It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Can you prove evolution wrong

page: 261
31
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 04:33 PM
Darwins conundrum.

Before genetics came along, one of the biggest misunderstandings of heritability was that it was assumed that traits blended. A simple description will suffice to demonstrate the concept.

We will assume that height is a heritable trait for the purposes of this explanation.

If one parent is 6 foot tall, and the other is 5 foot tall, then the offspring should be 5 and a half foot tall. This would demonstrate that the child is a mix of its parent’s traits.

When Darwin wrote the Origin of the Species, many scientists and mathematicians pointed that evolution could not occur due to the species reverting to the mean. By their understanding, if out of one hundred rabbits, 50 of them could run at 30 (type A) miles an hour and 50 could run at 20 miles an hour (type B), then eventually, all of the rabbits would end up running at 25 miles an hour (Type C). This would offer no evolutionary advantage. No matter how many Type A rabbits bred, it would only take a single Type B rabbit to cause the offspring to revert to a Type C, and no matter how often a type C bred with a type A, it would never reach its maximum potential of the ability to reach speeds of 30 miles an hour.

Not a Blend.

Then, in the mid 1800’s, Gregor Mendel began experimenting with pea plants, while trying to breed an intermediate size plant, he noticed that when he bred tall and short plants, he always got 3 to 1 on tall plants, and no intermediates. He hypothesised that the parent plants each contributed half of “themselves” to the child and that tall always dominated over short. Mendel again knew nothing of genetics, so how did he come to his conclusion of dominant traits?

Assuming his hypothesis was correct, that each parent supplied half of something and that “tall was dominant, the possible configurations are as follows:

T+T = Tall – Tall is dominant and expressed
S+T = Tall – Tall is dominant and expressed
T+S = Tall – Tall is dominant and expressed
S+S = Short – Tall is not available to be expressed

In all of Mendel’s experiments, he observed time and again the same ratio of tall to short. He went on to experiment with flower colours and identified other dominant traits within the pea plants.

Be vewy vewy qwiet…I’m hunting wabbits!

Mendel’s experiments demonstrated to the scientific community that reversion to the mean within a species was not correct, that the “30 mile an hour-Type A “rabbits could continue to bred and produce Type A offspring regardless of which type they bred with, more importantly, a dominant trait that also offered a survival advantage would quickly spread throughout the entire population. Conversely, a dominant gene that didn’t provide a survival advantage would quickly be selected against by natural selection, making the remaining gene, dominant by default.

Of course, genes do not always remain dominant, and traits within a species are expressed due to combinations of genes rather that the effect of individual genes acting in solitude. The expression of dominance or submitance of a gene can be affected by random mutation to an otherwise unconnected gene. It should also be noted that the real “speed” of the type A rabbits would be within a range. (e.g. 28 to 32 miles per hour)

Evolution.

As with all of the evolutionary argument in this thread, it is the small changes that add up to the overall expression of traits within a species, genes are expressed at an individual level but are selected for or against at species level. Type A rabbits at the higher end of the speed spectrum would be selected for at a species level if the only factor were outrunning predator animals, however Type B rabbits might have better sense of smell and therefore be better able to identify when predators were near. Both types would have a survival advantage and live long enough to produce a Type D rabbit, as fast as a Type A, as olfactory acute as a Type B, but as the sum, better equipped to survive than the component parts.

It doesn’t surprise me that most of the anti-evolutionary arguments on these forums start with the authors own admission of ignorance, phrases like “ I don’t see how…” or “I can’t understand why….”, It’s not an easy subject to understand and there are a lot of contributing factors to evolution, but….

