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: 4
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 24 2010 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 


I think there is some confusion as to the adding and subtracting of genes nonsense. And while I'm sure that loken68 will still argue that i am wrong because i am supporting your argument, here goes any way.

There are four nucleotides that are present in DNA. For ease of reference they are know as GATC (if you've seen the film GATACA the title was made from these letters).

There are only four for every living entity on the planet, all life. And we have not,and probably never will create a new one to add or remove to or from a string of DNA.

I think that this is the point of mis-informed creationist confusion that loken68 starts from.

It is not the G the A the T or the C that defines a species. It is the manner in which they are paired and the order in which they appear along a strand of DNA that is influential.

And they can be re-ordered, re-paired and added and subtracted to a string of DNA.

And just to upset the creationist a little more, the gene that has been identified as the "create an eye" gene is the same for every species that has eyes. To the point where mouse "eye" genes have been inserted into the "leg" portion of a strand of fruit fly DNA and an eye grew on the fruit fly leg. Not a mouses eye, a proper insect compound eye.

www.accessexcellence.org...

Proving that DNA can be added.

As to whether new DNA can be created, I believe that has just happened.

news.sky.com... 201005315635730?lpos=World_News_First_Home_Article_Teaser_Region_8&lid=ARTICLE_15635730_Scientist_Claims_To_Make_First_Man-Made_Cell%3A_Dr_Craig_Vente r_Creates_Synthetic_Life_In_Laboratory




posted on May, 24 2010 @ 05:23 PM
link   
Evolution is plagued with glaring problems, not the least of which is lack of a plausible causal mechanism for it to occur. 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. 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.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by txpiper
 


Yes they can



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 05:27 PM
link   
Strangely whilst on the subject of evolution, I was just on the new scientist site and discovered that a NASA scientist used a Genetic Algorithm program to essentially evolve an engine component.

By running thousands of random variations and simulating the outcomes, the most successful random modifications were selected and the process was completed in the same way until no further improvements occurred. The outcome? an ion engine that can now run for 5.8 years instead of 2.4. Evolution even works on metal it seems


If only VW had one of those maybe the electrical systems in golfs might actually work!!



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 05:33 PM
link   

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.


Evolution can be caused by a great number of things: Natural Selection and Genetic Bottlenecking are two that come to mine.



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.


But mutations do create novel genes. For instance, all white tigers (not-albino) alive today have been bred from a single white female tiger. Mutations happen often enough.

But of course Evolution doesn't necessarily depend on mutations at all. Take a group of mice, half are white, and half are black, for this example we'll say that coloration only has two alleles, and that black is homozygous recessive . If you eliminate all of the white mice, you are left with completely black mice and no existing genes for white coloration. This is evolution by artificial selection.



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.


Why can't it? Do you have a reason or is that just a blind assertion?



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 05:46 PM
link   

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.



That is exactly how evolution has occurred, how can it possibly not? The simple fact that it's random has no affect, life that has worse variations will be dominated by the better variations that will occur do to the pure randomness. Then that evolves.

If you think of the billions of planets, and billions of years where life could have grown, the practically infinite opportunities for species to have evolved, been wiped out and evolved again the fact that we are the only life that we now of so far in a universe so vast it demonstrates the minute chance of random events that leads to life itself. If the odds are so small, yet they are shown to be just that it seems pretty clear to me, it may have taken us a long time and a long journey to get to where we are today... but despite all the odds and challenges it has taken billions of years for us to evolve to a state where we can exist as we do.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Evolution can be caused by a great number of things: Natural Selection and Genetic Bottlenecking are two that come to mine.

Selection is meaningless until there is something to be selected.


Why can't it? Do you have a reason or is that just a blind assertion?

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.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 06:36 PM
link   

it has taken billions of years for us to evolve to a state where we can exist as we do.


No, you only have about 600 million years to work with if you accept establishment dates. That may sound like a lot, but considering the supposed extinction events, gestation periods and lots of other obstacles, it really isn't. And if you start noticing all the species that have supposedly not budged for tens or hundreds of millions of years, it looks like what it is; a sacred religious cow masqueraging as science.

