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: 5
5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 25 2010 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by rnaa

NO one can show me the mechanism that can create a new gene...no one.

1st of all wiki is not a very good source and nothing there can be accepted.
2nd all the mutations you just listed are random chance. There were no reasoning in them.
3rd Why arent all europeans in the same climate with the same genome "fair skinned"?
4thSickle cell is a killer mutation, cant believe you even brought it up.
5thcancer another killer mutation...jeeze dude.

Why not bring up somthing relevant like why asian's are lactose intolerate.
Or maybe the titan deal where Tibetans can breath thin air even though their not native to that locale. Evolution is the game fools play. The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God.

[edit on 25-5-2010 by Loken68]




posted on May, 25 2010 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Many claim evolution is a lie - instead, your body changes to suit the terrain it finds itself in. I believe this is called a "morphological field".

1. Lactose-intolerant cells placed in lactose, they mutate, feed on lactose and survive

2. Stem cells transform into different types of cells, ie. bone, skin, muscle, based on the medium they are placed into.

3. Striking changes can be noted in short periods of time. For example, chickens with short necks can become more duck-like with long necks in a couple decades. (David Wilcock 2012 Event Horizon, I believe)

There's more evidence... but I can't think of it off-hand.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by sandwiches
 


Your speaking of adaptation. Darwin wouldn't even go there.

"Attempt to detect adaptive evolution at the molecular level have met with little success."-Dr. Paul Sharp



[edit on 25-5-2010 by Loken68]



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

Originally posted by rhinoceros

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.


You just proved my point. If no one is 100% certain, then who the heck do I trust for information???

When it comes to evolution vs. creator, no one has any REAL FACTS, only real opinions based on other opinions. It's like blind leading the blind.

The reality is, the 10% of brain we use, is not enough to solve this equation.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by myeyeshavseen
 


No, the reality is man desires life without God.

There are even distinguished philosophers of science, like Sir Karl Popper, a man of impeccable credentials and no religious ax to grind, who have openly questioned whether evolution is a science at all, in principle and not just in practice, because its assertions are not potentially falsifiable. A true science, like physics, makes claims that can be tested and thus potentially falsified; this vulnerability is what makes it worthy of belief when despite this, the falsification does not happen. But evolution does not make claims of this kind.
Furthermore, it is one of the touchstones of science that it is based on repeatable experiments. The data used to support evolution are neither experiments nor repeatable, nor can they be, since the origin of species on earth was a unique event. This doesn’t necessarily make evolution nonsense, but it strongly suggests it doesn’t have the right to demand the kind of acquiescence that physics demands on the strength of its being straightforwardly a science.
What exactly evolution is, if Popper is right and it is not quite a science in the conventional sense, is an open question. It is probably not without significance that what is now called biology used to be called natural history, an older and perhaps more appropriate concept.-Robert Locke

[edit on 25-5-2010 by Loken68]



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Loken68
NO one can show me the mechanism that can create a new gene...no one.

You've already been told (in this very thread) how it happens.



Why not bring up somthing relevant like why asian's are lactose intolerate.

Lactose intolerance is the "natural way". The allele that brings about lactose tolerance is a mutated version of the original and has spread like wildfire in certain populations.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


No one has gave me the mech. only flawed theories.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Loken68
 


Evolution being wrong does not automatically mean creationism is right. I have heard some good arguements against evolution but none of them in my opinion lend much support to creationism either.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Loken68
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


No one has gave me the mech. only flawed theories.


gene duplication > accelerated mutation rate > new function > betterment of new function by natural selection

Like how a digestive enzyme became and an anti-freeze protein (in certain fish) after gene duplication.

[edit on 25-5-2010 by rhinoceros]



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by myeyeshavseen
 


While this is slightly off-topic, humans use more than 10% of their brain. The belief that we only use 10% is a throwback to the early days of psychology and is only still around due to writers of pop psychology books that don't have any background in psychology. In truth we use 100% of our brain. Even the most mundane tasks require activity in most parts of the brain.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Loken68
 


A philosophers opinion on Evolution is scientifically inapplicable, especially if he's as well educated about Evolution as someone like you.

Within the scientific community Evolution is BETTER PROVEN than some physics such as Relativity. You see on certain levels Relativity works but in some Quantum situations it breaks down or does not explain all that is observed. Evolution on the other hand explains and quite often accurately predicts what we see in the fossil record.

There is consensus within the scientific community about Evolution, the same could not be said of the Standard Model of cosmology.



NO one can show me the mechanism that can create a new gene...no one.


