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: 3
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 24 2010 @ 03:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Loken68
 


What question?

This question?



C'mon Titen Tell us how to add a gene...plz plz plz



The evidence for evolution is overwhelming REGARDLESS of showing whether a gene is added or taken away. In case you didn't know individual gene count is irrelevant, there are amoebas and puffer fish with more genes than human beings have. Tell me Creationist, why do some animals have higher numbers of genes if we humans were formed by God as his divine special creations out of dirt MAGICALLY?

If species never changed at all than they would all have the identical number of genes would they not, and yet even among the human animal there are births where people have extra copies of genes or are missing other genes. People born with Down Syndrome are often MISSING AN ENTIRE CHROMOSOME. So genes can be added or taken away.

Even if we didn't know beyond a shadow of a doubt that genes could be added (and they can) we'd still have the fossil evidence, the other genetic evidence which shows the similarities between animals, the behavioral evidence and MUCH MUCH more. Evolution would still be a well proven argument and Creationist nonsense would still be either ignorant, dishonest, or both.

Edit to Add: As for your advice to thedeadtruth to "Look at Both Sides of the Coin" I have been on both sides of the coin. I was raised as a fundamentalist Christian and spent the first few years of my internet days debating PRO CREATIONISM. The sources from which I got my "information" were Creationist sources, it wasn't until I looked at what scientists actually discovered (and not the Creationist misrepresentations of those discoveries) that I began to learn the truth. So I agree with you 100% Loken68 because looking at both sides from their own perspectives shows the Creationist ignorance about evolution and lack of any supporting evidence for their superstitious conclusion.

[edit on 24-5-2010 by Titen-Sxull]

[edit on 24-5-2010 by Titen-Sxull]




posted on May, 24 2010 @ 03:22 AM
link   
Loken

I am a true skeptic. I was religious up until I was 9, when I started asking questions and received very unsatisfactory answers.

As a skeptic I have a ever changing opinion on subjects as new evidence or realizations take place.

As a scientist and inventor I am very aware of how "deniers" work and their motivations. And you my man are a denier not a skeptic.



[edit on 11/19/09 by thedeadtruth]



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 03:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by Loken68
 


What question?

This question?



C'mon Titen Tell us how to add a gene...plz plz plz



The evidence for evolution is overwhelming REGARDLESS of showing whether a gene is added or taken away.(You do realize that genetics are the framework don't you? In case you didn't know individual gene count is irrelevant,( there are amoebas and puffer fish with more genes than human beings have. Tell me Creationist, why do some animals have higher numbers of genes if we humans were formed by God as his divine special creations out of dirt MAGICALLY?

If species never changed at all than they would all have the identical number of genes would they not, and yet even among the human animal there are births where people have extra copies of genes or are missing other genes.(Yes identical or mutated genes but no NEW) People born with Down Syndrome are often MISSING AN ENTIRE CHROMOSOME. So genes can be added or taken away.(Wrong Mutations can take but not add)

Even if we didn't know beyond a shadow of a doubt that genes could be added (and they can) (identical yes but not new )we'd still have the fossil evidence, the other genetic evidence which shows the similarities between animals, the behavioral evidence and MUCH MUCH more. Evolution would still be a well proven argument and Creationist nonsense would still be either ignorant, dishonest, or both.
It's become quite evident you don't know the difference between Identical,Mutated or New Gene's.

Edit to Add: As for your advice to thedeadtruth to "Look at Both Sides of the Coin" I have been on both sides of the coin. I was raised as a fundamentalist Christian and spent the first few years of my internet days debating PRO CREATIONISM. The sources from which I got my "information" were Creationist sources, it wasn't until I looked at what scientists actually discovered (and not the Creationist misrepresentations of those discoveries) that I began to learn the truth. So I agree with you 100% Loken68 because looking at both sides from their own perspectives shows the Creationist ignorance about evolution and lack of any supporting evidence for their superstitious conclusion.

Oh it's not your fault. Not everybody gets it right the first time...lol
[edit on 24-5-2010 by Titen-Sxull]


O.K. I'm done with this thread you can put me back on ignore now.

Biology 101
Duplication of genes creates THE SAME GENES, not new ones!



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 03:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Loken68
 


Actually about two seconds of research on wikipedia proves you absolutely wrong:


Gene duplication is believed to play a major role in evolution; this stance has been held by members of the scientific community for over 100 years.[3] Susumu Ohno was one of the most famous developers of this theory in his classic book Evolution by gene duplication (1970)[4]. Ohno argued that gene duplication is the most important evolutionary force since the emergence of the universal common ancestor.[5] Major genome duplication events are not uncommon. It is believed that the entire yeast genome underwent duplication about 100 million years ago[6]. Plants are the most prolific genome duplicators. For example, wheat is hexaploid (a kind of polyploid), meaning that it has six copies of its genome.