On the other hand, there is radical adaptation which is just as anomalous for a theory that relies on random DNA copy errors for a change mechanism. The specialties involved in getting from brown to polar bears are astonishing considering a hundred thousand year time frame in a limited population of large mammals. The coincidental protein definitions necessary to produce such a transformation simply cannot be realistically attributed to chance.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 06:42 PM
link   
I said I was done. But I'll add one more thing. How come on ATS as soon as one evolution thread burns out another one is created? And the answer is! Misinformation. Propaganda! Sure Gene's can mutate and with the proper amount of inbreeding develop anomalies such as the Tibetan air gene. But ultimately they will pay the price. That's why natives in the Andes mountains at the same altitude did not develop these same mutations. However the Andes natives have a longer life span and are in general healthier. What's weird about the Tibetans is that their not in their native home. DNA tells us that their matched up with the mongol races and the gene that mutated to allowed them to breath the thin air, p developed while still in the Mongol areas. So in saying that it has been suggested that "no" they did not adapt or evolve to their surroundings. They probably migrated to where their surrounding's better suited them. Most science involving Tibet doesnt include fact's that are there i.e. Tibetans still practice incest, homosexuality and some forms of cannibalism.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Romantic_Rebel
 

In the scientific sense, EVOLUTION IS A THEORY – “The statement "evolution is both a theory and a fact" is often seen in biological literature. Evolution is a "theory" in the scientific sense of the term "theory;" it is an established scientific model that explains observations and makes predictions through mechanisms such as natural selection.”
source

Archeologists have discovered complete dinosaur skeletons - source
They say dinosaurs are over 65 million years old. They say man is around 7 million years old yet can’t produce a skeleton of a definitive missing link between ape and man.

The Theory of Evolution is always evolving. There was a recent discovery of a Young Tyrannosaurus Rex… only a few tens of thousands of years old…
source

There are and have been many credible creation scientists - source


Science evolves and theories evolve…

Flat Earth hypothesis. Although not a truly scientific theory, it was proved wrong by many scientific observations over a period of thousands of years, with evidence compiling and culminating in Apollo 11's images of a spherical Earth.

Phlogiston theory. Created to explain the processes of oxidation - corrosion and combustion - it was disproved by discovery of the fact that combustion is the reaction of fuel with oxygen and that corrosion is caused by oxidation of metals and the formation of compounds.

Geocentric theory of the solar system. Disproved by studies through astronomy, as well as the use of physics to predict occurrences that geocentrism could not. Whether Earth is really the centre of the universe remains to be seen, since we don't know exactly where the universe ends.

The classical elemental theory (that all substance is made of earth, air, fire and water). Disproved by the discovery of subatomic particles and the modern elements, as we know them today.

Aristotle's dynamic motion. It was an attempt at explaining momentum and why certain substances behave in certain ways; it was linked to the concept of the classical elements. Disproved by Galileo.

Ether as a carrier of light waves and radio waves. Disproved by study of the dual particle-wave nature of light, which means it does not in fact require a medium of any kind, and the simple complete lack of any evidence for such a substance.(Disproved by the Michelson-Morley experiment.)

Newton's corpuscular theory of light. While correct in many ways - it was the modern concept of the photon - it too was supplanted by the dual wave-particle theory of light that explains all aspects of it.

Newton's Laws of Motion (which were improved upon by Einstein - while not really proved wrong, the were shown to be not quite right either. For example in relativity or on the very small scale they don't hold). source

Lord William Thomson Kelvin, for whom the Kelvin temperature scale is named, stated in 1895, "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible." One of the greatest scientists of all time was proven wrong source



I’m still waiting for ALL the evidence to come. I’ll probably be meeting my creator before that happens. I just require more proof than Atheists that man crawled out of a slime pit.

Maybe Mr. Dawkins can help clear up all the confusion. Heh.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 06:55 PM
link   

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.

Here.
Links between our early ancestor (B) and us (N). A is modern chimpanzee (not our direct ancestor). J - M represent our sister group - Neanderthals.



There was a recent discovery of a Young Tyrannosaurus Rex… only a few tens of thousands of years old…
source

Not what your source says. PS. After some ISI searching it seems that this soft tissue turned out to be bacterial biofilm.
source

[edit on 24-5-2010 by rhinoceros]



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


Thanks for the info.

