It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by windword
Originally posted by FormerSkeptic
The key point of the episode is (rhetorically asking) "how could the gene for abstract thinking evolve on Earth?"
If it did evolve naturally on Earth, then dolphins or elephants should be fairly capable, too!
And so today, we have various visiting EBE's abducting, testing and monitoring people to see whether they're related to us.
Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by FormerSkeptic
so we've only had a few decades to understand psychology and evolutionary biology with advanced technology.....
Yet you have already given up on a natural evolutionary explanation for human consciousness.
Where does evolution stop making sense to you?
Originally posted by jiggerj
Though I believe in some form of evolution there are still some things that don't make sense to me. For any changes to occur there has to be some form of intelligence weaved into the fabric of all DNA.
I can see life evolving as far as the creation of blind, limbless, bone-less worms, but as time went on the DNA in the creatures of this planet decided that it would grow eyes
Also, there seems to be a rule of evolution that doesn't allow for such things as eyes to grow on trees, or for grass to crawl like spiders...
Trees have been stuck and have remained victims of their environment since the very first tree.
It sure seems like they would have evolved a way to become mobile by now, instead of just dropping seeds and hoping that other creatures will move them along.
Flowers grow pollen in such a way that it requires a totally different species (bees) to transport the pollen from one plant to the next. How could mindless organisms evolve such cooperation between species?
It is said that it takes millions of years for a species to evolve
, and that evolution takes place when a pattern is repeated over and over, from one generation to the next
- like man evolving an opposable thumb to better grasp tools with
. Yet, no environment has remained unchanged for more than 100,000 years, not nearly long enough for whole new species to evolve from previous species
So, if the environments of earth change in less than 100,000 years, forcing life to keep moving into different regions with different climates, different food sources, different predators, and if evolution takes millions of years, can anyone else see the conflict here?
If it takes millions of years for a species to evolve, then that species had to STAY in a set environment for millions of years, while no environment has remained unchanged for more than 100,000 years.
Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by Nevertheless
Very thorough response, NTL, but I feel as though you might have missed the underlying context of my post. That being: The information for even the slightest evolutionary change had to already have been wired into the DNA right from the very first single cell.
A primordial worm species would crawl on its belly throughout all of eternity if the information to grow legs isn't in its DNA - no matter how much the species needed to dig or climb or run faster
. Even with so-called sudden mutation where stubs are formed that will become legs in future generations, this information had to already be there.
Imagine a Swiss army knife with all of it's gadgets: Some of the gadgets will be used (screwdriver, scissors...). Some of the gadgets might not be used (cork screw, can opener), but the information - the tools - are there just in case they might be needed in the future.
BUT, you simply cannot produce a crowbar if the Swiss knife doesn't already have one.
All of the information, the range of evolutionary possibilities, had to have been placed into the DNA on this planet.
Originally posted by Astrocyte
I think more people should accustom themselves to the possibility that "DNA" i.e what makes up our genes, might not be all there is to making the "something" that is the world we experience.
I guess it's a just a cautionary feeling I have - there have been plenty of instances in mankinds historical past where what was considered "irrefutable" scientific fact became replaced by a newer and more complicated picture. Science is ever evolving, and the theories we devise are only approximations of the objective reality.
Genetics is a hypothesis in motion. It claims all sorts of wonderful things, but so much of what genetics claims - such as being the underlying basis for everything that exists
- contrasts starkly with the knowledge we actually have. For example, a mouse and human possess more or less the same number of genes. And yet look at the Mammoth structural and functional differences between humans and mice! It's insane.
Where's the information that creates this difference? How can two species so utterly different from each other be made up of the same primal 'stuff'. Where is the information hiding?
Again, I don't disavow the worth of the theory of genetics, but I think there might be more to it than scientists generally like to lead on. In any case, at our current pace (we our gaining more and more knowledge everyday with how the genes which make up fruitflies produce wings,eyes, sexual orientation, etc... YES - a fruitfly!), with our current understanding of the relationship between genes and structure/function, it'll be hundreds of years before we have a workable knowledge of how genes (which includes particular genes, in a particular order, at a particular time, at a particular range) make us who we are.
It's not insane. The number of genes doesn't matter. It's the actual genes that matter.