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: 487
31
<< 484  485  486    488  489  490 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 





HAHAHAHAHAHAHA Ants and cows and telephone books could be the same species to the anteater.
They don't contain the same nutrients so no.




posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by mastermindkar
 





The atmospheric conditions have been significantly altered from the original conditions by the presence of life-forms,[7] which create an ecological balance that stabilizes the surface conditions.


If the presence of life-forms stabilizes surface conditions, that means that conditions were less stable before that. Thus, the instability must be natural. I don't know why you assume living must be easy,
The first sentence to me could also mean that things are no longer the way they were from being original. You have to remember that the planet is going to fall into it's own balance based on the life that remains on this planet, but there will always be species here that conflict. As an example, bacteria and viruses, might flourish as outsiders were brought here. So it really depends on what they mean exactly by the surface conditions. Are they referring to viruses and bacteria, are they referring to all the life here, are they referring to life in the dirt. It's very complex.




This doesn't make sense unless one assumes you have eschewed the biological definition of "species" in favor of the much broader general definition:
"a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind." (As per dictionary.com)
This seems to significantly broaden the possibilities for target food. Which is all well and good, except I was hoping you could be more specific and not less.
Well target food doesn't change, it was either meant to be food or not. Not to be confused with a species starving and about to go extinct so they venture off their normal menu.




Also, please elaborate on your idea of a "food scale." I am unfamiliar with the concept and am interested in how it applies to your ideas
Just like a food group, species are starving so venturing to other things to suppliement whats missing. Keep in mind that its a desperate act and the original target food can never be replaced as it is ideal for that species. So they are just substituiting.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





It's not just fantasy...a TON of it is DEMONSTRABLY wrong
Next your going to tell me that you single handedly proved the bible wrong, and also proved that supernatural things don't exists.

There are no such things as other life forms beyond earth, there are no such abilities as psycics, ghosts, spirits, and you know this to be fact because YOU never see or hear them.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





It's not just fantasy...a TON of it is DEMONSTRABLY wrong
Next your going to tell me that you single handedly proved the bible wrong, and also proved that supernatural things don't exists.

There are no such things as other life forms beyond earth, there are no such abilities as psycics, ghosts, spirits, and you know this to be fact because YOU never see or hear them.


Of course the bible is demonstrably wrong in hundreds of cases, not just when it comes to science but also when it comes to history. And that's a FACT!

The bible tells us what people 2000 years ago BELIEVED based on their compared to today limited knowledge. And when they couldn't explain something (like a comet for example), they filled that gap in knowledge with magic...spirits, gods, or ghosts.

The funny thing is, a lot of those things can now be explained rationally without having to imply magic. You are essentially using the old god of the gaps argument but replace god(s) with aliens


We DON'T KNOW if there's alien life out there, we don't know if something like ghosts exists...and we don't know if god(s) exist. Why don't we know that? BECAUSE THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE (!!!) EVIDENCE SUGGESTING THOSE THINGS EXIST!!

So quit living in fantasy land and switch on that brain of yours. Accept that there's things we don't know, and quit attacking proven theories by using childish uneducated arguments that aren''t based on logic.

Also, sit down and FINALLY read at least the basic wiki article about evolution so you can stop saying dumb stuff like "they never found a transitional species"


PLEASE do that, after all those hundreds of pages it's almost painful to watch you crash like the Titanic in slow motion over and over and over and over and over again!

I'm not even gonna comment on you trying to argue against evolution by asking people to think like a friggin' anteater

edit on 1-8-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Oh, and just as an example for where the bible is wrong:




Samuel 22:8 Then the earth shook and trembled; the foundations of heaven moved and shook, because he was wroth.


So in the bible, god is taking credit for earth quakes.

WE CAN EXPLAIN EARTHQUAKES RATIONALLY!! For crying out loud dude, we live in the 21st century!

