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 txpiper
Evolution is plagued with glaring problems, not the least of which is lack of a plausible causal mechanism for it to occur.
Originally posted by txpiper
The whole process depends on mutations. What is known about these accidental DNA replication errors eliminates them as a reliable source of either novel or enhanced genetic information.
Originally posted by txpiper
Random events simply cannot account for the trillions of necessary protein reformations that would be necessary to produce the the phenomenal specialties in living organisms.
Originally posted by txpiper
The whole process depends on mutations. What is known about these accidental DNA replication errors eliminates them as a reliable source of either novel or enhanced genetic information.
Evolution can be caused by a great number of things: Natural Selection and Genetic Bottlenecking are two that come to mine.
Why can't it? Do you have a reason or is that just a blind assertion?
it has taken billions of years for us to evolve to a state where we can exist as we do.
Originally posted by FearNoEvil
They say man is around 7 million years old yet can’t produce a skeleton of a definitive missing link between ape and man.
There was a recent discovery of a Young Tyrannosaurus Rex… only a few tens of thousands of years old…
source
After some ISI searching it seems that this soft tissue turned out to be bacterial biofilm.
Originally posted by Loken68
reply to post by rhinoceros
Those are just skull's no info there.
Selection is meaningless until there is something to be selected.
No, it is not a blind assertion at all. There is a sequence of known realities that pare down the probabilities to a statistical impossibility very quickly.
-Random mutations are rare
-If they do occur, they are usually inconsequential
-If they do have any effect, it usually deleterious
-If they can be considered beneficial (good look coming up with 25 that you would use as examples)...
...they have to occur in the DNA of gametes. This means the mutant sperm or eggs cells would be one of hundreds of thousands or millions of candidates in a lottery where only one of each will be involved in reproduction.
Add to this the fact that there are exquisite enzyme functions which check for, detect and correct replication errors. This in itself is a remarkable internal conflict for the theory because it means that mutations produced specialty proteins which serve to prevent mutations.
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
Originally posted by myeyeshavseen
Science is mostly about educated guesses. Im tired of reading things like, "This MAY lead to this," or, "it CAN cause that." Hearing the words 'may' or 'can' doesn't prove anything to me. They waste so much money on solving a problem, and then the answer is, MAYBE.
Originally posted by MrXYZ
Originally posted by Loken68
reply to post by rhinoceros
Those are just skull's no info there.
Yeah, who wants to analyze real tangible evidence when they can just continue to make things up, right?