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.

 

Can you prove evolution wrong?*

page: 262
31
<< 259  260  261    263  264  265 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 


Well this is obviously why we have a disagreement, I don't think documentation is junk and you do.




posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 





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.
There is no difference but you still can't prove it in a lab.
I call BS on that. I think that if scientists wanted to, they could prove just about any subtle changes they wanted to. It's just an excuse, based into a theory to explain the impossible.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 





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.
Thats because your omitting the bible. it's possible those were brought here. No reason for me to believe that but I'm just saying.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 





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?
Google Lloyd Pye Human genetics.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by rhinoceros
 





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.
There is no difference but you still can't prove it in a lab.
I call BS on that. I think that if scientists wanted to, they could prove just about any subtle changes they wanted to. It's just an excuse, based into a theory to explain the impossible.

How do you expect 'macro' (please also give a definition for what differentiates micro and macro) to take place in a lab, where typical experiments last some weeks (some years in most extreme cases)? This stuff requires thousands (more like 100s of thousands or millions) of years. Of course farmers have done some macro, look no further than all domesticated animals. Surely e.g. the difference between a pig and a wild boar counts as macro, e.g. they look nothing alike.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by rhinoceros
 





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.
Thats because your omitting the bible. it's possible those were brought here. No reason for me to believe that but I'm just saying.

Oh, OK. None (few exceptions perhaps) of the contemporary animals existed say 100 million years ago, yet as we've unearthed fossils we've come across species that look more and more similar (the younger the bones) to contemporary animals. But that doesn't mean anything. It's more likely that God wiped out everything and then created animals that just happen to fit the "progressing" model perfectly. Yeah, that makes so much sense. Why did God make mitochondria of all animals, plants, fungi, etc. look awful lot like alphaproteobacteria with 'degraded' genomes? I could design a better functioning cellular energy factory myself (to begin with I'd remove all the unnecessary stuff like intergenic spacers, also I'd optimize codon usage so that there was just one for each amino acid and that these would also pair canonically with their corresponding tRNAs). Why couldn't God do this? E.g. some human (also vertebrate in general) mitochondrial tRNAs need to be edited so that they can read all the codons of the coding sequences. In many cases tRNAs actually need to be transported from the cytoplasm into mitochondria. This stuff wastes energy..
edit on 28-2-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by rhinoceros
 





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?
Google Lloyd Pye Human genetics.

He apparently has a degree in psychology? I don't think he's qualified to speak about genetics. So I ask you again, which region of which chromosome shows signs of being tampered?

edit. ok I watched the vid.

his points

1. How can we have 2 chromosomes less than chimps and orangutangs?
Because in our ancestral lineage two chromosomes fused from their ends. The ends of chromosomes carry repetitive telomere sequences, so it's not very difficult to see this happening through homologous recombination. Contrary to his (uneducated) claim, fused chromosomes are actually quite frequent in nature. It boils down to simple chemistry. NOT A SIGN OF TAMPERING

2. How come humans have higher frequency of genetic defects than chimps?
Because i) our ancestral gene pool was much smaller than that of chimps, and ii) we don't even know if this claim is true, human DNA studies vastly outnumber chimp DNA studies (not much money to be made here) so it can also be just sampling effect. AGAIN: NOT A SIGN OF TAMPERING

Also, perhaps since he's not a geneticist, he completely misunderstood what mitochondrial eve was. Humans didn't come into existence 200,000 years ago, it just that the last woman to whom we can all trace our common ancestry lived around that time (this is a genetic bottleneck). Our cerebral cortex didn't grow to what it is today in 200,000 years. Its differentiation from chimp cerebral cortex began when the two lineages split millions of years ago (this is just basic f****** logic that dear Pye utterly failed to understand)!

In short: this guy does not know at all what he is talking about. It was quite funny vid thou
Also, please think for a minute or two why you believe the claims of some fringe guy and why is it that you don't even bother to check if the claims are true or not?
edit on 28-2-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 





How do you expect 'macro' (please also give a definition for what differentiates micro and macro) to take place in a lab, where typical experiments last some weeks (some years in most extreme cases)? This stuff requires thousands (more like 100s of thousands or millions) of years. Of course farmers have done some macro, look no further than all domesticated animals. Surely e.g. the difference between a pig and a wild boar counts as macro, e.g. they look nothing alike.
Which means that not only should we have bones and fossils that confirm this but also be able to detect subtle changes in a lab. No lab has come forward to confirm this. It's just a lame excuse that its subtle, but yet we have bones that are millions of years old that they can test. They aren't coming up with anything because there are no changes.

