Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Evolution. Not a theory, but a fact!

page: 6
4
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 

From your 'fascinating article' (actually a pile of creationist drivel):


If over time harmful mutations outpace "beneficial" ones to fixation, evolution from molecules-to-man surely cannot occur.

When selection rates are high enough, harmful mutations are not fixed but eliminated. You may have noticed that humans evolved pretty fast – just five or six million years from the last common hominid ancestor to Einstein.

You may also have noticed that the human species still exists.
If we were deteriorating genetically at the rate suggested by the person who wrote that article, humans would be a weak, sickly, disease-wracked species on the verge of extinction. Since we are actually becoming healthier and longer-lived and increasing in numbers, it is clear that some other mechanism reduces the accumulation of deleterious mutation over time.

Natural selection, in one form or another, is that mechanism.

As for the details, we can safely leave that to the experts, rather than crank hobbyists like the author of that paper you posted. Here is a real scientific paper by real scientists that bears closely on your creationist source's claim; as you can see, it provides a mechanism for the removal of deletrious mutations from the gene pool. It was published in 2009 and you will find the Nature article by Keightley et al. referenced at the foot of it. Happy reading.




posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by BBalazs
Evolution aint no theory at all.
Its a fact.
An astute observation. Like there are males and females (and in rare cases androgyns). Is that up for debate?
Besides, anyone who breeds animals can pretty much do some mini evolution at home.
Its an eloquent and poignant observation.
Now you may believe something else, but it remains a fact.
And it is so incomprehensibly beautiful, why would anyone want to deny this fact?
It is about our Earth.
It is about the very soul of being human.
edit on 23-1-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)

Here is the definition of fact:
A fact (derived from the Latin Factum, see below) is something that has really occurred or is actually the case. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be shown to correspond to experience.
edit on 23-1-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)


In your post you said "derived from the Latin Factum, see below" but you forgot to put anything below for us to see.

Perhaps it is revealing that you even plagiarized your definitions?



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 



Let's first consider the recent Eyre-Walker & Keightley article in Nature magazine3. By comparing human and chimp differences in protein-coding DNA, they arrived at a deleterious (harmful) mutation rate for humans of U=1.6 per individual per generation. They acknowledge that this seems too high, but quickly invoke something called "synergistic epistasis" as a just-so explanation (I'll address this later).

even according to eyre-walker&keightley's numbers (which heavily favor evolution, not very scientific):


The probability p of an offspring escaping error-free is given by e^-U6. Therefore, making the substitution, B = 2e^U. For U=1.6, B = 9.9 births per female! What pray tell does this mean? What are the authors failing to make crystal clear? It says that females need to produce over 10 offspring just to keep genetic deterioration near equilibrium! A rate less than 10 means certain genetic deterioration over time, because even the evolutionist's magic wand of natural selection cannot help (in fact Eyre-Walker & Keightley had already factored in natural selection when they arrived at a rate of 1.6)



Now consider that extremely favorable assumptions for evolution were used in the Eyre-Walker & Keightley article. If more realistic assumptions are used the problem gets much worse. First, they estimate that insertions/deletions and some functional non-genic sequences would each independently add 10% to the rate. Second, and more importantly, they assume a functional genome size of only 2.25% (60K genes). When they assume a more widely accepted 3% functional genome (80K genes), they cite U = 3.1, which they admit is "remarkably high" (even this may be a favorable assumption, considering Maynard Smith estimates the genic area to be between 9 - 27%7). Widely recognized geneticist James Crow in an article in the same Nature issue agrees that the deleterious rate is more likely twice the rate cited by Eyre-Walker and Keightley8. So if we use Crow's revised rate of U=3, we get:

evolutionfairytale.com...
so to pad their results, they assume a smaller genome and already assume natural selection will remove "x" amount of mutations.