And no, just in case you believe that part in the bible too, birds didn't exist before insects


Look, I respect your belief...believe whatever you want in fact, that's your right. But if you try to argue against a scientific theory that's fully backed up by objective evidence and actively applied in modern medicine...then you will need a better argument than a personal belief that's based a book that is demonstrably not accurate.
edit on 1-8-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by idmonster
 


This is why I said and why I keep saying that you can't claim evoltuion is making changes, when you haven't identified whats causing the changes, then I found that article about ADHD changing genes.


And nobody has claimed that evolution is making changes...nobody except you.

BTW, did you read the article, because it didnt state that ADHD changes genes. In fact, when you posted it you stated that smoking causes the changes that lead to ADHD , which can then be inherited.

Once again you have confused cause and effect.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



No is more like you have never once proved me wrong on anything I have presented that proves we are not from here.
Correct. I have proven you and your nonsense wrong thousands of times But how does your answer address:

So it is not everyone in this thread that are incredulous it is everyone on this site but never, and I mean never does it occur to you that it maybe you talk a load of old ball Shine


Thats only because the topic is in high debate, and most people aren't willing to understand it to begin with. That which has nothing to do with how true it is.
The only thing that is high is the way your subjects stink. That is why all your threads are in ATS Skunk Works. It has everything to do with how true it is, your nonsense just stinks. ATS Skunk Works is you could say, your threads target environment.
and they are all intellectually redundant.



Just because more people are inclinded to believe in evolution over intervention doesn't prove it right. Look at how many people believe in religion, are they correct?
Typically cowardly response. You claim you want to test you views yet you are too scared to post a thread entitled 'Target Food Proves Evolution Wrong' because you know where it would go. Pathetic and again you fail to rise to my challenge to win the right to use target food in this thread as you always fail to do. Pathetic.

You use the word incredulous a lot but it is another word you do not know the meaning of.


Edit: You have started 9 threads. 7 of them are in ATS Skunk Works. That must be a record


1. Why we need medical intervention
2. What's for dinner?
3. Is it possible we have disabled powers?
4. God was an space alien returns
5. Opposable thumbs
6. Why does proof DNA that god was not our creator put me in in skunk works?
7. It's official, god was a space alien and NOT our real creator,

That is some smelly pile of rot. Well done



edit on 1-8-2012 by colin42 because: Skunk Tooth



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



The ONLY thing you have proven is that your incredulous.
You use that word again to hide from addressing my point as usual.

'I have proven your twaddle wrong so many times and in so many ways that shows you are just a pathetic waste of my time.' Pathetic



I have a better idea, you prove it wrong, and I'll leave it from here.
Trust me when I tell you that you and ideas are not good bed fellows. So I take it you are too incredulous and cowardly to put your money where your mouth is:

'As in my other reply to you. Post a new topic. Make up a thread and call it 'Target Food Proves Evolution Wrong'. If it does not end up in Skunks within three pages you can use it here.'


As if your the thread god that just makes a decision of who can be on here and who cant.
Nope. You seem to see gods everywhere. I just refuse to accept your silly 'target food' crap as it has been shown nonsense many times and there is a limit to how many times I need to prove it and you wrong.


Oddly enough the stuff thats kicking your butt you don't want on here, only because its such a threat to the precious little evolution.
What a pathetic answer. Just admit you are more yellow than a canary.



Being placed in skunk works requires an opinion about the topic to place it there. Did it ever occur to you that just maybe that opinion might be wrong.
Does it occur to you that your opinion may be wrong?



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 06:04 PM
link   
I'm a programmer and I'm convinced that Sponge Bob disproves Darwin! and yes, I'm serious.


I think biologists are too busy focusing on bacteria and viruses in their small petri dishes and they just can't see the big picture as a whole.