Those subtle changes that are seen in a lab, are changes that the species would normally do, still being the same species. We have never found any bones or fossils proving any transgression of over 5 million species on this planet.

Your trying to use the excuse that the changes cant be detected because they are subtle, and I'm saying BS.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 





1. How can we have 2 chromosomes less than chimps and orangutangs?
Because in our ancestral lineage two chromosomes fused from their ends. The ends of chromosomes carry repetitive telomere sequences, so it's not very difficult to see this happening through homologous recombination. Contrary to his (uneducated) claim, fused chromosomes are actually quite frequent in nature. It boils down to simple chemistry. NOT A SIGN OF TAMPERING
See here is where the problem is. just because fusing has been found in the wild, doesn't mean it happened naturally.




2. How come humans have higher frequency of genetic defects than chimps?
Because i) our ancestral gene pool was much smaller than that of chimps, and ii) we don't even know if this claim is true, human DNA studies vastly outnumber chimp DNA studies (not much money to be made here) so it can also be just sampling effect. AGAIN: NOT A SIGN OF TAMPERING
I disagree, fusing is an advanced technique only possible in labs. We have never witnessed it occurring in the wild. You can't make an assumption that it just happens unless you can recreate it. Now as far as in a lab, there you go, we can recreate it.

There are six segments that have been removed, inverted and reinserted. Obvious tampering.




Also, perhaps since he's not a geneticist, he completely misunderstood what mitochondrial eve was. Humans didn't come into existence 200,000 years ago, it just that the last woman to whom we can all trace our common ancestry lived around that time (this is a genetic bottleneck). Our cerebral cortex didn't grow to what it is today in 200,000 years. Its differentiation from chimp cerebral cortex began when the two lineages split millions of years ago (this is just basic f****** logic that dear Pye utterly failed to understand)!
Which could be true, but you don't know about the lab that assisted him with this.

We never evolved from chimps, your cracking me up. There has never been a shred of evidence that even supports the possibility. What there is, is speculation, based on how similliar our DNA is to chimps. 97% I believe but at the same time our DNA is also 70% matching with rats, and we look nothing like them.




In short: this guy does not know at all what he is talking about. It was quite funny vid thou
Now hes obviously working with a lab, but I'm just suppose to take your word for it right? What lab have you worked with?



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by rhinoceros
 





How do you expect 'macro' (please also give a definition for what differentiates micro and macro) to take place in a lab, where typical experiments last some weeks (some years in most extreme cases)? This stuff requires thousands (more like 100s of thousands or millions) of years. Of course farmers have done some macro, look no further than all domesticated animals. Surely e.g. the difference between a pig and a wild boar counts as macro, e.g. they look nothing alike.
Which means that not only should we have bones and fossils that confirm this but also be able to detect subtle changes in a lab. No lab has come forward to confirm this. It's just a lame excuse that its subtle, but yet we have bones that are millions of years old that they can test. They aren't coming up with anything because there are no changes.

Those subtle changes that are seen in a lab, are changes that the species would normally do, still being the same species. We have never found any bones or fossils proving any transgression of over 5 million species on this planet.

Your trying to use the excuse that the changes cant be detected because they are subtle, and I'm saying BS.

We have bones that show clear progression. This is a fact and it does not matter how many times you claim otherwise. And what exactly haven't labs confirmed yet? There are only one kinds of bones that we have never found (with some living relics exceptions), and that is bones that are millions of years old, but also identical to those of contemporary species. You need to find just one 100 million year old rabbit fossil to disprove evolution. But no. This has never happened.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 





Also, perhaps since he's not a geneticist, he completely misunderstood what mitochondrial eve was. Humans didn't come into existence 200,000 years ago, it just that the last woman to whom we can all trace our common ancestry lived around that time (this is a genetic bottleneck). Our cerebral cortex didn't grow to what it is today in 200,000 years. Its differentiation from chimp cerebral cortex began when the two lineages split millions of years ago (this is just basic f****** logic that dear Pye utterly failed to understand)!
I do agree with you on the mtDNA however.