Dr. Crow in his letter to Nature acknowledged that given the high mutation rates and a conventional elimination of mutations, a species with limited reproductive capacity would face "inevitable extinction."[12] He then added: "A way out is for mutations to be eliminated in bunches". This is sometimes called truncation selection, a completely speculative process that you will have a very difficult time finding in any college text book on genetics or biology.

even dr. crow acknowledged that this was a serious problem for evolution.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


WOW!! this has been an interesting thread...though not surprising that, the two schools of thought will ever come to a common consensus.

But there is a possible way to bridge the differences.

Truth:

Evolution of all species is a necessary mechanism to adapt in an ever changing environment...or else no life would have survived since it's unknown origins, due to some fairly cataclysmic Earth changes. This does not mean that creationism is dead it means that the creator was thinking ahead...I like the thought of a "Smart" God.

The lack of the so called missing link not only in man but the other "Evolved" species, does invoke a support for the Macro Evolution theory in which a jump of evolutionary change was made in a very short time...how?

A Gamma ray burst is known, by definition to cause changes in the structure of DNA, whether these changes are destructive or beneficial are a mater of how intense the the radiation is. Perhaps a, mildly effective distant burst could prove the next generation of all life to be changed at the DNA level. Just a possibility that could support the quick changes seen in the fossil records, that have no intermediary states.

Just a thought.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by chr0naut
 



Revealing?
I copied the first lines of wikipedia.
If it reveals anything more to you, cheers.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by chr0naut
 



Triple post. Eeghh?
edit on 24-1-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by chr0naut
 



Revealing?
I copied the first lines of wikipedia.
If it reveals anything more to you, cheers.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


Just because you cant explain something or because ot seem difficult, doesnt mean it is.
But again, this is all evolutionary theory. It is getting worked out.
However evolution is still a fact. Things change. Are you debying that?



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by addygrace
 


So what's the mechanism that prevents speciaition from occurring after a certain point? I say after a certain point because we have observed speciation in both the lab and nature. So, since speciation has been observed, but you claim it is impossible for humans and chimpanzees to have a common ancestor so there must be some mechanism that prevents speciation after a certain point. Since you're so sure you must know what that mechanism is.


The mechanism is heritable genetic damage.

Please review the book "Adams Curse" by Bryan Sykes (a former Professor of Human Genetics at the University of Oxford and a current Fellow of Wolfson College).

Sykes points out that within the next 125,000 years, the human Y chromosome will no longer be viable due to damage.

Red-headedness is likely to die out in the next 500 years. These are facts and we can see this occurring on historical time scales.

Genomes have a finite time before they become non-viable. Logically, Evolution has to take place before the genome "times out". For human beings, where the time to evolve is reckoned to be millions of years, the genome would be lost long before.

But there is hope!

Evolution is supposedly occurring by the processes of genetic drift and natural selection. In every instance we have of genetic change, either one or both of these factors have nothing to do with the change and the rate of change is faster than can be explained by these processes.

Specific examples:

The European Peppered Moth (textbook example) changed in color from light to dark and then back to dark again in less that 200 years.

Vinyl Eating bacteria have been discovered in waste bins outside a Japanese plastics factory. We have only had these plastics for less than 100 years.

Drosophila flies have changed to eat citronella (which is normally insect repellent and toxic to flies) under lab conditions. This was over a three year period.

... and the latest bit of news was that unicellular yeast has been observed to clump and cooperate as if it were a multicellular organism. This took sixty days!

In all cases, people made claim that these were proofs of evolution. In all cases, current evolutionary theory is inadequate to explain these changes.

The assumption by Evolutionists is that Intelligent Design and Creation theorists think God did what he did, and walked away, so any change therefore MUST be evidence of Evolution.

Well, what if God is still in the process of messing with life on the planet, directing it towards particular outcomes?