Ignorance is one thing, blind ignorance, wilful ignorance is quite another, if people are willing, they can be educated. A lot of people on here explain things very well and take time to ensure that what they write is pitched at the correct level for what is, in most cases a layman’s readership. (I should also add, a laymans authorship)

I'll have ago at explaining why the fosil record is not required to prove evolution at a later date....cant be arsed at the mo.

edit on 27-2-2012 by idmonster because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-2-2012 by idmonster because: Duplicate sentence removed

edit on 27-2-2012 by idmonster because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 04:38 PM

Originally posted by itsthetooth

This is more or less what I was going to say, but I just didn't see the point.

Small changes over time. Once Toothy has grasped that elemental fact, we can move on to the next lesson
I got that, but that would also mean there should be a hell of a lot of bones, in addition to us still being able to find this in a lab. Slow or not we should be able to detect it.

Can you explain to me the correlation between evolution and the amount of fossilized bones on a planet? Do you have more fossils, with evolution, or without it? It doesn't really matter because they have nothing to do with each other. IT has already been explained that bones fossilizing is an extreme rarity, this is why there aren't more bones as you say, it has nothing to do with whether or not animals are adapting and therefore changing over time.

posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 04:43 PM

Great post, interesting to read, I think you layed it out very well helps me to understand how everything fits together thanks.

posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 04:47 PM

Originally posted by andersensrm

Great post, interesting to read, I think you layed it out very well helps me to understand how everything fits together thanks.

Your more than welcome...trying not to converse directly with certain posters, trying for a subliminal approach...lol

posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 05:46 PM

So let me get this straight...
Macroevolution is not visible in a lab.
It takes to long of a time period to see changes.
These changes have been going on foever, but the only bones that could prove it, are so old that they are now dust.
Even with the advanced technology we have, there is no way we could observe the subtle changes before any bones would turn to dust.
All bones that have been found are proof of evolution in one form or another, we just have no way to specifically prove it.
We can observe speciation in a lab, just not macroevolution.
Speciation is real in humans and all living forms, even though its only been observed in bacteria and viruses.
Macroevolution is real even though there is no bones or fossils to prove it, and its to slow of a process to witness.

Come on people, what color is the lable for the snake oil?

posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 05:51 PM

Originally posted by itsthetooth

So let me get this straight...
Macroevolution is not visible in a lab.
It takes to long of a time period to see changes.
These changes have been going on foever, but the only bones that could prove it, are so old that they are now dust.
Even with the advanced technology we have, there is no way we could observe the subtle changes before any bones would turn to dust.
All bones that have been found are proof of evolution in one form or another, we just have no way to specifically prove it.
We can observe speciation in a lab, just not macroevolution.
Speciation is real in humans and all living forms, even though its only been observed in bacteria and viruses.
Macroevolution is real even though there is no bones or fossils to prove it, and its to slow of a process to witness.

Come on people, what color is the lable for the snake oil?

Macroevolution is just a lot of microevolution over time. Microevolution is producible in a lab, and thus macro is just the logical multiplication of micro.

It does take a long time for the changes to accumulate to the point where they are significant to our perspective.

The changes have been going on forever, and because of the time span, most of the bones have decomposed. The ones that haven't got fossilized, and we have found a great deal of them which help show what the previous forms of modern creatures are, connected by the similarities and environments. Theories are devised which suggest why different species evolved to have different traits over time.

Even with our advanced technology, we cannot travel backward in time, no.

We can prove that the fossils are ancestors. It's easy because of the traits we share with them. The more they look like us, the closer they are. Simple, eh?

Speciation has been observed in plenty of animals, but like many other things, it takes time, more time in animals with long reproductive cycles like humans.

I'm sorry, you have no concept of time? Oh, well if that's the case then STOP TALKING.
edit on 27-2-2012 by Varemia because: typo

posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 07:29 PM

Originally posted by itsthetooth

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
These posts are the tip of the iceberg in this thread. You really need to work on your reading comprehension, this is getting stupid.

I see, so because I have been told things, I'm just suppose to be gullible and accept them as truth.

