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.

 

Darwin May Have Been WRONG, New Study Argues

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by lestweforget


I would like to entertain the idea of evolution but i have
trouble beleiving this beautiful boby, perfect in so many ways
not to mention my great mind is merely the product of chance.

Tell that to your blind spot.
And your baby toe.
And the vestigial tail we have.




posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by hippomchippo
 


Exactly. There are so many flaws with the design of the human body. You know what un-Godly (literally) percentage of humans have back problems at some point for instance? 80%. Backs arent really designed that well. An intelligent designer could have done better.

I also like the wasps that lay their eggs in live caterpillars that are paralyzed and eat the immobile caterpillar alive, slowly as an example of things you wouldnt expect a God to design.

But this thread isnt really about evolution vs intelligent design, (addressed to those who insist on making it about that) its about whether or not competition or "space to live" is the driving force behind evolution.

Personally, I cant even believe the "space to live" thing is getting any play. You seek out new spaces to live because your current space is full or filling up, or otherwise becoming unsuitable. Of course the new environment you move into is going to help shape your evolution. I dont think that was ever a question. I guess I just dont see the big "oooooh this is so new" aspect of it. As long as I can remember reading about it climate and geography has been part of the selective process.

What does it matter if you were chased into that new environment, (competition) or accidentally fell into it? Why is it a one or the other prospect?



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by grey580
 


Newer results in genetics/epigenetics do seem to indicate that evolution can be regulated by changes in the environment of parents- a very famous example

sciencewatch.com...

Research along these lines reminds me of Lamarkian evolution.

quote from link for the lazy among us:

Specifically, we showed that dietary supplementation of viable yellow agouti (Avy) mice during pregnancy with methyl donors (i.e. choline, betaine, folic acid, and vitamin B12) decreased the incidence of offspring with a yellow coat color (Figure 1), which is associated concomitantly with a reduction in their risk of developing obesity, diabetes, and cancer. Moreover, these phenotypic changes were shown to result from increased DNA methylation of a transposable element upstream of the Agouti gene rather than mutation of the gene.




[edit on 26-8-2010 by sjorges2002]



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ringht_n_wrong
Its funny that theres so much speculation around evolution.........isn't evolution only a theory? Isn't the bigbang a theory also? Sometimes I think that most of us forget that the bigbang and evolution are not proven...they are only theories nothing else.


Seriously, I wish someone would put this semantic fallacy to bed already. Hearing "It's just a theory!" parroted over and over again is worse than fingernails on a blackboard.

From the Association for the Advancement of Science:

"In detective novels, a "theory" is little more than an educated guess, often based on a few circumstantial facts. In science, the word "theory" means much more. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact."

AAAS

So yes... evolution is a theory. And it's also a fact. So saying "It's just a theory!" over and over again doesn't somehow make it less significant, less important, or less real. It just shows that you don't have a good grasp on the facts.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 12:08 AM
link   
It is just crazy how all the scientist of that era actually came to agreement on everything. It is extremely good read when you read about their personality, conflicts and such. It is a wonder how they got anything right…hehe



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 02:27 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 03:51 AM
link   
Mutants! That is what everything modern is -- a mutation of what came before it.

Well, not everything and everyone, but mutation is probably one of the most significant factors when change occurs abruptly in a species -- change that then continued because it happened to be a better suit to the environment or in some other way allowed it to win the competition with its neighbors.

I think many people do not realize the length of time that has been available for living things to slowly evolve as well as periodically mutate. The time since the beginning is more than most of us can grasp.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 05:40 AM
link   
For HuffingtonPost to use the word "WRONG" is irresponsible and abuse of the consumer reaction shaped by shock value.

Did huffingtonpost even read the article? It just said local competition, in some animals, is less weighted, if you will, in the struggle for existence, than territorial scarcity. Which obviously the two certainly reconcile with each other in the grand scheme of natural selection. Meaning in the short-term, direct combat for the sake of mate selection is usurped by searching for more space. In the long-term the two factors coalesce.

The basics of Darwin are not wrong and will never be wrong, some of his examples and postulations have been inaccurate. To be expected because of the technology and accessibility to resources in the mid-late 19th century. But the fundamentals of evolution and natural selection -- a slight accumulation of variations, changing with the environment, over geological time, breeds speciation -- are not merely an assertion of fact, but a fact that is absolute.

Its even in accordance with today's NeoDarwinism governed by parasites, sexual selection, and genetic compatibility.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 05:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by wayno
Mutants! That is what everything modern is -- a mutation of what came before it.

Well, not everything and everyone, but mutation is probably one of the most significant factors when change occurs abruptly in a species -- change that then continued because it happened to be a better suit to the environment or in some other way allowed it to win the competition with its neighbors.

I think many people do not realize the length of time that has been available for living things to slowly evolve as well as periodically mutate. The time since the beginning is more than most of us can grasp.
I've reached the conclusion over the last few years that "mutation" is thrown around arbitrarily, without much reflection. The "mutation" that is apparently observed, is, IMO, just a different reaction of a gene to a new form of bacteria/parasite. The ways in which genetic material can interact with each other is on a permutational scale of infinity, and with any insertion of an unknown or unguarded against parasite into a genetic unit of natural selection, the degree of compatibility of the gene/parasite relationship determines in what way the observed manifestation of phenotypes are configured.

