Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The biggest flaw in Evolutionary Theory

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 05:27 PM
link   
Well since everything I previously wrote was erased (pissing me off), I'm going to make this very short.

Prokaryotes evolved into Eukaryotes only once in history. Prokaryotes still exist, and have not evolved into Eukaryotes again in over 2 Billion years. This is one but also the most prominent example that all evolutionary theory is "linear progressive".

I use this term to explain and show that evolution is mankind placing human qualities onto nature, more specifically human psychology. Since the industrial revolution mankind has thought in terms of "linear progressive", history has been reinterpreted as linear progressive by Marx. Science has been seen as linear progressive and is generally accepted to be such by technological progress.

It's only sensible, that Biologists, would see the natural world as linear progressive.

But if Prokaryotes do not evolve into Eukaryotes continually through out evolutionary history, creating multiple branches of different origins for major groups of organisms, then evolution is no more than a flawed observance of Biologic history.

Why?

Because all evolution is thought to occur happenstance, regardless of the inputs needed, it still relies upon a random number generator and great time to make low probability more probable.

But randomness cannot happen linear progressively.



+5 more 
posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by FreeMason
 


Oh wow, you did it, you totally disproved evolution, go collect your Nobel.







Wait...

Do some reading...

Our DNA from day one to our deaths is not the same. Dammit! Your whole theory, disproved with one little side note.

Shucks.

Bacteria and viruses alter our cells over time, no different than how they incorporated themselves into each other eons ago.







Because all evolution is thought to occur happenstance, regardless of the inputs needed, it still relies upon a random number generator and great time to make low probability more probable.


So there is no environmental factors in evolution?
edit on 10-10-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 05:56 PM
link   
Hi,

You're looking for the Endosymbiotic Theory and origin of eukaryotic cells for your answer!

Eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes. Inside the prokaryote's membrane, in the middle of the cell, DNA emerged as the nucleus sunk down into the cell (surrounding the DNA) and thus came prokaryotic cells. Prokaryotic cell's organelles came from a eukaryote engulfing a prokaryote, which is where mitochondria and other prokaryotic organelles originated.

Now since I'm only a junior and in Biology 2 AP, I'm going off of what I learned just last month. I'm sure there's a more in-depth explanation by some biologists that you could find by some quick searching on Google. Hope you find whatever it is you're looking for, or don't! Whatever contents and makes you happy.



posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Philosophile
Hi,

You're looking for the Endosymbiotic Theory and origin of eukaryotic cells for your answer!

Eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes. Inside the prokaryote's membrane, in the middle of the cell, DNA emerged as the nucleus sunk down into the cell (surrounding the DNA) and thus came prokaryotic cells. Prokaryotic cell's organelles came from a eukaryote engulfing a prokaryote, which is where mitochondria and other prokaryotic organelles originated.

Now since I'm only a junior and in Biology 2 AP, I'm going off of what I learned just last month. I'm sure there's a more in-depth explanation by some biologists that you could find by some quick searching on Google. Hope you find whatever it is you're looking for, or don't! Whatever contents and makes you happy.


Believe me there isn't, the theory you mentioned only explains the one time evolutionary occurrence of the Eukaryote in the history of the world. All organisms owe their common ancestry to this one event.

Now contrary to the cynicism of the previous poster before you, this is a major flaw in evolutionary theory yet to be explained or addressed, there are other problems, such as are explained in "Organic Evolution Considered".

Darwin made a number of logic arguments that Darwin himself said if such discoveries were made in the field of biology it would disprove his own evolutionary theories as he had originally proposed them. Such biological discoveries were made and discussed in the book "Organic Evolution Considered".

By Darwin's own admission his theories were disproven in 1897.

Now I don't mean this disproves all of Evolutionary theory, but what I'm getting at is that Evolutionary theory is based on "logical arguments" and many of those arguments fail the test of observed biology.

One of those failures is the single occurrence of evolution, prokaryote to eukaryote happened only once in the common ancestry.

The development of a backbone happened only once leaving every backboned species with common ancestry. Why not happen multiple times leaving multiple ancestries?

The entire "common origins" of "species" (Themselves hard to define because a species is either related sexually or has to be assumed based on morphology) is itself illogical.

If anything, there should be many origins to many different organisms.

But you never hear about this in Evolutionary Theory circles.



posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 06:13 PM
link   

boncho
reply to post by FreeMason
 


Oh wow, you did it, you totally disproved evolution, go collect your Nobel.







Wait...

Do some reading...

Our DNA from day one to our deaths is not the same. Dammit! Your whole theory, disproved with one little side note.

Shucks.

Bacteria and viruses alter our cells over time, no different than how they incorporated themselves into each other eons ago.







Because all evolution is thought to occur happenstance, regardless of the inputs needed, it still relies upon a random number generator and great time to make low probability more probable.