Actually I did this IN THIS VERY THREAD, several pages ago. Its called Gene Duplication. I also posted a link SHOWING that new genes had been added during the geographic isolation of Tibetan people which allowed them to thrive at high altitude. You excel at ignoring evidence when presented to you and making the same argument as thought your already decimated position was intact.



No, the reality is man desires life without God.


Genetics and the fossil record show proof of Evolution, they show no proof of a magical creation. Furthermore we have directly observed Speciation, the splitting of one species into another. Evolution is a directly observed fact.

Many people have attempted to educate you and have shown you proof of Evolution but you reject it out of hand. What evidence are you using to support your statement above? And furthermore why have you limited your God so that he/she/it cannot create via natural process?

The reason we believe in Evolution is because man desires the truth and Evolution is evidently true. When you have enough evidence to support it you no longer have to go on faith, this makes having the belief much easier than the blind faith typically required by religion.


[edit on 25-5-2010 by Titen-Sxull]



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 



rnaa,

Thanks for your response.


Neutral mutations accumulate generation to generation providing a range of options to be selected when needed.

Needed for what and by whom? Are they catalogued on a value basis?


The neutral mutations may become important at some time in the future.

Importance implies goal cognizance. Who or what would recognize the potential?


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.

The problem I have with the (often-cited) examples on your list is that they are all very modest adaptations. None of them would qualify as a neat incremental entry in the production of a new biological system or sub-system. Evolutionary theory assumes that trillions of subtle changes took place to produce radical alterations as bioluminescence, echolocation and every other bio-system ever produced. I don’t see your list as being supportive of that proposition.


Mutations gained later in life, for example, due to cosmic ray strikes or toxic chemical reactions, would indeed have to affect the gametes.

But the effect would almost certainly be negative. Again, this does not illustrate mutations/selection as a roaring production engine.



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

I don’t think the article you link to supports your statement:
“Base excision repair (BER), which repairs damage to a single base…The damaged base is removed…The "missing tooth" is then recognised by an enzyme…which cuts the..bond. The missing part is then resynthesized by a DNA polymerase, and a DNA ligase performs the final nick-sealing step.”
See also the link on this function: en.wikipedia.org...

The replication enzyme suite is phenomenally complex and efficacious. But evolutionary theory requires that it be trivialized, while magnifying the supposed authority of replication screw-ups to produce hyper-complexity and organization. I see that as a remarkable ideological paradox.

Out of curiosity, how would you qualify the ability of accidentally-generated enzyme molecules to recognize, remove and repair errors? It can’t be just a chemical reaction because they actually pause, reverse, remove, insert, repair and then proceed. Are they “smart”?






[edit on 25-5-2010 by txpiper]



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by txpiper
Out of curiosity, how would you qualify the ability of accidentally-generated enzyme molecules to recognize, remove and repair errors?

You can't call something that has been tested, modified and then tested again repeatedly for billions of years 1000s of billions (probably a lot more) times "accidentally-generated".

[edit on 25-5-2010 by rhinoceros]



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Loken68
reply to post by myeyeshavseen
 


No, the reality is man desires life without God.

There are even distinguished philosophers of science, like Sir Karl Popper, a man of impeccable credentials and no religious ax to grind, who have openly questioned whether evolution is a science at all, in principle and not just in practice, because its assertions are not potentially falsifiable. A true science, like physics, makes claims that can be tested and thus potentially falsified; this vulnerability is what makes it worthy of belief when despite this, the falsification does not happen. But evolution does not make claims of this kind.
Furthermore, it is one of the touchstones of science that it is based on repeatable experiments. The data used to support evolution are neither experiments nor repeatable, nor can they be, since the origin of species on earth was a unique event. This doesn’t necessarily make evolution nonsense, but it strongly suggests it doesn’t have the right to demand the kind of acquiescence that physics demands on the strength of its being straightforwardly a science.
What exactly evolution is, if Popper is right and it is not quite a science in the conventional sense, is an open question. It is probably not without significance that what is now called biology used to be called natural history, an older and perhaps more appropriate concept.-Robert Locke

[edit on 25-5-2010 by Loken68]

Evolution only hinders a belief in god if you want it to, and ofcourse the theory of evolution is a open question, we aren't 100% sure that's how evolution works, but it's the best currently accepted theory, and I certainly haven't heard any more convincing evidence from the creationist side, only oppositions to evolution.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 



"You can't call something that has been tested, modified and then tested again repeatedly for billions of years 1000s of billions (probably a lot more) times "accidentally-generated"."