I.E. interpreting a genetic "mutation" as a parasitic fusion, if a parasite's humble vanity is content with getting a free ride from organism to organism, all the while replication and spreading itself, then a "good" relationship will occur. And to the opposite extreme, the "mutation", or the new parasite can be detrimental, or even genetically deleterious.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 05:55 AM
link   
reply to post by grey580
 


did you ever study darwin in school-he oviously put alot of hours in-all that cataloging and explainig a lifetime away. even if it was all bull crap!! who would want to come up with a better theory!! his body of work fit into a text book and classroom lecturehall all so neatly...im guessing most academticians even if they knew better let darwin slide with his piece of institutionalized crap. so left brain orgainized, what right brain thinker would argue?? until now....



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 06:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wise Man
Proof? You have none. Your not at DNA scientist. There isnt a shred of genetic, historical, or artifact evidence that hasn't been freshly whitewashed to back up YOUR claims.


Please, you've been provided with sources of DNA evidence in multiple threads now and you always reply in the same ways and it always ends up in the same place:

1. "You aren't a DNA scientist."

The translation of this is "I don't really understand the way genetics works, even though it's considered basic biology at this point in time, which means no one else must be able to understand how it works." I've seen it explained to you that scientific evidence is presented in a way that's reproducible and verifiable. But you don't like to hear that, so you ignore it. Or you just say that you don't trust it because science...

2. "It's a conspiracy by a bunch of white guys."

You usually throw in some claims about them being "fake ass Jews in white coats" for good measure. And sometimes you throw a "homo" or two in there as well, which is a pretty good indication of your mindset. So what you're saying is all of the science done around the world with regard to genetics, a significant portion of it by non-Caucasians, is part of some global conspiracy to cover up the fact that all Europeans were blacks until sometime right before the Renaissance. Someone in the thread will refute this and provide well-cited sources for why this isn't true, and you'll trot out some anecdotal evidence and make enormous leaps of logic with only the most tenuous connection between them, and they'll refute that for what it is as well. Ultimately, you'll just get even more belligerent and say...

3. "I don't talk to white people."

From another thread...

"If anyone is interested in getting more information on this stuff they can U2U me there's thousands of youtube channels on the subject for people that can't afford or find good books. However if you are not of Native, Latino or Negro(slave trade) decent (fathers side) don't bother asking for info, I really only care about informing those people IF they care to learn about something they don't know."

Put up or shut up. Provide real evidence from a reliable source, presented without gaping holes of logic that anyone with half a mind could drive a bus through, and give the information to everyone.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 06:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Wise Man
 


Makes sense since we are all de-evolving. Organisms only LOSE genetic information, not gain it. Therefore logic says that whites ancestors had to have more pigment than they do now. Ever see the stainglass of St. George, I didn't see it in your pictures? A good book to read: "They Came Before Columbus"

Remember though, you are debating with a group of people that claim evidence of early Europeans having white skin is proven by digging up bones??? All the bones I've seen can't tell you anything about the person's skin color. But then again, these same people will find a lone tooth in the ground, and invent how the creature looked, it's mating habits along with social structure, make a 2 hour CGI special on discovery channel, and then declare this is proof we evolved from pond scum 10 billion years ago. Not only that, but in one sentance say that science is only theory and can change, and then use science to prove their point? Long story short, ALL of their evidence is interpreted by their backwards worldview, and there is no amount of "proof" that will cause them to see otherwise.

With that said, what sort of proof would you all accept, that would discredit the whole Darwinian molecules to man/macroevolution fairytale? (I won't hold my breath)



[edit on 26-8-2010 by kingofmd]



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 06:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by kingofmd
reply to post by Wise Man
 


With that said, what sort of proof would you all accept, that would discredit the whole Darwinian molecules to man/macroevolution fairytale? (I won't hold my breath)


I'd say any kind of verifiable proof at all. That would be a start. Then we could engage in investigation and allow ourselves to adapt new ideas and new discoveries into what we think and then we'd...

Oh wait, all that has already been done and we call it the theory of evolution.



[edit on 8/26/10 by Hefficide]



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 06:57 AM
link   
reply to post by kingofmd
 


actually in evolution you can gain genetic material. DNA can become mixed up during Meiosis or Mitosis, and genes can be added. A very good example is hermaphrodites. in Meiosis either the sperm has XY rather than X or Y or the egg is XX rather than X. The end result is a child born with both sets of genitalia. This can also happen to have XXX females or XYY, when the Y is duplicated during an error in meiosis.

There are quite a few DNA errors that can result in the addition of genetic material. In a lot of cases the fetus doesn't survive Major genetic mutations, just because our DNA is so complicated.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 09:44 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 10:04 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Wise Man
 


Interesting thought. If the majority of people in Europe was black before the Renaissance, why aren't there any native blacks in Europe anymore?



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 10:15 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Wise Man
 


What about Continental Europe?



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by NichirasuKenshin
reply to post by Wise Man
 


What about Continental Europe?


Sorry, whats the question?



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join