What like Pye

Your not really being told things, your being shown things that are empirical and demonstrable.
You have failed in giving any of us anything that can be tested.
No one wants you to be gullible, if you have a problem with the data I'm sure all of us would love to hear your hypothesis and yes we need proof not "I'm being told and don't believe it". NO blanket statements! Point by point proof.
That's what I mean by meat.
edit on 27-2-2012 by flyingfish because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 07:43 PM
I also wonder why is it you can put so much stock and faith in beliefs that cannot be demonstrated or proved, but when it comes to things that can be shown, your in complete denial.
There's a story there, maybe the truth is just to much and fantasy fills the void of Infallibility.

posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 08:10 PM

Macroevolution is just a lot of microevolution over time. Microevolution is producible in a lab, and thus macro is just the logical multiplication of micro.
Which simply means that in hypothetical theory, it should work.

It does take a long time for the changes to accumulate to the point where they are significant to our perspective.
That doesn't mean they are invisible.

The changes have been going on forever, and because of the time span, most of the bones have decomposed. The ones that haven't got fossilized, and we have found a great deal of them which help show what the previous forms of modern creatures are, connected by the similarities and environments. Theories are devised which suggest why different species evolved to have different traits over time.
Just no bones of fossils, even though they have been going on forever.

Even with our advanced technology, we cannot travel backward in time, no.
We don't have to, the evidence is among us, or in this case the lack of.

We can prove that the fossils are ancestors. It's easy because of the traits we share with them. The more they look like us, the closer they are. Simple, eh?
Sharring traits is not proof of evolution, its speculation and only proves sharring of traits.

Speciation has been observed in plenty of animals, but like many other things, it takes time, more time in animals with long reproductive cycles like humans.
Speciation is such minute differences that those could be mistaken as normal acceptable changes within the species to begin with such as blue eyes and brown eyes.

I'm sorry, you have no concept of time? Oh, well if that's the case then STOP TALKING.
And I guess you have been around for millions of years to witness macroevolution.

posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 08:12 PM

What like Pye
Your not really being told things, your being shown things that are empirical and demonstrable.
You have failed in giving any of us anything that can be tested.
No one wants you to be gullible, if you have a problem with the data I'm sure all of us would love to hear your hypothesis and yes we need proof not "I'm being told and don't believe it". NO blanket statements! Point by point proof.
That's what I mean by meat
You ask for peer related reviews, and get the cold harsh facts from Pye then reject it based on no names being given. Do the test yourself and see what you come up with. His findings are on the table and all you have to do is challenge them.

posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 08:17 PM

I also wonder why is it you can put so much stock and faith in beliefs that cannot be demonstrated or proved, but when it comes to things that can be shown, your in complete denial.
There's a story there, maybe the truth is just to much and fantasy fills the void of Infallibility.
Intervention is a documented event back in time. Of course its not provable. Now evolution, should be provable, with no room for excuses. We have all the evidence we need to close the book on that one and everyone is just twiddleing there thumbs coming up with theorys as to why we have no proof.

I say enough is enough.
Anyone can say god was a space alien, but its soemthing completly different when its actually documented, in addition to how and why we are here.
The reason why evolution is not able to come up with cold hard evidence is because there is none. There will never be evidence of intervention.
But wait, actually there is.
Our DNA has been tampered with and this claim stands unchallenged.
Now you can't say that humans did it, we don't have that technology. So I ask, who, just who do you think did this to us?
edit on 27-2-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 10:55 PM

Originally posted by itsthetooth

I also wonder why is it you can put so much stock and faith in beliefs that cannot be demonstrated or proved, but when it comes to things that can be shown, your in complete denial.
There's a story there, maybe the truth is just to much and fantasy fills the void of Infallibility.
Intervention is a documented event back in time. Of course its not provable. Now evolution, should be provable, with no room for excuses. We have all the evidence we need to close the book on that one and everyone is just twiddleing there thumbs coming up with theorys as to why we have no proof.