Then each of these "proofs" actually become proofs of Intelligent Design rather than of Evolution by Genetic drift and Natural Selection.
edit on 24/1/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)
edit on 24/1/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 12:04 AM
link   
reply to post by chr0naut
 


Very good points.
Whatever god did though, he choose evolution as his vechicle.
You have to seperate evolutionary theory, from evolution (natural selection), which is a fact.
Why you want to put god into this natural selection process is beyond me and it is an bservable fact.
You again arguee because we dont fully understand something: god didit, or a miracle happened here.
Well he may have done, there may be, but its all in natural selection, evolution.
It is the miracle, it is vechicle.
Why deny a fact of such immense beauty?
edit on 24-1-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 12:16 AM
link   
reply to post by BBalazs
 


What evolutionary advantage is there in us seeing "immense beauty" in the structure and process of the universe?

We don't need to see beauty, form, color or anything like that to survive.

It would appear that the human race is directed towards an outcome that goes beyond both genetics and selection pressures.

If you balance the results of random chance and compare that to the observed universe, and apply a little mathematical and statistical nous, you have to admit that it is highly, ridiculously impossible that things would be so anthropocentric.

In that mindset, I see the universe directed to achieve specific results.

edit on 24/1/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by chr0naut
reply to post by BBalazs
 


What evolutionary advantage is there in us seeing "immense beauty" in the structure and process of the universe?

We don't need to see beauty, form, color or anything like that to survive.

It would appear that the human race is directed towards an outcome that goes beyond both genetics and selection pressures.

If you balance the results of random chance and compare that to the observed universe, and apply a little mathematical and statistical nous, you have to admit that it is highly, ridiculously impossible that things would be so anthropocentric.

In that mindset, I see the universe directed to achieve specific results.

edit on 24/1/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)


Let's for a minute focus on creationism.

Too much focus is spend by creationists being on the offense of the debate lately; For a bit, this evolutionist here wants to go on the offense regarding your creationist "theory."


Your Bible, it says something like "God created the Heavens and the Earth."

Sooo, than, who created all the other planets in the Universe.

If your going to include all the other planets in your definition of "the Heavens", that I would ask, so does that mean
God's first planet he created was Earth? If not, than why does your Bible mention only one planet?

Also

When was the Universe made, and how?

When where Galaxies formed, and how?

When where stars, "dark matter", "dark energy", etc. made?

What causes Supernova's and etc.?

When where the first solar system's made? How long after the Universe was made?

When was our solar system made? How long after the first solar system's appeared was ours made?

How was the moon made, and when?

edit on 24-1-2012 by Confusion42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by chr0naut
 


How can seeing the beauty of the universe be anthropomorfic?
How?
Seriously dude, explain that one for me.
And undestanding, knowledge is an evolutionary advantage mate.
It is what makes us human, and able to ponder these things and rule the Earth.

If you see the universe as directed, it is your choice.
No one is denying your choice.
It is your belief.
Even then evolution is the vechicle of this direction.
It is in essence the god of god.
Evolution is NOT about or anti religion.
Only creationist made it so!
edit on 24-1-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 01:53 AM
link   
While i generally agree with the assertion made by the OP, im inclined to disagree with the wording.

First off... science doesn't deal with 'facts'. Absolutism is the realm of religion and beliefs. No scientist will ever tell you that something is 100% certain or factual, and the reason is this. Science is a method of understanding our surroundings with the best methods, tools, and knowledge available. However our knowledge and our understanding is always changing. Therefore, its not correct to say evolution is factual, as that is absolute, and implies that there is nothing left to learn or understand. However i agree that evolution seems to the correct theory as it is supported by reason, logic, and an abundance of evidence.

Second... many people think that a "theory" is some wishy washy idea... as in "Ohhhhh, thats just a theory..." Establishing a scientific theory is perhaps the most difficult accomplishment for a human. Most people do not know or understand the rigorous task of producing a scientific theory, and then once establishing a hypothesis which has undergone rigorous testing, is then scrutinized and picked apart by the most brilliant minds our species as to offer, in an attempt to disprove a hypothesis. Then if it survives that... it becomes accepted as a scientific theory.