Your time frame seems a little on the generous side, but I can go with you on the reliability of the replication enzymes. If cyanobacteria have been reproducing virtually unchanged every twenty minutes for (supposedly) 2 or 3 billion years, these busy proteins do seem to know what they are doing. They really do appear to be pretty bright.

As to where they came from, if "accidentally-generated" is an unpleasant characterization, perhaps "randomly-assembled" would be more polite. But there is a chicken/egg problem involved as to how and why replication occurred before they made their chance debut.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 11:26 PM
link   
reply to post by LocoHombre
 


please note some beneficial mutations as I have yet to have heard of any.

Evolution:

Big bang.....nothing expanding into something (never seen in person by anyone so it truly is a faith based belief.)

stellar evolution.... exploding star dust creating new stars ( to date no one has recorded a single new star forming only them exploding)

elementary evolution...... hydrogen creating all the know elements ( first nothing created hydrogen and then hydrogen evolved through fusion into higher elements but fusion past iron has never been achieved by man to prove such events)

chemical evolution ...... rain....mud......rocks..... volcanic activity.....lightning .........liiiiife (Never been seen to happen or even produced with millions and millions of dollars in a perfect enviroment of a lab. )

Macro evolution .......fish to lizard to chicken never been seen never been done. and fossils are not proof of anything but life and death of an organism. A fossil does not prove that it is the ancestor of one creature and the parent of another. You could not even prove it it had offspring.

Micro evolution...... wolfs becoming all the know dogs of the world,
variations of horses, different types of chickens are all proof of adaption and variation.

Chickens still have chickens, corn planted will yield corn

Variation and adaption are the evolutionist only tool they use to try and prove all the other forms that have never been proved.

Most can not even be test.

In science that is considered a belief,...... and the definition of a religion is

–noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

sounds a lot like scientist and evolutionist to me.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 12:05 AM
link   
reply to post by ACTS 2:38
 



Big bang.....nothing expanding into something (never seen in person by anyone so it truly is a faith based belief.)


It's a theory based on evidence.




stellar evolution.... exploding star dust creating new stars ( to date no one has recorded a single new star forming only them exploding)


Google "Star Nurseries" or read about the Eagle Nebula



elementary evolution...... hydrogen creating all the know elements ( first nothing created hydrogen and then hydrogen evolved through fusion into higher elements but fusion past iron has never been achieved by man to prove such events)


Not 'evolution,' wrong term. Hydrogen and helium are thought to be the only elements created by the Big Bang. Heavier elements than iron are produced by supernovae. We don't have the technology yet and use particle accelerators. IIIR last confirmed element was 112...last year




chemical evolution ...... rain....mud......rocks..... volcanic activity.....lightning .........liiiiife (Never been seen to happen or even produced with millions and millions of dollars in a perfect enviroment of a lab. )


It's hard to recreate the exact conditions responsible for abiogenesis. The fact that Earth is swarming with life is indicative...





Macro evolution .......fish to lizard to chicken never been seen never been done. and fossils are not proof of anything but life and death of an organism. A fossil does not prove that it is the ancestor of one creature and the parent of another. You could not even prove it it had offspring.


So what's your explanation for fossils? Let's forget about transitional fossils and micro evolution in insect populations, bacteria etc etc

What's your explanation?

If you don't understand science or keep up with developments, you'll be left with this incredulity. If you only read about 'Darwinists/evolutionists' on Creation websites, you'll find arguments (like your points above) that aren't accurate. On several Creation sites, the owners actively lie.

I'll add some links later to support my points...Creationists tend to be afeared of using Google and regard science websites as being more dangerous than porno sites.

Microevolution

Creation of elements

Creation of heavier elements

112

Copernicium

Evidence of the Big Bang

Star nurseries

Eagle Nebula

List and links of transitional fossils

[edit on 26-5-2010 by Kandinsky]



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by ACTS 2:38
 





please note some beneficial mutations as I have yet to have heard of any.


I'm not sure if the following constitutes a mutation or not scientifically speaking but it was recently discovered that peoples living in Tibet had specialized genes allowing them to survive at high altitude. This is an example of how Evolution works.

Gene Explains why Tibetans Thrive at High Altitude

A quick Google search turns up a wealth of evidence:

Examples of Beneficial Mutations



Big bang.....nothing expanding into something (never seen in person by anyone so it truly is a faith based belief.)


Actually it wasn't nothing that expanded into something. All the matter and energy in the entire Universe was condensed into a singularity so in some form it all existed already BEFORE the Big Bang.



Macro evolution .......fish to lizard to chicken never been seen never been done.