I say enough is enough.
Anyone can say god was a space alien, but its soemthing completly different when its actually documented, in addition to how and why we are here.
The reason why evolution is not able to come up with cold hard evidence is because there is none. There will never be evidence of intervention.
But wait, actually there is.
Our DNA has been tampered with and this claim stands unchallenged.
Now you can't say that humans did it, we don't have that technology. So I ask, who, just who do you think did this to us?
edit on 27-2-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)

There's plenty of evidence of evolution, just go back and look at the hundreds of pages of posts of people providing it to you. Of course this evidence isn't "good" enough. Which is where we come to the end. You can't prove anything to the degree people want it. We can't prove the sky is blue or that gravity exists, so what's the point.

posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 11:34 PM

Originally posted by itsthetooth

What like Pye
Your not really being told things, your being shown things that are empirical and demonstrable.
You have failed in giving any of us anything that can be tested.
No one wants you to be gullible, if you have a problem with the data I'm sure all of us would love to hear your hypothesis and yes we need proof not "I'm being told and don't believe it". NO blanket statements! Point by point proof.
That's what I mean by meat
You ask for peer related reviews, and get the cold harsh facts from Pye then reject it based on no names being given. Do the test yourself and see what you come up with. His findings are on the table and all you have to do is challenge them.

If these are cold hard facts then show me.
It's not up to me to prove it, you know this.

posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 11:39 PM

Originally posted by itsthetooth

I also wonder why is it you can put so much stock and faith in beliefs that cannot be demonstrated or proved, but when it comes to things that can be shown, your in complete denial.
There's a story there, maybe the truth is just to much and fantasy fills the void of Infallibility.
Intervention is a documented event back in time. Of course its not provable. Now evolution, should be provable, with no room for excuses. We have all the evidence we need to close the book on that one and everyone is just twiddleing there thumbs coming up with theorys as to why we have no proof.

I say enough is enough.
Anyone can say god was a space alien, but its soemthing completly different when its actually documented, in addition to how and why we are here.
The reason why evolution is not able to come up with cold hard evidence is because there is none. There will never be evidence of intervention.
But wait, actually there is.
Our DNA has been tampered with and this claim stands unchallenged.
Now you can't say that humans did it, we don't have that technology. So I ask, who, just who do you think did this to us?
edit on 27-2-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)

This is junk, you expect me to work with this?
Give me something to chew on.

posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 03:21 AM

Originally posted by itsthetooth

Macroevolution is just a lot of microevolution over time. Microevolution is producible in a lab, and thus macro is just the logical multiplication of micro.
Which simply means that in hypothetical theory, it should work.

Who says it doesn't? Scientists don't artificially separate micro and macro evolution, because it's the same exact thing and there no mechanism (even hypothesized one) that would at some point step in and prevent further change.

We can prove that the fossils are ancestors. It's easy because of the traits we share with them. The more they look like us, the closer they are. Simple, eh?
Sharring traits is not proof of evolution, its speculation and only proves sharring of traits.

Finding even one 100 million year old rabbit, human (or basically any other contemporary animal) fossil would disprove evolution. Yet no such discovery has ever been made among the 100s of thousands (or millions) of fossils that have been unearthed so far. This proves without a doubt that e.g. rabbits did not exist 100 million years ago, yet now they're here. However, we do see lineages and can speculate which fossils are ancestors of present day rabbits.

posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 03:23 AM

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Our DNA has been tampered with and this claim stands unchallenged.

I challenge this. Which region of which chromosome shows signs of being tampered with? P.s. As far as I'm aware no serious (scientific fact backed up) claim of tampering has ever been made. How about denying ignorance while reading stuff from random fringe web pages?
edit on 28-2-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 08:47 AM

Originally posted by idmonster
Darwins conundrum.

Before genetics came along, one of the biggest misunderstandings of heritability was that it was assumed that traits blended. A simple description will suffice to demonstrate the concept.

We will assume that height is a heritable trait for the purposes of this explanation.