If you open your eyes you have to notice, that there are three levels of organization and complexity in biology:

“- The first level is molecular organization. In every living cell there is a highly sophisticated and complex system in operation, which controls the secretion and organization of different molecules like proteins and enzymes.
- The second level is the multicellular organization. In most multicellular organisms there are different types of cells that must be differentiated and organized in order to assemble and maintain the existence of a multicellular life form.
- The third level is the ecological organization. This level refers to the differentiation and selection of different species. This process is just as complex and vital as the previous levels. We are dependant on plants and insects just as much as we are on blood cells and neurons. Our existence relies on the current specific equilibrium. All kinds of biological equilibrium is possible, and the support of intelligence is not a necessity.
I have to point out, that our equilibrium is not a product of a long-term balancing and tuning process, but during a geologically rapid event - Cambrian explosion - just the right types of organisms happened to evolve and the right kind of differentiations occurred .

It is a fact that the first level of organization is controlled by encoded gene expressions. It is also a fact that the second level is controlled by gene expressions and gene regulations. I think it is reasonable to think, that the third level is also controlled by pretty much the same way. “

The similarity between ontogeny and evolution can't be denied, even Darwin saw an evidence for evolution in embryology. We have to see though, that ontogeny is not driven by mutations, but by precoded instructions.

Isn't it possible then, that the first cell was not a simple bacteria, but a primordial stem cell, that already carried the instructions for an entire evolution, as a fertilized ovum carries the genetic information for an ontogeny?

Actually there are solid proofs that this is exactly what actually happened! This is where Sponge Bob comes into the picture. Sponges are the most primitive multicellular animals on the planet, and yet they possess astonishingly rich genetic resources and we share 70% of our genes with them.
The incremental, gradual accumulation of genes is a myth. We can see that a creature that is so primitive as the sea-sponge can have just as complex genome as any other animal. If we compare genome sizes and the number of genes between different species we can't say that birds have more complex DNA than fish or that fish have more complex DNA than sponges. The evolutionary progression is apparent only on the surface, only in physical structures and it's not clearly evincible in genetic information. Genetic complexity is not related to structural complexity.

The most interesting part about sponges is that amongst their thousands of genes, there are many that they should not have: "Curiously, the cells of a sponge bear little resemblance to cells found in the rest of the animal kingdom. For example, sponges lack neurons; however, the sponge genome reveals the presence of many genes found in neurons."
“What are the genes even doing there if they don't have neurons or synapses? We still don't know the answer to that question." said researcher Kenneth S. Kosik. (University of California-Santa Barbara)
Answering Kenneth S. Kosik's question is very easy. These genes are there, because the sponge genome isn't evolved from simple bacterial DNA, but it is degenerated from a genome of a primordial stem cell. They don't have neurons but later, more advanced creatures do, so those genes had to be there.

This is the theory of Pre-Coded Equilibrium

There are huge amounts of additional proofs, if you are interested in them check this blog:
pceq.weebly.com

it is absolutely add-free, you can ban me if you find anything harmful on that site



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Of course the bible is demonstrably wrong in hundreds of cases, not just when it comes to science but also when it comes to history. And that's a FACT!
Of course it is when your comparing science to supernatural, they aren't even the same thing.




The bible tells us what people 2000 years ago BELIEVED based on their compared to today limited knowledge. And when they couldn't explain something (like a comet for example), they filled that gap in knowledge with magic...spirits, gods, or ghosts.
You don't know what your talking about. Spirits and ghosts were the definition of an understanding, I've allready confirmed this with none believers of other life. The terms spirit and ghost were used to identify voices they would hear without knowing where it was coming from. So you are right in terms of there being some primitive thinking, but your still not getting what really happened. When what they were actually experiencing would be referred to today as telepathy, which is usually only from gods.




The funny thing is, a lot of those things can now be explained rationally without having to imply magic. You are essentially using the old god of the gaps argument but replace god(s) with aliens
Actually its more like you have it backwards, as though it aways was aliens and I'm having a hard time figureing out why they didn't take the scriptures at face value, for exactly what they say.




