Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

M U T A T I O N - Friend or Foe of Evolution?

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 03:31 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 




Ya the only problem is that speciation has only ever been observed in some aquatic life, bacteria, and viruses.


Not true: Understanding Evolution: Speciation in Real Time




posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 03:46 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





Evolution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses. Parts of evolution are simply made up.


That quote from the external source Talk Origins, or at least the second sentence of the quote is NOT from the source you quoted, Talk Origins.

You have taken the first sentence from Talk Origins and added your own assertion attempting to turn the Talk Origins site upside down.

This is an inexcusable bald faced prevarication and really casts doubt on any credibility you might be trying to claim for yourself. Why go to the bother of linking to something that proves you a forger at the most trivial level? I understand that I don't know your background or your age or your education level, but surely if you can figure out how to link to a site you can figure out how to read that site first.

The first sentence is indeed the first sentence on the Talk Origins page you linked. The second sentence never appears on the site (unless perhaps I missed them rehearsing a common anti-science slogan), and indeed the entire rest of the site is basically demonstrating that MES (Evolution Theory) is not only not made up, it has been verified over and over and over and over and over and over and over...



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 


I'm thinking we are on the same page
I've got a recent background in Bioiformatics as I reskill from pharmaceutical manufacture (process development), so I tend to be up todate with the latest information on this stuff, it's an interest as well as an area of research for me. I'd love to get into researching the genetic roots of evolution, but the money is in diseases



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 





That quote from the external source Talk Origins, or at least the second sentence of the quote is NOT from the source you quoted, Talk Origins.

You have taken the first sentence from Talk Origins and added your own assertion attempting to turn the Talk Origins site upside down.

This is an inexcusable bald faced prevarication and really casts doubt on any credibility you might be trying to claim for yourself. Why go to the bother of linking to something that proves you a forger at the most trivial level? I understand that I don't know your background or your age or your education level, but surely if you can figure out how to link to a site you can figure out how to read that site first.

The first sentence is indeed the first sentence on the Talk Origins page you linked. The second sentence never appears on the site (unless perhaps I missed them rehearsing a common anti-science slogan), and indeed the entire rest of the site is basically demonstrating that MES (Evolution Theory) is not only not made up, it has been verified over and over and over and over and over and over and over...


Its the first sentence starting with the giant E in Evolution.
Evolution

volution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses.
Starting with the first letter from the first word, in the introduction which is first.

It's not made up people, look it up and see for yourself. I didn't write it.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 





Not true: Understanding Evolution: Speciation in Real Time
It's still a far reach from claiming that man shared a common ancestor with apes. Where is the proof of this type of activity?

This site you gave me, obviously from an evolutionist, is specuation about evolution. Evolution has never been witnessed. There is only assumptions that small parts of specieation can somehow turn into much larger parts that add up to macroevolution, but none of this has been proven or witnessed, and it can't be.
edit on 6-9-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


It embraces scientific theories and hypotheses. What's the issue? My guess is that you don't understand what either word means.
edit on 6-9-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 08:26 AM
link   
Evolution needs friends and foes the way a moose needs a hat-rack.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





It embraces scientific theories and hypotheses. What's the issue? My guess is that you don't understand what either word means.

hypohesis

hy·poth·e·sis/hīˈpäTHəsis/Noun: 1.A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
2.A proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth.



theory

the·o·ry/ˈTHēərē/Noun: 1.A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be...: "Darwin's theory of evolution"
2.A set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based: "a theory of education"; "music theory".



No I think I know whats going on.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


I know exactly what's going on. You are being intentionally deceptive again.

Scientific Theory


A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.[3][4]


Evolution is a SCIENTIFIC theory, not a layman's assumption.

See? Hypotheses are being tested. When they are confirmed or debunked it becomes part of the theory. The important parts of the evolutionary process have all been tested and verified, such as genetic mutation and natural selection. They are simple facts of nature. Evolution wouldn't be a theory if it's fundamental process didn't exist. It's like the theory of gravity. They don't know everything, but they have the precise measurement of its effect. Hypotheses are still being tested, that's how any theory works. Would you doubt that gravity exists, despite it only being a theory that works with hypotheses?

Sorry Tooth, you have been debunked, once again.

edit on 8-9-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





Scientific Theory


A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.[3][4]


Evolution is a SCIENTIFIC theory, not a layman's assumption.

See? Hypotheses are being tested. When they are confirmed or debunked it becomes part of the theory. The important parts of the evolutionary process have all been tested and verified, such as genetic mutation and natural selection. They are simple facts of nature. Evolution wouldn't be a theory if it's fundamental process didn't exist. It's like the theory of gravity. They don't know everything, but they have the precise measurement of its effect. Hypotheses are still being tested, that's how any theory works. Would you doubt that gravity exists, despite it only being a theory that works with hypotheses?

Sorry Tooth, you have been debunked, once again.
This is a loaded statement. First of all evolution is NOT a scientific theory. People that believe in evolution have convinced themselves that its so. There are parts of evolution that are fact, but the majority of it is speculation. Evolution is not even predictable. Macroevolution has never been witnessed either. Speciation has only ever been witnessed in some aquatic life, bacteria and viruses. There is a large jump to claiming we share a common ancestor with apes.

speciation



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
First of all evolution is NOT a scientific theory.

False / lie.

People that believe in evolution have convinced themselves that its so.

False.

There are parts of evolution that are fact, but the majority of it is speculation.

False

Evolution is not even predictable.

False.

Macroevolution has never been witnessed either.

False

In short. Your post is false.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Barcs
 


This is a loaded statement.