If one parent is 6 foot tall, and the other is 5 foot tall, then the offspring should be 5 and a half foot tall. This would demonstrate that the child is a mix of its parent’s traits.

When Darwin wrote the Origin of the Species, many scientists and mathematicians pointed that evolution could not occur due to the species reverting to the mean. By their understanding, if out of one hundred rabbits, 50 of them could run at 30 (type A) miles an hour and 50 could run at 20 miles an hour (type B), then eventually, all of the rabbits would end up running at 25 miles an hour (Type C). This would offer no evolutionary advantage. No matter how many Type A rabbits bred, it would only take a single Type B rabbit to cause the offspring to revert to a Type C, and no matter how often a type C bred with a type A, it would never reach its maximum potential of the ability to reach speeds of 30 miles an hour.

Not a Blend.

Then, in the mid 1800’s, Gregor Mendel began experimenting with pea plants, while trying to breed an intermediate size plant, he noticed that when he bred tall and short plants, he always got 3 to 1 on tall plants, and no intermediates. He hypothesised that the parent plants each contributed half of “themselves” to the child and that tall always dominated over short. Mendel again knew nothing of genetics, so how did he come to his conclusion of dominant traits?

Assuming his hypothesis was correct, that each parent supplied half of something and that “tall was dominant, the possible configurations are as follows:

T+T = Tall – Tall is dominant and expressed
S+T = Tall – Tall is dominant and expressed
T+S = Tall – Tall is dominant and expressed
S+S = Short – Tall is not available to be expressed

In all of Mendel’s experiments, he observed time and again the same ratio of tall to short. He went on to experiment with flower colours and identified other dominant traits within the pea plants.

Be vewy vewy qwiet…I’m hunting wabbits!

Mendel’s experiments demonstrated to the scientific community that reversion to the mean within a species was not correct, that the “30 mile an hour-Type A “rabbits could continue to bred and produce Type A offspring regardless of which type they bred with, more importantly, a dominant trait that also offered a survival advantage would quickly spread throughout the entire population. Conversely, a dominant gene that didn’t provide a survival advantage would quickly be selected against by natural selection, making the remaining gene, dominant by default.

Of course, genes do not always remain dominant, and traits within a species are expressed due to combinations of genes rather that the effect of individual genes acting in solitude. The expression of dominance or submitance of a gene can be affected by random mutation to an otherwise unconnected gene. It should also be noted that the real “speed” of the type A rabbits would be within a range. (e.g. 28 to 32 miles per hour)

Evolution.

As with all of the evolutionary argument in this thread, it is the small changes that add up to the overall expression of traits within a species, genes are expressed at an individual level but are selected for or against at species level. Type A rabbits at the higher end of the speed spectrum would be selected for at a species level if the only factor were outrunning predator animals, however Type B rabbits might have better sense of smell and therefore be better able to identify when predators were near. Both types would have a survival advantage and live long enough to produce a Type D rabbit, as fast as a Type A, as olfactory acute as a Type B, but as the sum, better equipped to survive than the component parts.

And population experts of the day pointed out that traits would become diluted over time, not passed on. Too bad Darwin never read Mendel--it would have solved that problem in a stroke.

posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 10:16 AM

Originally posted by HappyBunny
And population experts of the day pointed out that traits would become diluted over time, not passed on. Too bad Darwin never read Mendel--it would have solved that problem in a stroke.

Both Richard Dawkins and my Bio Anth teacher have said the exact same thing. Darwin was a smart guy, but he just didn't have enough facts to refine his theory.

posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 10:37 AM

First of all if evolution was provable like your indicating, we wouldn't have religion any more. I still see lots of it. Further more it would have been listed as the main reason for creation in the mtDNA definition, and we wouldn't have 6 segments of our dna that have been removed, inverted, and reinserted.

posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 10:39 AM

Google human genetics by lloyd pye.

new topics

top topics

31