44 PM
link   
reply to post by txpiper
 


I'm saying it is a composite image and individual structures are not as neat. I have seen the image presented in one lecture where it was shown as evidence of the precise machine-like nature of the flagellum. No individual has this nice neat form. That's all. The lecturer did not report the image as a composite image. I learned that by looking up information after the lecture.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 04:53 AM
link   
reply to post by txpiper
 





Evolutionary theory portrays NS as a very precise chooser mechanism, but it is not that in real life.


That is debatable. There are many badly chosen traits, countless billions invested in healthcare proves my point. I would say that natural selection is good enough, but far from perfect.

If it would not be good enough, we would not be here.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 05:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by txpiper
reply to post by filosophia
 



How can you have randomness in an ordered system?

The better question would be how were countless millions (trillions if you believe in major extinction events) of orderly bio-systems produced by entirely random mutations and random natural selection. Evolutionary theory portrays NS as a very precise chooser mechanism, but it is not that in real life.

Billions of years?
Why is it so hard to believe that small change over a large period of time adds up?
You keep coming back to this argument and it's always the same
"I don't understand how this could have formed naturally, therefore god did it"
It's a argument from ignorance, just because we don't fully understand whale evolution, or the flagellum, doesn't negate the countless other pieces of evidence for evolution, it's a work in progress.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 



I'm saying it is a composite image and individual structures are not as neat. I have seen the image presented in one lecture where it was shown as evidence of the precise machine-like nature of the flagellum. No individual has this nice neat form.

Then why are all the researchers presenting them as having this nice neat form? We are talking about extremely precise molecular level assemblies that DO have "machine-like" qualities because they ARE machines. The composite image was an attempt to show the precision that for reasons I can't understand, you don't want to be there. But it is there.

But more amazing to me than the motors, is that you actually believe that these exquisite assemblies and all the specialized proteins involved in their compostion "evolved" on a completely random basis.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 08:46 AM
link   
reply to post by txpiper
 


I already pointed out to you images in which these supposed precise symmetrical machine like looking components are not symmetrical and do not in fact look machined.

Flagella Myths –by Mark Perakh

However, such illustrations are misleading, picturing the flagellum in a geometrically perfect shape, fully symmetric and consisting of geometrically perfectly formed parts. The real flagellum is far from having such a perfect geometric shape. Unlike machines, which may be close replicas of each other (say, all Jeeps of the same year have almost exactly the same shape) the real flagella, first, have shapes with many deviations from a perfect geometric symmetry, and, second, there are no two flagella exactly identical. Individual flagella differ in various respects, just as biological organisms vary from individual to individual.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by hippomchippo
 



"...just because we don't fully understand whale evolution, or the flagellum, doesn't negate the countless other pieces of evidence for evolution"

If there isn't a reasonable, demonstrable mechanism for evolution to occur, all the other "evidence" for it is either misinterpreted data, speculation or fantasy.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by txpiper
reply to post by hippomchippo
 



"...just because we don't fully understand whale evolution, or the flagellum, doesn't negate the countless other pieces of evidence for evolution"

If there isn't a reasonable, demonstrable mechanism for evolution to occur, all the other "evidence" for it is either misinterpreted data, speculation or fantasy.


Why is that? We know evolution occurs, but because we don't know why it occurs we should disregard everything else?
There are several theories on the mechanism for evolution, ofcourse there's the chance that none are right, but that once again doesn't negate evolution as that is a fact.
Also I doubt you've actually looked into the mechanisms for evolution and instead focused on creationist attacking points revolving around the theories.

[edit on 15-6-2010 by hippomchippo]



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 04:55 PM
link   
First read this....

www.newscientist.com...

Then take a look here........

www.newscientist.com...

and just in case you cant be bothered . I'll quote a tiny excerpt.


"most people around the world are not taught the truth about evolution, if they are taught about it at all."

"Most of us are happy to admit that we do not understand, say, string theory in physics, yet we are all convinced we understand evolution"


And finaly....


"Evolution is cleverer than you are."



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 


I read stuff like this all the time, but with a different perspective.

From the first article:


“The best studied flagellum, of the E. coli bacterium, contains around 40 different kinds of proteins.”

You understand that there is no evolutionary theory that can reasonably account for the original formation of a functional protein, right? Would you care to explain how or why proteins affiliate with each other? Are they smart?


“This means that the vast majority of the components needed to make a flagellum might already have been present in bacteria before this structure appeared."

I like the way they tangled up “vast majority of the components” with “might already have been”. That’s a neat trick, announcing a very profound thought, and then hanging it on nothing. They did this several times in the article. You’ll see below.


”It has also been shown that some of the components…can perform other useful functions in the cell…”

Unfortunately, “some of the components” is not good enough. What interim purpose did the other ones serve until the system was integrated? Do you know of any components that are just waiting around for something to do? I think they ran right by you with that one.


It has been proposed that the flagellum originated from a protein export system.

“this system might have been adapted to attach a bacterium to a surface by extruding an adhesive filament”

“An ion-powered pump for expelling substances from the cell might then have mutated to form the basis of a rotary motor”

I loved that paragraph. I broke it down into individual thoughts since you apparently missed that it is 100% conjecture masquerading as science. Once you start noticing, you can deflate religious material like this pretty easily.


“…the fact that today's biologists cannot provide a definitive account of how every single structure or organism evolved proves nothing…”

Well, actually it proves that they are in the evidence-free zone and willing to draw unwarranted conclusions while they are there. In other words, they believe it happened, but don’t have the remotest clue about how, much less why.

From the second piece:


”…all life on Earth, including human life, evolved through natural selection…”

Did you notice that the writer didn’t mention mutations? They are the operative half of the change mechanism that evolutionary theory relies on. So I have to agree with his lament:

“…most people around the world are not taught the truth about evolution..”

They really aren’t. The sappy parts are not generally not brought up because they spoil the fantasy.




[edit on 16-6-2010 by txpiper]



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by hippomchippo
 



"There are several theories on the mechanism for evolution"

No, honestly, there is only one thing available. Random DNA replication screw-ups working in tandem with a circumstantial environment which kills organisms that are not suited to live in it, along with a lot of them that are. The technical abbreviation is "natural selection acting on mutations". That it the baseline heart and soul of evolutionary theory.


[edit on 15-6-2010 by txpiper]




top topics



 
5
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join