Correct, loaded with factual information.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 06:43 PM
link   
Here is a perfectly good example of evolution gone wrong, or has it? The sickle shaped blood cells of a person with sickle cell anemia provide protection from malaria. Except for one problem... The sickle cell anemia is also life threatening. But if you think about it, untreated cases of sickle cell usually will provide enough time for the person to reproduce. Thus nature has provide for the species to continue, although severely impeded. If the incidence of Malaria increased, the African race could have been wiped out. Evolution was prepared for a worse case scenario, which didn't happen. Fortunately, sickle did not get a strong enough hold in the population. Or we could have ended up with eventual evolutionary genocide.

Now for something like Malaria, perhaps this was over kill. But have you ever wondered if man is more limited in other ways due to over kill evolution through out our history? Or perhaps evolution taking the high road vs the low road. When maybe the low road would have provided slower but better end results. To ourselves the human race is perfection in build. But are we truely the 100% best outcome on an evolutionary standpoint?
edit on 8-9-2012 by elouina because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





False / lie.
Prove your opinion.




False.
Prove your opinion.




False.
Prove your opinion.





False.
Prove your opinion.





In short. Your post is false
Prove your opinion.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 





Correct, loaded with factual information.
He just forgot to include it is all.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


I've posted the links in this as well as other threads. I'm not doing it again. You are the one making claims, therefor you need to furnish the proof that anything you said in that post is true. Every single statement was demonstrably wrong and honestly not even worth it to post a whole bunch of links that you will undoubtedly ignore.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by elouina
Here is a perfectly good example of evolution gone wrong, or has it? The sickle shaped blood cells of a person with sickle cell anemia provide protection from malaria. Except for one problem... The sickle cell anemia is also life threatening. But if you think about it, untreated cases of sickle cell usually will provide enough time for the person to reproduce. Thus nature has provide for the species to continue, although severely impeded. If the incidence of Malaria increased, the African race could have been wiped out. Evolution was prepared for a worse case scenario, which didn't happen. Fortunately, sickle did not get a strong enough hold in the population. Or we could have ended up with eventual evolutionary genocide.

Now for something like Malaria, perhaps this was over kill. But have you ever wondered if man is more limited in other ways due to over kill evolution through out our history? Or perhaps evolution taking the high road vs the low road. When maybe the low road would have provided slower but better end results. To ourselves the human race is perfection in build. But are we truely the 100% best outcome on an evolutionary standpoint?
edit on 8-9-2012 by elouina because: (no reason given)


Evolution doesn't take the "high road" or the "low road". There's no such thing as overkill--you don't get something for nothing. There is only adaptation and mutation. And the human race is not perfection. We are a product of natural selection--that doesn't mean we're the best outcome of anything. Such anthrocentrism is unproductive and doesn't help understand evolution at all. Evolution is about the perpetuation of genes and DNA, period, full stop.

We are not the pinnacle of anything. What makes you think we're more complex or more advanced than any other creature? Microbes, for example, are far more adapted and fit for their environment than we are. That's why they'll be here when the sun explodes, and we won't.

Size and complexity are no guarantee of fitness.
edit on 9/11/2012 by HappyBunny because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





I've posted the links in this as well as other threads. I'm not doing it again. You are the one making claims, therefor you need to furnish the proof that anything you said in that post is true. Every single statement was demonstrably wrong and honestly not even worth it to post a whole bunch of links that you will undoubtedly ignore.
But I have allready proven and explained to you that evolution is obviously not the ONLY thing out there that is changing genes...

adhd gene study

Members of the GMR gene family, along with genes they interact with, affect nerve transmission, the formation of neurons, and interconnections in the brain, so the fact that children with ADHD are more likely to have alterations in these genes reinforces previous evidence that the GRM pathway is important in ADHD," said Hakonarson. "Our findings get to the cause of the ADHD symptoms in a subset of children with the disease."



I have also shared links that lead up to what this was caused by, Lead! And since lead can be introduced through smoking, your basically trying to tell us that smoking is causing evolution.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Barcs
 





I've posted the links in this as well as other threads. I'm not doing it again. You are the one making claims, therefor you need to furnish the proof that anything you said in that post is true. Every single statement was demonstrably wrong and honestly not even worth it to post a whole bunch of links that you will undoubtedly ignore.
But I have allready proven and explained to you that evolution is obviously not the ONLY thing out there that is changing genes...

adhd gene study

Members of the GMR gene family, along with genes they interact with, affect nerve transmission, the formation of neurons, and interconnections in the brain, so the fact that children with ADHD are more likely to have alterations in these genes reinforces previous evidence that the GRM pathway is important in ADHD," said Hakonarson. "Our findings get to the cause of the ADHD symptoms in a subset of children with the disease."



I have also shared links that lead up to what this was caused by, Lead! And since lead can be introduced through smoking, your basically trying to tell us that smoking is causing evolution.


Nowhere in the paper does Hakonarson postulate a cause for the mutations.

As far as lead exposure, correlation doesn't equal causation. Levels of people nowadays are hundreds of times higher than they were 100 years ago due especially to the addition of lead in gasoline. Lead levels have fallen sharply over the last 20 years.

Now, lead is a neurotoxin that builds up in the bones and tissues. Are you saying that kids who have ADHD in fact have lead poisoning? Kids are routinely tested for lead right around the time ADHD and autistic traits appear.

Or are you suggesting an epigenetic cause?



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 


Evolution has never been witnessed, but I have allready shared something on this thread that has, and it too changes genes. So how are you going to continue to make false claims that evolution changes our genes when there is now new evidence of other things that are doing it?

There never was any proof that evolution was changing our genes, its just an assumption. Scientists would find change and just say oh that must be evolution causing that, without anything to back it up. I know what your going to say evolution doesn't cause anything to happen, its just a process, just like how that process is supposedly responsible for creating over a billion species but you would also never call it a creator.






top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join