Gene Duplication

I'm sure you will deny this as well, because your preconceived bias based upon religious superstition prevents you from believing the evidence. Accepting that if there is a God he/she/it must have used evolution to achieve bio-diversity is too incongruous with your particularly book of myths (whichever that may be) and therefore any evidence for evolution is rejected out of hand.

Edit to Add:

A direct instance in which a HUMAN gene not present in all human beings, apparently added during the isolation of the population of Tibet allows them to thrive at high altitudes.

Genes Explain why Tibetans Thrive...

Its not just denying ignorance, its Ignorance Pwned.

[edit on 24-5-2010 by Titen-Sxull]

[edit on 24-5-2010 by Titen-Sxull]



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 03:40 AM
link   
reply to post by thedeadtruth
 


Ah Cmon dude come back to the light side of the force.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 03:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Loken68
 


And do know something else. If I was still religious I would still have to believe in Evolution. Because I have a brain that alarm bells go off in when I get feed a line of BS.

So who put the BS detector in my head ? If God made me then he did. Who gave me such a fantastic tool to work with.

If anything God as an omnipotent reflects Evolution as an idea better than any other story I have read. Certainly not the limited ideas or religion. Which seems to directly reflect Mans limited imagination.

The never ending universe, never ending evolution, never ending time = God

A book with a front cover and a back cover = Limitations



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 03:43 AM
link   
@Titen: You're falling into their anti-logic trap again



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 03:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 


Why did you add me to your foe list? Do you not like me anymore? Cant we agree to disagree?


This is like breaking egg's with a sledgehammer....

I never said anything about duplicate genes all that does is give you 20 fingers. I'm talking about NEW Genes that make something evolve

I also never used God once to defend my stand. Only Science.
[edit on 24-5-2010 by Loken68]


[edit on 24-5-2010 by Loken68]



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 03:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Loken68
 


I added you because it seemed more appropriate than just putting you on ignore again. Since I am officially taking up a quest to deny your ignorance and educate you about just how well proven evolution is I figure I'd add you as a foe.

I'm not gonna derail the thread with anything further, let's stay on topic

The topic is Evolution as opposed to magical creation, the way I see it there is scientific consensus and evidence in support of Evolution sufficient to say it does occur and that magical creation has no evidence or basis in reality let alone a case against evolution.

Edit to Add: Check the edit to my above post, it contains a case of a NEW gene evolving in Tibetans allowing them to thrive at high altitudes. Actually there are 10 genes involved specifically, the collective function of which allows Tibetans to survive in high altitudes.


But the Tibetans have evolved genes that others living at similar elevations have not developed, according to Lynn B. Jorde, Ph.D., professor and chair of human genetics at the U of U School of Medicine and a senior author on the study. “For the first time, we have genes that help explain that adaptation,” Jorde said.


Tibetans link reposted

[edit on 24-5-2010 by Titen-Sxull]

[edit on 24-5-2010 by Titen-Sxull]



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 03:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by Loken68
 


I added you because it seemed more appropriate than just putting you on ignore again. Since I am officially taking up a quest to deny your ignorance and educate you about just how well proven evolution is I figure I'd add you as a foe.

I'm not gonna derail the thread with anything further, let's stay on topic

The topic is Evolution as opposed to magical creation, the way I see it there is scientific consensus and evidence in support of Evolution sufficient to say it does occur and that magical creation has no evidence or basis in reality let alone a case against evolution.(I never used Biblical references in this debate. I only showed you and others a few of the thousands of holes in the hypothesis.)

Edit to Add: Check the edit to my above post, it contains a case of a NEW gene evolving in Tibetans allowing them to thrive at high altitudes. Actually there are 10 genes involved specifically, the collective function of which allows Tibetans to survive in high altitudes.


But the Tibetans have evolved genes that others living at similar elevations have not developed, according to Lynn B. Jorde, Ph.D., professor and chair of human genetics at the U of U School of Medicine and a senior author on the study. “For the first time, we have genes that help explain that adaptation,” Jorde said.


Tibetans link reposted

[edit on 24-5-2010 by Titen-Sxull]

[edit on 24-5-2010 by Titen-Sxull]



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 04:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Loken68
 


You never used Biblical references, and I wouldn't and didn't accuse you of such.

But the OP asked questions about evolution and mentioned it seeming like a better conclusion than creation...