We DON'T KNOW if there's alien life out there, we don't know if something like ghosts exists...and we don't know if god(s) exist. Why don't we know that? BECAUSE THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE (!!!) EVIDENCE SUGGESTING THOSE THINGS EXIST!!
I see, so based on the lack of evidence, that must mean they don't exist?




So quit living in fantasy land and switch on that brain of yours. Accept that there's things we don't know, and quit attacking proven theories by using childish uneducated arguments that aren''t based on logic.
Your kidding me, evolution goes agains logic in so many ways, believing a species is supposed to not have anything to eat is just the tip of the ice berg.




Also, sit down and FINALLY read at least the basic wiki article about evolution so you can stop saying dumb stuff like "they never found a transitional species"
I know they have, evolution claims a lot of things that are false, there is no proof of relation, and there never will be which is why peers are always so quick to bust balls over it and bust people.




PLEASE do that, after all those hundreds of pages it's almost painful to watch you crash like the Titanic in slow motion over and over and over and over and over again!
I'm the only one staying afloat here, waiting for proof through target food, its never coming, and an answer to the list of questions that never seem to be answered by the all knowing evolution.




I'm not even gonna comment on you trying to argue against evolution by asking people to think like a friggin' anteater
The anteater is overwhelming proof that target food does exist, and if it exists even in one species, then it is real, if its real then it must apply to all life. Sorry, your wrong. Go eat some processed food then celebrate how well your evolving.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Hunor999
 


I'm afraid the "Spongebob" argument doesn't hold up





Isn't it possible then, that the first cell was not a simple bacteria, but a primordial stem cell, that already carried the instructions for an entire evolution, as a fertilized ovum carries the genetic information for an ontogeny?


It couldn't have been pre-programmed as outside environmental influences have too large of an impact...and you can't really predict those for billions of years. Well, unless you claim "something" created first life and could also foresee billions of years of environmental changes like meteorite impacts. But that would be the god of the gaps argument because you're filling a gap in knowledge with magic by claiming DNA was somehow programmed



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Samuel 22:8 Then the earth shook and trembled; the foundations of heaven moved and shook, because he was wroth.



So in the bible, god is taking credit for earth quakes.
First of all heaven is NOT earth, in case you missed that little fact, and yes it looks like he had something to do with it. Is it hard to believe that another life form could posses such abilities? Is it because it scares you, or is it that you honestly believe that humans are all powerfull and know it all when it comes to everything and that we know everything there is to know?




WE CAN EXPLAIN EARTHQUAKES RATIONALLY!! For crying out loud dude, we live in the 21st century!
I don't believe they were talking about a natural event like we know about.




And no, just in case you believe that part in the bible too, birds didn't exist before insects

Look, I respect your belief...believe whatever you want in fact, that's your right. But if you try to argue against a scientific theory that's fully backed up by objective evidence and actively applied in modern medicine...then you will need a better argument than a personal belief that's based a book that is demonstrably not accurate.
Everytime you try to make evolution take credit for modern medicine, you really make a fool out of yourself.
Evolution has very little to do with modern medicine. So speciation helps with some mutations, thats a pretty big leap. Thats like watching a nascar race and saying, wow, look at how transportation has evolved. It's bat crazy.

So there are changes in genetics, there is no proof that its evoltuion, so we just call it evolution. Let me give you another example. A pregnant woman smokes a cigarette and creates ADHD with her unborne child. Now that child will have ADHD, and your calling it evolution. Even if your not, you used to as they just recently identified that it was in fact changing our DNA which means it used to be looked at as though it was evoltuion.

Evolution is NOT backed up by objective evidence, its unproven theory, unpon unproven theory that started with a hypothesis, so your wrong again. And I would know as I have read what there is to be claimed. Speciation is a far cry from claiming we have a common ancestor to apes.