I can see how it has caused a lot of confusion for a lot of people, including naming it mitochondrial eve.

So since you seem to be on the top of things at least on the mtDNA, can you tell me your views on how it is that they claim to have mapped the entire genome, but seem to be withholding our true age



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
See here is where the problem is. just because fusing has been found in the wild, doesn't mean it happened naturally.

The fusion of chromosomes is a natural event. It has been detected in for example deers (DOI:10.1007/s00412-003-0262-4), flies (Genetics. 1935 July; 20(4): 327–341), human cell lineages (EMBO J. 1994 October 17; 13(20): 4953–4962), grasshoppers (DOI: 10.1007/BF00330356), bears (DOI:10.1159/000132455), and plants (DOI:10.1007/BF00982962). Further still, it's detected in completely healthy humans quite frequently (other than chromosome 2 I mean).



I disagree, fusing is an advanced technique only possible in labs. We have never witnessed it occurring in the wild. You can't make an assumption that it just happens unless you can recreate it. Now as far as in a lab, there you go, we can recreate it.

There are six segments that have been removed, inverted and reinserted. Obvious tampering.

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Just see the cited articles above for example. Further still chromosomal fusions ALWAYS happens at the ends of the chromosomes by the telomere sequences. In lab it's completely different. We cut DNA with restriction enzymes (obtained from viruses), and then fuse pieces together with DNA ligases. This is nothing like chromosomes fusing from their ends.





Also, perhaps since he's not a geneticist, he completely misunderstood what mitochondrial eve was. Humans didn't come into existence 200,000 years ago, it just that the last woman to whom we can all trace our common ancestry lived around that time (this is a genetic bottleneck). Our cerebral cortex didn't grow to what it is today in 200,000 years. Its differentiation from chimp cerebral cortex began when the two lineages split millions of years ago (this is just basic f****** logic that dear Pye utterly failed to understand)!

Which could be true, but you don't know about the lab that assisted him with this.

We never evolved from chimps, your cracking me up. There has never been a shred of evidence that even supports the possibility. What there is, is speculation, based on how similliar our DNA is to chimps. 97% I believe but at the same time our DNA is also 70% matching with rats, and we look nothing like them.

I did not write that we evolved from chimps. I wrote that the differentiation of human and chimp cerebral cortexes began when the lineages split millions of years ago (after our last common ancestor), and not when the last common female ancestor of all humans lived some 200,000 years ago. Also, the percentages you mention are probably about average nucleotide identity similarities between protein-coding genes. Genes alone don't dictate how organisms develop, as gene expression patterns are just as important (what gene is expressed when how much..).



Now hes obviously working with a lab, but I'm just suppose to take your word for it right? What lab have you worked with?

He's obviously not working with a lab. This shouldn't matter, but yes, I work in a lab (I'm not telling which one because I enjoy my anonymity).
edit on 28-2-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by rhinoceros
 





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.
There is no difference but you still can't prove it in a lab.
I call BS on that. I think that if scientists wanted to, they could prove just about any subtle changes they wanted to. It's just an excuse, based into a theory to explain the impossible.


So you admit that there is no difference between micro and macro evolution, and even though evolution has been observed in numerous lifeforms in a lab, still claim that evolution somehow can't happen over a long period of time? That makes no sense at all and now you're just stretching the truth while desperately clinging on to Pye, a guy who still hasn't released his lab results, which again have nothing to do with evolution. There is no reason to ever suggest that evolution has ever stopped. It has been observed in every organism ever studied on that level. Find me one single creature that has been shown in a lab to not experience genetic mutation. That's all it would take to disprove evolution, but that will never happen, not in humans, not in lizards, not in bacteria. Evolution happens in all lifeforms, regardless of your personal beliefs on the subject. Where did all modern life come from if it didn't exist on earth during the dinosaur era? Without evolution you are faced with a dilemma. Under your theory of intervention, not just all mammals, but virtually all modern life would have to be brought here since it didn't exist in the past. There is no other possibility without evolution, which has been observed many times, and no lab work has ever contradicted it.