So there is no environmental factors in evolution?
edit on 10-10-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)


Bacteria and Viruses do not evolve and are misused as examples of evolution.

A Bacteria never becomes more than a Bacteria, and a Virus never becomes anything other than another type of Virus. Mutations and adaptations within their own genetic limits is not in any way a form of evolution, it is what they are genetically made to do.

A bacteria can no more evolve into a complex cellular organism with a backbone, than a primate could evolve into a human.

And on that note, Humans share only 93-95% DNA with Chimps, but share 98% DNA with Pigs.

Are we more related to Pigs than to the proposed ancestor of our lineage?



posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by FreeMason
 


Do you have any better explanation that is up to general scientific method standards, as in: is it observable, can it be measured or recorded, are results consistent, and so on? But by all means, I feel as if you should know that I don't really care how or why we are where we, as organisms, are today. It happened, and so be it. Evolution is the accepted explanation to the origin of all biological life on earth and to this day nobody has had any rational argument to otherwise disprove. And I understand that evolution is very scrutinized and practically every person who has a different opinion on the origin of life has offered their ideas, but still there's no other accepted ideology (empirical, anyway) that provides a logical explanation.

Now, I'm nobody worth discussing this over because like I said, I'm only a junior who is taking Biology 2, and has little actual information to offer you; just stating the basis of my own reasoning. I certainly don't want to seem as if I'm being rude either so I hope I don't appear that way.

So I also have to ask you, why is the whole ordeal of importance to you?



posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 07:04 PM
link   

FreeMason
This is one but also the most prominent example that all evolutionary theory is "linear progressive".

It's only sensible, that Biologists, would see the natural world as linear progressive.



I've never seen a creationist who actually knows what evolution is.
Its like creationists walk around with a distorted weirdo view of evolution, and attack that instead.
Its like a "straw man" argument, except that in this case the creationists are too dumb to know the straw man isnt actually real.

No. Evolution is not "linear progressive", and you wont be able to find any evolutionary biologist who says that it is. I know that several of Steven Jay Gould's articles railed against this incorrect view.



posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by FreeMason
 


You are founding your whole argument upon an unsupported assumption based upon anthropomorphic bias.
I don't know where you getting that evolutionary theory is "linear progressive".

Reminds me of the old creo cherry "If humans came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys around?"
This is because there was no linear progression of monkeys towards humans. A small group of ancient monkeys gathered more and more mutations until they were different enough from the original monkeys to be considered a different species.

It may just be happenstance that certain lineages were as successful as they were. I really doubt that if we traveled back in time that you would be able to pick which species would give rise to successful lineages. It is only through hindsight that we know which lineages were the most successful.

Also, modern prokaryotes haven't been around for billions of years. One could easily argue that some recently evolved eukaryote was the intended outcome. Perhaps the recently evolved nylon-eating bacteria were the intended outcome.
Or, we could decide that blue tailed lizards were the intended outcome. Or absolutely any organism you care to name. This lack of specificity strikes me as the only major flaw.


Let's look at the game Jenga. IMHO, it is a great analogy for biological interdependence. As you move more and more blocks to the top of the stack you will find that certain blocks are absolutely vital to keep the stack upright.
However, there is no way you could have predicted ahead of time which blocks those would be. These vital blocks only become vital as time moves forward. No one had to stack the deck to make these blocks vital.

It just happens. Evolution is the same way. Certain proteins will start towards the "top of the stack" and are not a vital function. However, as more and more functions become dependent on that function (i.e. more blocks are stacked on top of it) it becomes a vital function.
You want to say that this requires foresight and planning, but I see no reason why it does and you have offered no evidence as to why it would.
edit on fThursday1315108f152708 by flyingfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 08:21 PM
link   
I like to believe God made us. The explanation I like the most is he made us in his own image and gave us the breath of life. I don't have proof because I believe. Maybe evolution was intended to exist and is a process where life is created and where consciousness can arise from. Maybe... I guess it is a belief as well for now.

But, I find it easier and simpler to believe in our Father. I already have my own satisfying proof and many many people can agree with me and observe and share the same experience as I do kinda like peer reviewed over many many many decades.

What good is it to know how to make us anyways?

What purpose does that serve?

We all know where reverse engineering leads to....



posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by bitsforbytes
 


Some are content in ignorance, but fortunately for you society hasn’t listened to ignorance and has come to realize the benefits of science in exchange for relinquishing its grasp of ancient fairy tails, no matter how comforting they are.

I for one am grateful to live in an age where I can share in understanding at least a little of our wondrous Universe instead of making up primitive and childish fables to explain it.