Nothing in the bible has ever been proven wrong because they would not be able to recreate the circumstances needed to enact supernatural events. So quit making an ass out of yourself each time your claiming that parts of the bible has been debunked, its not possible. Your trying to claim that science can't recreate the events so they must not be real, and you seem to forget about that pesky little element of the supernatural. Just because you don't understand it, and you can't control or recreate it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Your taking this idea that a superntural book that was written by dozens of others has to be false because our scientists can't recreate some of the events, and your wrong. We are pioneers to science, and WE DONT know everything, and the person that does think they know everything like yourself is the fool because those are the people that no longer learn, thinking they know everything there is to know.

It was established a long time ago that your a know it all, yet you can't even come up with some examples for human target food. OOPS. looks like you don't know everything

You can't try to debunk things that your not even qualified to be reading, so stick to the scarcastic jokes, your good at those.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 06:49 PM
link   

First of all heaven is NOT earth, in case you missed that little fact, and yes it looks like he had something to do with it. Is it hard to believe that another life form could posses such abilities? Is it because it scares you, or is it that you honestly believe that humans are all powerfull and know it all when it comes to everything and that we know everything there is to know?


Your concept of heaven was taken from the Egyptians, and the term in that era was only ever in reference to the stars in the sky, or the "Heavens above". People often thought they would ascend into the heavens above after they die. It's mythology... And no, it scares us not. And usually this comes with having an actual education on the subjects in question..



Everytime you try to make evolution take credit for modern medicine, you really make a fool out of yourself.
Evolution has very little to do with modern medicine. So speciation helps with some mutations, thats a pretty big leap. Thats like watching a nascar race and saying, wow, look at how transportation has evolved. It's bat crazy.


That is one of the dumbest statement you have made yet. And speciation doesn't help with mutations kiddo, it's the other way around.... Man it's not a wonder your stink even makes skunk smell itself to check if it's himself that smells..
edit on 1-8-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-8-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 





And nobody has claimed that evolution is making changes...nobody except you.

BTW, did you read the article, because it didnt state that ADHD changes genes. In fact, when you posted it you stated that smoking causes the changes that lead to ADHD , which can then be inherited.

Once again you have confused cause and effect.
If you want more proof on ADHD changing our genes you will have to refelct back to some sites I posted, I should have saved them. It was clear, ADHD is making changes in our genes, and not easy ones either, they are very complicated. At any rate how else would you explain someone being able to smoke and pass it on through genetics?

No smoking introduces lead into the persons system, and lead is linked to ADHD.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





No is more like you have never once proved me wrong on anything I have presented that proves we are not from here.

Correct. I have proven you and your nonsense wrong thousands of times But how does your answer address:
I seriously don't think that hiding and tucking your tale when I introduced target food, is the same as proving me wrong. You still never came up with any target food, oh but wait, is it perhaps because it doesn't exist, that is, target food for humans, your darn right it doesn't exist, we are scavengers.




So it is not everyone in this thread that are incredulous it is everyone on this site but never, and I mean never does it occur to you that it maybe you talk a load of old ball Shine
If that were true, people would be able to prove me wrong.




Thats only because the topic is in high debate, and most people aren't willing to understand it to begin with. That which has nothing to do with how true it is.

The only thing that is high is the way your subjects stink. That is why all your threads are in ATS Skunk Works. It has everything to do with how true it is, your nonsense just stinks. ATS Skunk Works is you could say, your threads target environment. and they are all intellectually redundant.
Look at how full of shame you are. Your so incredulous and can't get an upper leg on me to prove me wrong, so you have to resort to checking on my other threads, how lame is that. Keep trying, maybe one day you will find something to beat me on, but for now, the search is still on.




Typically cowardly response. You claim you want to test you views yet you are too scared to post a thread entitled 'Target Food Proves Evolution Wrong' because you know where it would go. Pathetic and again you fail to rise to my challenge to win the right to use target food in this thread as you always fail to do. Pathetic.
It was allready posted and you even posted it here.




You use the word incredulous a lot but it is another word you do not know the meaning of.
Why would you say that.




