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.
stumason
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
A surprising number of ATS'ers fail to even grasp the basic meanings of words, which is just depressing, much less the science behind evolution. What is even worse is the amount of people calling for "evidence", yet it is out there in abundance - but when you provide it, it is simply ignored.
Description
Spiegelman introduced RNA from a simple Bacteriophage Qβ (Qβ) into a solution which contained the RNA replication enzyme RNA replicase from the Qβ virus Q-Beta Replicase, some free nucleotides and some salts. In this environment, the RNA started to replicate.[1] [2] After a while, Spiegelman took some RNA and moved it to another tube with fresh solution. This process was repeated.[3]
Shorter RNA chains were able to replicate faster, so the RNA became shorter and shorter as selection favored speed. After 74 generations, the original strand with 4,500 nucleotide bases ended up as a dwarf genome with only 218 bases. Such a short RNA had been able to replicate very quickly in these unnatural circumstances.
In 1997, Eigen and Oehlenschlager showed that the Spiegelman monster eventually becomes even shorter, containing only 48 or 54 nucleotides, which are simply the binding sites for the reproducing enzyme RNA replicase.[4]
M. Sumper and R. Luce of Eigen's laboratory demonstrated that a mixture containing no RNA at all but only RNA bases and Q-Beta Replicase can, under the right conditions, spontaneously generate self-replicating RNA which evolves into a form similar to Spiegelman's Monster.
Mendelian genetics, classical genetics, Boveri–Sutton chromosome theory - first genetical theories. Not invalidated as such, but subsumed into molecular genetics.
Molecular genetics is the field of biology and genetics that studies the structure and function of genes at a molecular level. Molecular genetics employs the methods of genetics and molecular biology to elucidate molecular function and interactions among genes. It is so called to differentiate it from other sub fields of genetics such as ecological genetics and population genetics.
Along with determining the pattern of descendants, molecular genetics helps in understanding developmental biology, genetic mutations that can cause certain types of diseases. Through utilizing the methods of genetics and molecular biology, molecular genetics discovers the reasons why traits are carried on and how and why some may mutate.
Dr. Jeremy England, a biophysicist at MIT, describes the natural and artificial evolution of life from a physics point of view.
Abstract
The intrinsic ability of protein structures to exhibit the geometric and sequence properties required for ligand binding without evolutionary selection is shown by the coincidence of the properties of pockets in native, single domain proteins with those in computationally generated, compact homopolypeptide, artificial (ART) structures. The library of native pockets is covered by a remarkably small number of representative pockets (∼400), with virtually every native pocket having a statistically significant match in the ART library, suggesting that the library is complete.
stumason
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
A surprising number of ATS'ers fail to even grasp the basic meanings of words, which is just depressing, much less the science behind evolution. What is even worse is the amount of people calling for "evidence", yet it is out there in abundance - but when you provide it, it is simply ignored.
Please go look up 'scientific theory' before you continue the discussion, ok?
missvicky
The "science behind evolution"? Last I heard it was still a theory.
missvicky
Especially when every indigenous tribe, every culture, believes it was Taught to: sew, make music, farm, read and write, etc. How can science explain the evolution that produced the human being also explain that without the human being the Earth's ecosystem would hum along just nicely, not even missing our presence?
missvickyHow can science explain the evolution that produced the human being also explain that without the human being the Earth's ecosystem would hum along just nicely, not even missing our presence?
SkepticOverlord
missvicky
Especially when every indigenous tribe, every culture, believes it was Taught to: sew, make music, farm, read and write, etc. How can science explain the evolution that produced the human being also explain that without the human being the Earth's ecosystem would hum along just nicely, not even missing our presence?
None of that represents anything contrary to the proven mechanics of biological evolution.
The evidence that supports the science of evolution is overwhelming and accepted by generations of scientists across the globe.
If one believes in a creator, why is it not possible to believe that the creator also put in motion evolution as a tool to ensure that which they created continued to improve for the better?
If one believes in a creator, doesn't the presence of evolution as a process to improve the quality, quantity, and diversity of species make that which was created all the more astounding?
SkepticOverlord
missvicky
Especially when every indigenous tribe, every culture, believes it was Taught to: sew, make music, farm, read and write, etc. How can science explain the evolution that produced the human being also explain that without the human being the Earth's ecosystem would hum along just nicely, not even missing our presence?
None of that represents anything contrary to the proven mechanics of biological evolution.
The evidence that supports the science of evolution is overwhelming and accepted by generations of scientists across the globe.
If one believes in a creator, why is it not possible to believe that the creator also put in motion evolution as a tool to ensure that which they created continued to improve for the better?
If one believes in a creator, doesn't the presence of evolution as a process to improve the quality, quantity, and diversity of species make that which was created all the more astounding?
Brotherman
Do you have or know of any decent places of information from the creationist stand point?
SkepticOverlord
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
Nothing you linked "disproved" the massive body of science that represents biologic evolution in any way. The Miller–Urey experiment has nothing to do with evolution, instead, it looked to origins based on testing a hypothesis.
The intrinsic ability of protein structures to exhibit the geometric and sequence properties required for ligand binding without evolutionary selection is shown by the coincidence of the properties of pockets in native, single domain proteins with those in computationally generated, compact homopolypeptide, artificial (ART) structures.
FriedBabelBroccoli
Do you understand what they are saying here?
SkepticOverlord
FriedBabelBroccoli
Do you understand what they are saying here?
That's the first sentence of the hypothesis abstract. Did you read the last paragraph of the actual study PDF?
FriedBabelBroccoli
If you have a list of other theories accepted as truth without any supporting laws I would be very grateful.
SkepticOverlord
FriedBabelBroccoli
If you have a list of other theories accepted as truth without any supporting laws I would be very grateful.
From a science standpoint, that's a silly question. A scientific theory is a group of one or more hypothesis that have been confirmed accurate or true via a repeatable series of tests and/or observations.
You don't expect not to fall off a building because gravity is "only a theory" do you?