Also this being the Origins and Creationism board it is generally accepted that all discussions are to be about Evolution versus Creation or will at least touch upon both those subjects as they run their course.

That is the topic of the debate, Evolution versus Magical Creation, if there is some OTHER conclusion you are arguing for, by all means please explain it.

And by the way none of what I've debated you on has show there to be any holes in Evolutionary theory, merely in your understanding of Evolution and in your willingness to accept evidence when presented with it. As I said I am trying to help educate you as to the wealth of evidence supporting evolution and the lack of evidence for any other hypothesis. This education will be difficult if you reject obvious evidence out of hand for no reason.

[edit on 24-5-2010 by Titen-Sxull]



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 04:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 


You educate me? What and drop my I.Q.? I'll be damed!

I said I was done with this thread. You should apply to Al Gore for a Job.

Back to the post: Evolution is a Farce. CYA



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 04:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Loken68
 


Are you done because I answered your question and defeated your silly notion that evolution could never add a gene?

As for this thread I too am now done, if you want to continue this conversation send me a U2U on the matter.

Lower your IQ, that's funny, in actuality I thought it was the truth that sets you free but I guess in your case IQ stands for Ignorance Quotient... wouldn't want to jeopardize that with FACTS.



[edit on 24-5-2010 by Titen-Sxull]

[edit on 24-5-2010 by Titen-Sxull]



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 05:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Loken68
Duplication of genes creates THE SAME GENES, not new ones!

You claim that you've looked at the science behind evolution. Why is it then that you fail to see how gene duplication (not the only mechanism for making genomes larger btw) can lead to genes with new functions (like new proteins for example)?

It's quite simple. Natural selection doesn't act upon the new copy of the gene because the original one is fulfilling its role. This makes the copy open to much higher mutation rates. With luck new functions arise and then natural selection can act upon them.

You know how we can make phylogenetic trees of organism (like what is more related to what). We can also make phylogenetic trees of genes. There are genes in genomes all around that are clearly result of gene duplication, but serve very different functions (wikipedia mentions a digestive gene that after duplication evolved into an anti-freeze gene). I recall "Ancestor's tale" having many examples of this kind, but I'm not going to look for them because I've got a feeling that you're just going to ignore all I've said.

[edit on 24-5-2010 by rhinoceros]



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros

[

One does not believe in evolution. One simply understands, or doesn't understand it. It's not a question of belief. Instead it's a matter of comprehension.

[edit on 23-5-2010 by rhinoceros]


May I please steal that sentence? It is the most lucid, cogent explanation of the difference between evolution and creationism I've seen



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Loken68
reply to post by MrXYZ
 




How do you add a gene? There has to be a genetic mechanism for an organism to add a gene. But there is no way to add a gene.
C'mon tell me


Can I jump in and tell you. This is an old canard used by the creationist luddites who lack even the most rudimentary understanding of molrcular biology. It's not an easy process to fully understand but W. Wertz, Robin Moudy, and L. Andrew Ball at the University of Alabama found the process using transcriptionase transcrits and markers for promoter genes in 2002. They found that gene addition was easy but that the replication potential of the host viruses was reduced if gene insertion was at other than at a promoter site. Also, the many examples of finding homologues of 'unique' genes in unrelated clades would support the proposition that the progenitor had a full complement of genes and some clades simply lost a gene or two along the way, making for dissimilar gene counts.
But don't take my word for it. Go back to school. And preferably one not run by baby-raping, science denying luddites like the Pope' buddies.

[edit on 24-5-2010 by 4nsicphd]



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Loken68
 



#1The Theory of Evolution in a nutshell is "Survival of the fittest." #2But most mammals and birds give birth to helpless babies - instead of strong and fit ones. #3Neither Darwinism nor Neo-Darwinism can explain infantile helplessness. #4Every baby that is born contradicts Evolution Theory and this is a fatal flaw.


#1 No it isn't. It's more complicated: variation, genetics, competition, natural selection. How does this further your argument?

#2 Stating the obvious... 'Most?' Link? Infants can be born strong, fit and still need nurturing. How does this further your argument?

#3 Firstly, 'Darwinism' is a pejorative, outdated term. Infants are born small and need protection and feeding whilst they develop towards maturity and independence. How does this further your argument? Have you an alternative God-based explanation?

#4 Organisms pass on genetic traits with the most beneficial having a higher likelihood of survival. In the grander scheme, they produce more offspring than can survive given resources and competing species/ relatives. Where's the 'contradiction' and how does this further your argument?

By which mechanism or process does God better explain your arguments?

I respect your belief in God, but wonder why it appears dependent on wishing away the Theory of Evolution?