If it were up to fellow delusional, brainwashed creationists, we’d still be spending our winter nights living in caves huddled around campfires praying to a magic sky daddy to make our lives better, instead of huddled around our computers laughing at dipsh#t creo's.
edit on fThursday13171010f171110 by flyingfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 10:19 PM
link   
There are a few cases where evolution has created similar outcomes from very different origins. If that is what you're getting at with your "Why not create two back bones" ?

The thylacine for example, a marsupial, with all the characteristics of a canine. Evolved entirely separate from all other animal life, in a completely different environment.

Yet had markedly similar characteristics to mammalian evolution.



Does this give any credibility to evolution working as it should, where the environment helps to shape the outcome of the life it contains?

Where it is not required, life will remain unchanged. Where it is an effervescent and volatile environment, life will be varied and different. There is no requirement for things to change where there is no need to change.

Why would life need to duplicate a spine? The structure exists as it does without need to improve in life that has evolved with it, and in other life, it is completely missing, and replaced by an exoskeleton.

What is your alternative then? How does it merit validation even if you are correct and evolution is complete baloney. Is it God? Or do we strive to find the truth because the 99.99% truth just doesn't cut it?

I am all for a rational approach to it all. But I don't see our limited understanding of everything being the same as everything we know as wrong.
edit on 10-10-2013 by winofiend because: urgh



posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by FreeMason
 


Very well said!!

In Computer science there is no random, Random can only be simulated.

Its pretty much the same outside the simulation.

The Woolly Mammoth/African Elephant/Asian Elephant have the coding to grow thick hair in the cold or big ears in the sunny hot climate for fast adaptations through a couple generations, instead of eons!!

 


I do that myself, write out a massive wall of text just to delete it.

Its a good mental exercise imo. Stress Relief...
edit on 10-10-2013 by AbleEndangered because: sentence arrangement



posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by FreeMason
 


The idea of "more related to" is misleading. We share DNA with all life. None of it is so unique that it has zero relation.

We share DNA with zebrafish.. 85% or so. Yet how similar is a zebrafish to a pig to a chimp to us?

At some point, very long ago, some form of life became separated and the environment that caused this separation shaped this change, leading to the many forms of related life today.

Unless there is some thinking that we were always primates, and we never did not exist, then I don't see how this is a problem. It's observed in the world today, and we can see via investigative study and archaeology, and anthropolgy, and fossil evidence, we can see that it happened.

We share DNA with trees. We did not come from a tree.


edit on 10-10-2013 by winofiend because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by AbleEndangered
 


The OP stated in his opening post that he feels evolution is flawed because we as humans are applying human psychology to it.

Here you're doing the exact same thing, in agreeance with him.

How more human can you get, comparing evolution to a computer program.



posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by winofiend
 


Why are you not comparing it to a program??

It has Coding

Stores Immense amounts Data

Copies, Replicates, Integrates

Transfers energy

Transfers knowledge....



posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 10:58 PM
link   

AbleEndangered
reply to post by winofiend
 


Why are you not comparing it to a program??

It has Coding

Stores Immense amounts Data

Copies, Replicates, Integrates

Transfers energy

Transfers knowledge....


Perhaps that is how we were able to produce the idea of a computer. Not the other way around. Mathematics is not random either, yet it's all around us in nature. We don't assume that because 1 + 1 = 2 that it's designed that way, it just is. Fractals make up the formation of many naturally occuring things, yet it was only via examing nature did we realise this.

It's certainly not programmed. Just because it is efficient does not mean it is designed.

Proton gradients don't require an operator to maintain function.. yet arguably, may have been the spark of life.



posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 11:52 PM
link   

winofiend

AbleEndangered
reply to post by winofiend
 


Why are you not comparing it to a program??

It has Coding

Stores Immense amounts Data

Copies, Replicates, Integrates

Transfers energy

Transfers knowledge....


Perhaps that is how we were able to produce the idea of a computer. Not the other way around. Mathematics is not random either, yet it's all around us in nature. We don't assume that because 1 + 1 = 2 that it's designed that way, it just is. Fractals make up the formation of many naturally occuring things, yet it was only via examing nature did we realise this.

It's certainly not programmed. Just because it is efficient does not mean it is designed.

Proton gradients don't require an operator to maintain function.. yet arguably, may have been the spark of life.



Why would you say we don't assume math is designed? I think God made everything as it is, I think the laws of the Universe such as mathematical laws make obvious example of this. I'm not alone, people lived and died pursuing sacred Geometry trying to find God.



posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 11:55 PM
link   

winofiend
reply to post by FreeMason
 


The idea of "more related to" is misleading. We share DNA with all life. None of it is so unique that it has zero relation.

We share DNA with zebrafish.. 85% or so. Yet how similar is a zebrafish to a pig to a chimp to us?

At some point, very long ago, some form of life became separated and the environment that caused this separation shaped this change, leading to the many forms of related life today.