Will consider.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


Those are just skull's no info there.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 07:48 PM
link   

After some ISI searching it seems that this soft tissue turned out to be bacterial biofilm.


Schweitzer, et al, strongly defend their original premises in a series of responses to Kaye's proposal. The idea of biofilms producing micro-components that appear identical to original tissue was a lame attempt to get rid of a growing body of evidence that is a grotesque affront to conventional dating methods. The T rex and hadrosaur specimens are only two entries in the list of anomalies that pose uncomfortable questions about taphonomical assumptions.

The bottom lines are 1) the material looks and reacts like the real thing, and 2) it shouldn't be there.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by txpiper
 


Thanks for the info - I did search before I posted and couldn't find a conclusion on the T Rex.

Thanks



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 01:24 AM
link   

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?



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by txpiper
 





Selection is meaningless until there is something to be selected.


Quite true. And mutations provide those alternatives.




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


You need to define rare. Every human individual is born with about 200 mutations relative to his/her parents. And more mutations occur during their lifetime. Neutral mutations accumulate generation to generation providing a range of options to be selected when needed.



-If they do occur, they are usually inconsequential

No, I think deleterious mutations out count neutral ones, but it doesn't matter, really. The neutral mutations may become important at some time in the future.



-If they do have any effect, it usually deleterious

Probably true for the majority of mutations. Deleterious mutations are 'bred' out of the gene pool quickly. Neutral mutations stick around doing nothing unless something changes that make them important. Useful mutations spread through the population quite quickly.

And you have to remember that terms 'deleterious' and 'beneficial' relate specifically to the organisms efficiency at reproduction. Nothing else.



-If they can be considered beneficial (good look coming up with 25 that you would use as examples)...

I won't need much luck to meet that modest goal. I can think of many without trying, perhaps I'll work on more later.


  • fair skin on Europeans allows them overcome vitamin D deficiency
  • sickle cell anemia mutation provides carrier protection from malaria (provided it is inherited from one parent only)
  • epcanthic folds protect from high UV radiation (hypothesis not universally accepted
  • it is likely that wisdom teeth are disappearing reducing the problems of impaction. Modern dentistry is slowing the progress of this mutation since wisdom teeth can be easily extracted eliminating the problem as a potential reproductive barrier.
  • cancer cells result from a mutation that is beneficial to the cell (from a reproductive standpoint) but not the organism of which it is a part.
  • here's a list of 6 more Examples of Beneficial Mutations in Humans
  • and some more general Examples of Beneficial Mutations

No time to go further now, but that list was put together in 5 minutes. Shouldn't be too hard to push that over 25 with a little more thought.



...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.


This is not a problem. A mutation that occurs early in the development process, for example, at conception, will probably be present in every cell in the body. Mutations gained later in life, for example, due to cosmic ray strikes or toxic chemical reactions, would indeed have to affect the gametes.



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.


Yes, but this error correction process only relates to DNA copying errors like strand breaks not mutation of the base pairs.

From Wikipedia: DNA Repair



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


[edit on 25/5/2010 by rnaa]



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 10:23 AM
link   
Evolution AND 'GOD' (or whatever his real name is, because I sure dont know it) are both real. Yes, everything that lives, evolves. Its natural. As far as humans evolving from Apes? That's just preposterous, IMO.

I dont trust humans, therefore I question the bible and also Science. The bible was written from a certin perspective so it may not make sense to most. 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.

These people are hardly ever certain, so what they say, to me, is always questionable. AND, scientists probably disagree with each other more than politcians do. They're also the major reason why so many of our everyday products are contaminated with God knows what and they are the reason behind Cancer and other crazy diseases going around.



How did 'God' create this world and everything in it? He used SCIENCE.





posted on May, 25 2010 @ 10:53 AM
link   

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.

Dude your reality tunnel sucks. Only fools are 100 % certain of anything. I might be wrong when I say this.



Every kind of ignorance in the world all results from not realizing that our perceptions are gambles. We believe what we see and then we believe our interpretation of it, we don't even know we are making an interpretation most of the time. We think this is reality.
– Robert Anton Wilson



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 11:07 AM
link   

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?


Dude there are just skulls with no info.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join