Which means that not only should we have bones and fossils that confirm this but also be able to detect subtle changes in a lab. No lab has come forward to confirm this.

We DO have bones and fossils that confirm this. Why do you keep repeating this blatant lie? It's been verified by bones, fossils and DNA.
edit on 28-2-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
So since you seem to be on the top of things at least on the mtDNA, can you tell me your views on how it is that they claim to have mapped the entire genome, but seem to be withholding our true age

The human genome (of a few individuals) have been entirely sequenced and arranged into scaffolds, and this data is publicly available for example thru NCBI and EMBL websites. There is also a lot of data on what parts of the genome are transcribed into RNA. This is also in public domain. Nobody is withholding anything.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





So you admit that there is no difference between micro and macro evolution, and even though evolution has been observed in numerous lifeforms in a lab, still claim that evolution somehow can't happen over a long period of time? That makes no sense at all and now you're just stretching the truth while desperately clinging on to Pye, a guy who still hasn't released his lab results, which again have nothing to do with evolution. There is no reason to ever suggest that evolution has ever stopped. It has been observed in every organism ever studied on that level. Find me one single creature that has been shown in a lab to not experience genetic mutation. That's all it would take to disprove evolution, but that will never happen, not in humans, not in lizards, not in bacteria. Evolution happens in all lifeforms, regardless of your personal beliefs on the subject. Where did all modern life come from if it didn't exist on earth during the dinosaur era? Without evolution you are faced with a dilemma. Under your theory of intervention, not just all mammals, but virtually all modern life would have to be brought here since it didn't exist in the past. There is no other possibility without evolution, which has been observed many times, and no lab work has ever contradicted it.
No, the idea of it could be the same, but it has never been proven. How are they going to prove it to be the same when they can't even witness macro evolution in a lab?



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





We DO have bones and fossils that confirm this. Why do you keep repeating this blatant lie? It's been verified by bones, fossils and DNA.
No there are some they have assumed show relation, none that have been tested to prove so.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 





The human genome (of a few individuals) have been entirely sequenced and arranged into scaffolds, and this data is publicly available for example thru NCBI and EMBL websites. There is also a lot of data on what parts of the genome are transcribed into RNA. This is also in public domain. Nobody is withholding anything.
Well that's perfect, I'm glad they got off the ground on this.

So since you have all the answers, how old is the human race?



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
No, the idea of it could be the same, but it has never been proven. How are they going to prove it to be the same when they can't even witness macro evolution in a lab?

How are you going to prove 'macro' evolution in a lab? As I said the time required is so massive that even if we started an experiment 100 years ago, we'd still be waiting for results 10,000 years from now. Also, this experiment has already been done in nature. Just look at any isolated island. Think of them as labs. How are the results? Isn't it so, that we tend to find species that are peculiarly different from species living in the mainland?

edit on 28-2-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by rhinoceros
 



The human genome (of a few individuals) have been entirely sequenced and arranged into scaffolds, and this data is publicly available for example thru NCBI and EMBL websites. There is also a lot of data on what parts of the genome are transcribed into RNA. This is also in public domain. Nobody is withholding anything.
Well that's perfect, I'm glad they got off the ground on this.
So since you have all the answers, how old is the human race?

Species is an artificial concept, but for example according to the evolutionary species concept, it's a population of organisms that are isolated in reproduction from other populations. Humans and chimps began this process some 8-10 million years ago (not bothering to check the most recent estimate). The chimp lineage divided into many more species out of which two are still around today (chimps and bonobo), likewise the human lineage divided into many more species, and some of those fused at least a little bit (us with neanderthals), but only one remains (us).
edit on 28-2-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
No, the idea of it could be the same, but it has never been proven. How are they going to prove it to be the same when they can't even witness macro evolution in a lab?


Tooth, it HAS been proven, mainly because of genetics. Not only do we see the physical difference in fossil specimens, but we see the exact same change in genetics. Before genetics, Darwin could only go based on fossils and physical appearance, but now that we've discovered so much about DNA, it confirms and shows the same exact thing that the fossils suggest.


No there are some they have assumed show relation, none that have been tested to prove so.

Yes, DNA tests do INDEED prove exactly that.
edit on 28-2-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
31
<< 259  260  261    263  264  265 >>

log in

join