Psssst...you can believe in God and accept evolution. Try it. They aren't incompatible unless the Old Testament is considered an ancient science textbook.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 03:52 PM
link   
I can offer some nice info on evolution.

We have a species on Earth called killer whale or Orca. A member of the Dolphin family.

There are several groups of Killer whale. They are found all over the world and different groups have specialized in different ways to catch different prey.

Science has recently discovered that the 3 main groups are not even the same species anymore. Genetically they ear all 3 of them a different species all together.

You can read all about them right here.

Weird is it they look so well... the same.

You will never find any missing links cause there aren't any. Every single specimen in the fosile data base was fully developed. You will also never find a fosile of every species that ever lived. It takes a very specific situation to get fosilized. Usually death organisms decay or get eaten.

If the Killer whale already is not one but actually 3 species, how would they look after 5 million years ? If I remember correct the Orca is part of 35 species of the Dolphin family that only apeared for the first time 11 million years ago.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Romantic_Rebel
 


I think we should leave the creationists and evolutionists to argue for a while about which is true and try and answer the question asked.

First, drop the notion that evolution of a species is a forward process aiming towards a goal, its not. Evolution has no goals, it is not a sentient process.

Evolution is, at its simplest level, the changes made to life to better able it to survive in its current environment.

This statement can be broken down to feed, breed, and speed.

Before I go into that further, we do need a short discussion on genetics. And I intend, at least to start with, to keep it human.

The traits that make you who you are physically, colour of hair, hight and build, etc. are passed to you from your parents via the genes supplied by the sperm and egg at conception. Some genes will have a greater effect on you than others so you may find that your father was built like a quarter back and you inherit this gene from him and you too have a similar build. Your brother on the other hand finds that the gene responsible for his build came from your mother who was more like tinker-bell.

In modern human society this would not have a huge effect on what I am about to posit.

Step back a few hundred thousand years. (Evolution is a VERY lengthy process) There is no civilised society to protect those less able to protect themselves. The guy built like tinker-bell will find that he is less able to compete for the best food or breeding partners. Maybe less swift of foot when escaping predators. (We havnt always been at the top of the food chain, and most of us dumped into a primitive era would quickly perish)

The upshot is that the "tinker-bell-ish guy would be less likely to survive long enough to breed and pass the dominant gene that controlled his growth to any off spring.

In this fabricated scenario, only the genes for powerfully built humans would be passed on and the species, over time would evolve in to a race of quarter backs.

There is however, a however. Evolution isn't quite as straight forward as that. Many , many factors come into play. Peacocks have huge fan like tails that make flight very difficult and take off hard work, so why evolve that huge tail that could be detrimental in a survival situation?
This is a case of evolution by sexual selection. Female peahens, over generations have preferred to breed with the healthiest specimens possible, and the perception of a healthy peacock is demonstrated by the personal resources it can expend in producing this fantastic display. And because the female prefer to mate with this type of male, the gene for producing this huge flamboyant tail has been passed on, and on, and on.

What both of these scenarios demonstrate is that any gene that aids a species to be better at getting food, (feed) better at escaping predators, (speed), in order to allow it produce offspring, (breed) will be passed onto the offspring.

And that bin a nutshell is evolution!

You will come across " the theory of evolution" and a lot of people will place the accent heavily on the word "theory" to try and prove that evolution is un-proven. It is not, evolution is a fact. The mechanisms that lead to a species evolving are many and varied and some are just theories. I can not prove that a peahen only wants to mate with a healthy, displaying peacock and therefore happily accept that " evolution by sexual preference" is only a theory. But it is only the last two words that are theory. the first is fact.

If you really are interested, I fully recommend the "Ancestors Tale" by Richard Dawkins (now watch the creationist backlash) as an amazing insight into the evolutionary process from single cell to all life on the plant.(actually it goes from all life on the planet to a single cell, but I'm being pedantic.)

Hope this clarifies things a bit.
T'is late, ciao fer no



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 05:06 PM
link   
You ask for proof of evolution? Well other than actually opening your eyes and looking at the entire world around you
how about having a look at this link:

www.newscientist.com...


"Fish in a remote crater lake in Nicaragua are splitting into separate species at breakneck speed." This species of fish is EVOLVING right now in front of our eyes. Splitting from one species by a simple change of growing bigger lips. These thin lipped and fat lips variations have now adapted to feed on two separate food sources, and as such the two no longer breed with each other, and will only continue to separate as they further evolve to the now changed specialities and dietary make up.

But then the majority of people to dispute evolution are raging religouse types, and I guess once you have learnt the bible you never need to open your eyes to the real world right?
Sorry, just couldn't resist that one




new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join