Edit: You have started 9 threads. 7 of them are in ATS Skunk Works. That must be a record

1. Why we need medical intervention
2. What's for dinner?
3. Is it possible we have disabled powers?
4. God was an space alien returns
5. Opposable thumbs
6. Why does proof DNA that god was not our creator put me in in skunk works?
7. It's official, god was a space alien and NOT our real creator,

That is some smelly pile of rot. Well done
But its the title that is the most important part, and unlike this thread, mine were kept the same.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





The ONLY thing you have proven is that your incredulous.

You use that word again to hide from addressing my point as usual.

'I have proven your twaddle wrong so many times and in so many ways that shows you are just a pathetic waste of my time.' Pathetic
The only thing you have proven is that your incredulous.



Trust me when I tell you that you and ideas are not good bed fellows. So I take it you are too incredulous and cowardly to put your money where your mouth is:

'As in my other reply to you. Post a new topic. Make up a thread and call it 'Target Food Proves Evolution Wrong'. If it does not end up in Skunks within three pages you can use it here.'
Well of course that would get pushed to skunk works as evolution has a lot more believers than target food. Which still doesn't mean its wrong.




As if your the thread god that just makes a decision of who can be on here and who cant.

Nope. You seem to see gods everywhere. I just refuse to accept your silly 'target food' crap as it has been shown nonsense many times and there is a limit to how many times I need to prove it and you wrong.
Target food is real, and it does exist, but hard to see on a planet that is plagued from transpermia.




Oddly enough the stuff thats kicking your butt you don't want on here, only because its such a threat to the precious little evolution.

What a pathetic answer. Just admit you are more yellow than a canary.
Target food does set the record straight. You will never convince me that any species isn't suppose to have something to eat.




Being placed in skunk works requires an opinion about the topic to place it there. Did it ever occur to you that just maybe that opinion might be wrong.

Does it occur to you that your opinion may be wrong?
Not possible.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 07:42 PM
link   



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





It couldn't have been pre-programmed as outside environmental influences have too large of an impact...and you can't really predict those for billions of years. Well, unless you claim "something" created first life and could also foresee billions of years of environmental changes like meteorite impacts. But that would be the god of the gaps argument because you're filling a gap in knowledge with magic by claiming DNA was somehow programmed


" Let's say you have a certain source of information - a book for example - and you decide to make a copy of it. Let's assume that there is no digital or mechanical technology available so you have to copy it on your own. Inevitably you will make some mistakes. Now what if, after you are finished, another person comes along and he creates a copy of your copy, then yet another person creates a copy of the copy of the copy? Imagine the results after - let's say - 10 million iterations! It is very likely that the final copy wont have too much to do with the original source. But if we make some rules it is possible to get more favourable results. Let's say we forbid to make a copy by one source alone, and we establish the following rule: one may create a copy if, and only if she/he finds two distinct sources, which are word by word compatible. Probably it will take much longer to reach the same number of iterations, but it is sure that the final copy will be way more accurate than in the previous case.
This is a very simplified description of sexual reproduction. The purpose of sexual reproduction is to preserve the initial information, to preserve a certain state and layout of genes and genetic instructions. Sexual reproduction doesn't leave too much room for divergences. Biologists make a huge mistake when they extrapolate changes that they observe on bacterial populations to macro evolutionary levels, not only because the differences between reproduction rates are astronomical (if we compare bacteria to vertebrates), but because they completely ignore that sexual reproduction is not as forgiving towards mutations and divergences as fission.
On the Darwinian account sexual reproduction is a self-defeating mechanism. On wikipedia there is the following statement on this matter: “The evolution of sexual reproduction is a major puzzle.”7"

source: pceq.weebly.com

edit on 1-8-2012 by Hunor999 because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-8-2012 by Hunor999 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hunor999

reply to post by MrXYZ
 





It couldn't have been pre-programmed as outside environmental influences have too large of an impact...and you can't really predict those for billions of years. Well, unless you claim "something" created first life and could also foresee billions of years of environmental changes like meteorite impacts. But that would be the god of the gaps argument because you're filling a gap in knowledge with magic by claiming DNA was somehow programmed