If i was to take a random sampling of 1,000,000 people.... and told them to produce a scientifically accepted theory, for some sort of prize.... i would give the most minute of odds that 1 person would be able to accomplish it. In other words, its ridiculously hard to accomplish... and should never be viewed as "... just a theory"



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 01:57 AM
link   
reply to post by ztruthseeker
 


Evolution is not science. It is a fact.
Now evolutionary theory, now thats a science!
Do you agree that there are male, females and very rarely andogyns genders in humans?
There you go!
Its a fact.
Science is evolutionary theory.

New threat, sorry thread can be found here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 24-1-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 01:58 AM
link   
reply to post by BBalazs
 


Evolution works for animals but not humans. The time progression doesn't work for one thing. If you follow the time progression of primates/humans we should not be here for about another million years.

Also, one of the main tenets of Evolution is that only traits which help an organism to survive will develop. How could our - man - losing 80% of our body hair and 60% of our body strength help us to survive? And we accomplished both, simultaneously and almost overnight.

Sorry, just doesn't work. No sale here.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 01:59 AM
link   
I have opened a new thread for the discussion of evolutionary theory.
Namely gaps and unexplained phenomenon is evolutionary theory (theory)!
All are welcome.
Should be interesting!
edit on 24-1-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 02:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by chr0naut

The assumption by Evolutionists is that Intelligent Design and Creation theorists think God did what he did, and walked away, so any change therefore MUST be evidence of Evolution.

Well, what if God is still in the process of messing with life on the planet, directing it towards particular outcomes?

Then each of these "proofs" actually become proofs of Intelligent Design rather than of Evolution by Genetic drift and Natural Selection.
edit on 24/1/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)
edit on 24/1/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)

Astonishing. Jaw dropping. Although exceptionally interesting to note that since creationists are having to "encompass" genetic changes into creationism they KNOW they have lost the argument but just don't have the guts to admit it. Typical psychological cognitive dissonance, well done, thank you......but at least have the decency to admit even to yourself you are getting desperate with that argument. You will sleep better



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 02:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Ittabena
 


Well, that may or may not be a valid point.
We are a mystery.
I have some ideas of my own on this subject.
However, evolution per its meaning is still as valid as sunshine.
As even you indicate it applies to animals, and we to are animals, why would we be different?



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 02:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 

You made all those claims in earlier posts. The reasoning is spurious and the relevant concerns were already addressed in my earlier link.

It seems to me that Dr. Crow's supposed acknowledgement is your source Bob Hamilton's only claim to scientific authority. Unfortunately, a kind scientist's courteous words to an inquiring layman do not carry the imprimatur of a peer review board. And an active creationist's testimony is always suspect; such people, as is well known, are habitual liars. It is quite possible that no such letter exists; notice how your source, Mr. Hamilton, tells us Dr. Crow sent him that acknowledgement in a 'personal email' – just in case anyone asks him to produce a copy of it.

Now, just for a laugh, here are Mr. Hamilton's qualifications as an expert on evolution:


I spend a good deal of my personal time in creation ministry. I am currently the webmaster of the Creation Research Society... I am also a speaker for the Rocky Mountain Creation Fellowship. I regularly give presentations on creation/evolution to schools & churches, have appeared on the Gino Geraci radio program, and regularly appear on Bob Enyart Live's Real Science Friday program. All my shows are archived at www.kgov.com, or you can listen to them on my Speaker page. I have also had several articles appear in the popular online magazine Creation Digest. [ur=http://evolutionfairytale.com/bio.htm]Source[/url]

Sounds like he really knows his onions, eh? Richard Dawkins must be shaking in his boots.

If an Oregon electronics technician with a bachelor's degree in engineering had found a genuine flaw in the theory of evolution twelve years ago, a flaw undiscovered by geneticists and evolutionary biologists, the world would know about it by now. Such things are big news. And the early 2000's were the heyday of the intelligent design movement – any discovery of this kind would have been shouted from the rooftops. The fact that it hasn't should be more than enough to tell you you've backed a loser.









 
4
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join