Unless there is some thinking that we were always primates, and we never did not exist, then I don't see how this is a problem. It's observed in the world today, and we can see via investigative study and archaeology, and anthropolgy, and fossil evidence, we can see that it happened.

We share DNA with trees. We did not come from a tree.


edit on 10-10-2013 by winofiend because: (no reason given)


We don't "SHARE" DNA with anything, DNA is a tool, like gravity, and like gravity we are no more related to a species because we are pulled to earth, than we are because our DNA is composed of X% of the same chemical pattern.

The idea that DNA is evidence of common ancestry is preposterous and my point was proven by the fact that 98% of Pigs' DNA is the exact same pattern as that of Humanity.



posted on Oct, 11 2013 @ 12:02 AM
link   

alfa1

FreeMason
This is one but also the most prominent example that all evolutionary theory is "linear progressive".

It's only sensible, that Biologists, would see the natural world as linear progressive.



I've never seen a creationist who actually knows what evolution is.
Its like creationists walk around with a distorted weirdo view of evolution, and attack that instead.
Its like a "straw man" argument, except that in this case the creationists are too dumb to know the straw man isnt actually real.

No. Evolution is not "linear progressive", and you wont be able to find any evolutionary biologist who says that it is. I know that several of Steven Jay Gould's articles railed against this incorrect view.


Evolution is not linear progressive? Perfect, find me where evolutionary biologists have found multiple evolutionary trees of major organs common to animalia.

Oh wait, you can't...so what was all this puff piece about me not knowing what evolution is?

I know enough about evolution (responding to another post now) to know that environmental effects on adaptation are reasonable and observed, but hardly evidence of evolution.

Because the famous birds of Galapagos adapt to the environment as it changes provides absolutely no evidence of evolution. In fact, adaptation is what is poorly understood. We see beaks change size and shape within the finches and think this evidences evolution, then we see further deviation on other islands of isolated genetics but similar origin, and call this evolution.

But who is to say that these observed changes are still not what is permissible (refer to the bacteria example) within the genetic code of that bird?

That is to say, given a new environment a bacteria will become many varieties of itself, but it is plainly evident a bacteria has yet to become anything other than a bacteria.

Same with birds.

Even humans.

Distributed across the globe humans have adapted quite uniquely creating many racial traits, but no homosapien sapien is on the verge of becoming anything else because of these racial characteristics.



posted on Oct, 11 2013 @ 12:21 AM
link   

FreeMason

Bacteria and Viruses do not evolve and are misused as examples of evolution.

A Bacteria never becomes more than a Bacteria, and a Virus never becomes anything other than another type of Virus. Mutations and adaptations within their own genetic limits is not in any way a form of evolution, it is what they are genetically made to do.


completely untrue.


A bacteria can no more evolve into a complex cellular organism with a backbone, than a primate could evolve into a human.


ironic considering humans ARE primates but more to the point a more correct analogy would be to compare bacterial evolution with a mammal evolving into becoming a human as opposed to a primate. the evolution of primates is rather well documented at this point with new discoveries being made every dig season.


And on that note, Humans share only 93-95% DNA with Chimps, but share 98% DNA with Pigs.

Are we more related to Pigs than to the proposed ancestor of our lineage?


Not quite. Mammals have most of the same genes for similar biochemical and physiological functions. If you look at the details of the genes … there'll be differences between them, but they'll still be doing the same kind of function.

It's a little bit like having a Ford or a Holden — it's still obviously a car but a slightly different version.

But while 20,000 similar genes sounds like a lot, only one to two per cent of our DNA actually encodes proteins. Most of the rest is transcribed into RNA.

Some RNAs that don't carry the plans for proteins have important structural or functional roles in their own right. Transfer RNAs, for example, ferry specific amino acids into a growing protein, while ribosomal RNA constitutes part of the factories in cells that manufacture proteins.

But we are only just beginning to understand what many other non-coding RNA molecules do. Some control higher level functions such as the expression of protein-encoding genes, and some have even been implicated in memory.

Parts of the genome that don't encode proteins tend to evolve rapidly, so you can have significant regions of the genome where there's no discernible similarity between species. This means many sequences will not line up when you compare genomes between species.

And the further away two species are on the evolutionary tree, the greater the difference.

"If we compare really closely related species, like a human and chimpanzee, we can still see the similarity between these rapidly changing sequences. If you move further away to the more distantly related pig, so many changes in the DNA will have occurred that it is no longer possible to recognize that the sequences were ever similar.

Depending upon what it is that you are comparing you can say 'Yes, there's a very high degree of similarity, for example between a human and a pig protein coding sequence', but if you compare rapidly evolving non-coding sequences from a similar location in the genome, you may not be able to recognize any similarity at all. This means that blanket comparisons of all DNA sequences between species are not very meaningful.
edit on 11-10-2013 by peter vlar because: (no reason given)









 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join