" Let's say you have a certain source of information - a book for example - and you decide to make a copy of it. Let's assume that there is no digital or mechanical technology available so you have to copy it on your own. Inevitably you will make some mistakes. Now what if, after you are finished, another person comes along and he creates a copy of your copy, then yet another person creates a copy of the copy of the copy? Imagine the results after - let's say - 10 million iterations! It is very likely that the final copy wont have too much to do with the original source. But if we make some rules it is possible to get more favourable results. Let's say we forbid to make a copy by one source alone, and we establish the following rule: one may create a copy if, and only if she/he finds two distinct sources, which are word by word compatible. Probably it will take much longer to reach the same number of iterations, but it is sure that the final copy will be way more accurate than in the previous case.
This is a very simplified description of sexual reproduction. The purpose of sexual reproduction is to preserve the initial information, to preserve a certain state and layout of genes and genetic instructions. Sexual reproduction doesn't leave too much room for divergences. Biologists make a huge mistake when they extrapolate changes that they observe on bacterial populations to macro evolutionary levels, not only because the differences between reproduction rates are astronomical (if we compare bacteria to vertebrates), but because they completely ignore that sexual reproduction is not as forgiving towards mutations and divergences as fission.
On the Darwinian account sexual reproduction is a self-defeating mechanism. On wikipedia there is the following statement on this matter: “The evolution of sexual reproduction is a major puzzle.”7"

source: pceq.weebly.com

edit on 1-8-2012 by Hunor999 because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-8-2012 by Hunor999 because: (no reason given)


This is entirely wrong and a very poor analogy.. Errors in DNA through reproduction is more than enough to cause divergence over time scales. Your argument contradicts itself while you intentionally ignore errors adding up over time..And unfortunately, it's not just a copy issue, other things like bacteria, radiation, horizontal gene transfer from parasites ect ect can cause errors that get passed along. And sexual reproduction isn't to preserve anything, it's a process of reproduction that doesn't care if there is errors or not. Your idea of reproduction is inherently flawed.
edit on 1-8-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 08:30 PM
link   


This is entirely wrong and a very poor analogy.. Errors in DNA through reproduction is more than enough to cause divergence over time scales. Your argument contradicts itself while you intentionally ignore errors adding up over time..And unfortunately, it's not just a copy issue, other things like bacteria, radiation, horizontal gene transfer from parasites ect ect can cause errors that get passed along. And sexual reproduction isn't to preserve anything, it's a process of reproduction that doesn't care if there is errors or not. Your idea of reproduction is inherently flawed.




yes and sponges still preserved 70% of the genes for 600 million years, mutation is not that effective as you imagine. there are many animals that are proven to have a genome that haven't changed for hundreds of millions of years. and sexual reproduction can not be explained with evolution.

"The presence of genders sets up very strict limits for evolution. If an organism that reproduce this way is born with certain mutations - it's no matter if those changes make it the fittest, strongest, smartest animal ever lived -, and its DNA diverges from the rest of its species, it wont be able to reproduce. This is huge evolutionary drawback. Sexual reproduction also cause tremendous vulnerability against extinction. If an environmental catastrophe or a disease decimates a population and only a few members survive - the most resistant and fittest ones -, it is possible that the survivors consist only of members of a certain gender, and thus the whole species go extinct. This situational and circumstantial nature of sexual reproduction cause a huge evolutionary disadvantage. You always have to find a member of the opposite gender to reproduce. The genetic diversity and possibility of gene exchange/combination can not justify these tremendous drawbacks, since bacteria have much simpler and more effective ways to achieve the same results. Horizontal gene transfer and bacterial conjugation make them capable of exchanging genetic information between each others. Why hasn't this system advanced forward, why do we have a way more complicated and more circumstantial system? "
edit on 1-8-2012 by Hunor999 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
31
<< 484  485  486    488  489  490 >>

log in

join