Actually speciation, the divergence of two species through evolution, is an observed fact. Microevolutionary changes, over time and under the right circumstances, are what lead to speciation (one species becoming another). Evolution does not permit fish to lizard in one step but in many gradual steps it is possible...

And what is the alternative? Things being spontaneously called into being via divine magical incantation? A very poor alternative if you ask me.




Variation and adaption are the evolutionist only tool they use to try and prove all the other forms that have never been proved.


If you'd done even a spoonful of research outside of biased deceptive Creationist sources you'd know how wrong this statement is.

Gene duplication, genetic drift, population mechanics, environmental factors, mutations, there are a great many factors playing into evolution. What do the Creationists fall back on? An explanation that ignores evidence in favor of magic.



sounds a lot like scientist and evolutionist to me.


Except that science is not permitted to stop studying things give up and say it was magic or God. The scientific perspective is based on where the evidence leads us. The evidence points to Evolution and only evolution and if the evidence says Evolution is true than you don't need faith or any of the hallmarks of religion to believe that.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 03:50 AM
link   
reply to post by txpiper
 




Needed for what and by whom?

To give a reproductive advantage to the individuals that hold the mutation in some future environmental scenario.



Are they catalogued on a value basis?

Nope. They are just there. Sometime in the future it may be that individuals that hold that mutation will be able to reproduce better than other individuals in the population.



Importance implies goal cognizance. Who or what would recognize the potential?

No. It does not. If the trait expressed by the mutation allows the organism to reproduce better (which includes surviving to reproductive age) than its siblings without the mutation, then individuals with the mutation will come to dominate the population. That is Natural Selection. There is no goal. There is just improved survival chances.



The problem I have with the (often-cited) examples on your list is that they are all very modest adaptations. None of them would qualify as a neat incremental entry in the production of a new biological system or sub-system. Evolutionary theory assumes that trillions of subtle changes took place to produce radical alterations as bioluminescence, echolocation and every other bio-system ever produced. I don’t see your list as being supportive of that proposition.

So you already knew the answer but you asked it anyway in anticipation of rejecting the answer. That is not civilized behavior, that is trolling behavior.

Your objection to the answer is stupid. You asked for 25 useful mutations and asserted that we wouldn't find any. You clearly knew already that there are many thousands of beneficial mutations. Each step of the evolution of the eye is beneficial, as is the development of two eyes instead of just one. The opposable thumb. Single cell to multiple cell. Uncountable thousands.

I am not inclined to discuss this further as your style is disingenuous and insulting.



But the effect would almost certainly be negative. Again, this does not illustrate mutations/selection as a roaring production engine.

Probably, because most mutations are. But not necessarily. Some are immediately advantageous and some are neutral. Mutations produced this way are no different than mutations that occur early in the embryo development cycle, except that the mutation affects only the descendant generation not the current individual.



I don’t think the article you link to supports your statement

Yes, in fact it does. And the excerpt I quoted says exactly and specifically that. Repair fixes some types of replication errors. Repair cannot repair a mutation to the base pair because it is not a replication error.



The replication enzyme suite is phenomenally complex and efficacious.

Absolutely.



But evolutionary theory requires that it be trivialized,

That is an ignorant and completely unworthy characterization. Those two wiki articles are trivial summaries of many peoples rather difficult lifes work. The mechanism is fundamental to the operation of the fundamental process of life: reproduction. How can anything be less trivial?



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 03:56 AM
link   
I love how the creationists continue to ignore the evidence for evolution by continuously asking the same misinformed questions, and by criticizing evolution, they think they're validating their INSANE theory.

The same people keep on coming into every thread, and always make the same DUMB statements that have been proven wrong over and over again. Loken's "OMG, no macroevolution" statement is ridiculous after people bombarded him with scientific sources that prove him wrong...yet he chose to come back into every thread stating the same hogwash that fits his Peter Pan fantasy world.

Titen and the others are doing a great job at explaining the same thing over and over and over and over again because the bible humpers refuse to accept logic and rationality into their lives. Quite frankly, I'm getting tired of it myself and soon I'm just gonna accept that there's dumb people in the world that rather live in a fantasy world than to confront themselves with reality...and there's nothing you can do or say to wake them up.

I realize calling them dumb is an attack towards the hardliner Evangelists...but there's just no other way to classify those people if they continue to ignore evidence without providing any themselves. I mean, attacking evolution is one thing, but to claim the INSANE creationist theory for which we have NO proof is the right alternative is beyond crazy. How brainwashed can you become?



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join