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.
originally posted by: Hefficide
States that viruses have undergone drastic mutations over a fairly short period, comes to the conclusion that this evolution disproves evolution...
My head hurts.
Complexity ever in the eye of its beholders, the animal with the most genes -- about 31,000 -- is the near-microscopic freshwater crustacean Daphnia pulex, or water flea. By comparison, humans have about 23,000 genes. Daphnia is the first crustacean to have its genome sequenced.
originally posted by: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Since evolution goes from the simple to the complex, this contradicts the model.
This is an incorrect assumption on your part. It is a common misconception amongst creationists.
Evolution is not a ladder
The evolutionary ladder has never been a scientific concept, and Darwin talked of common descent, yet even this 1998 reprint of On The Origin Of Species shows a (rather giant) leap from a modern looking monkey to a reconstruction of a relatively recent possible human ancestor. Yet, despite the fact that the evolutionary ladder has never been a scientific theory, lay people seem to think that it is. When a fossil skull, named Touma�, was found in Chad in 2002 an article in Nature (Whitfield, 2002) which stated that the fossil prompted a rethink of human evolution was jumped on by creationists as the end of evolutionary theory altogether (Yahya, 2002). The reason was that when scientists were asked to comment about the fact that the find did not fit with the evolutionary ladder their response was that the evolutionary ladder is not a scientific theory and is baseless. The creationists jumped on this because to them the evolutionary ladder is evolution, or even if they don't think that, it's still convenient to pretend that the evolutionary ladder is the prevailing evolutionary theory when there are scientists attacking it.
originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Oh man, I guess the more genes the more advanced right?
Wrong.
Complexity ever in the eye of its beholders, the animal with the most genes -- about 31,000 -- is the near-microscopic freshwater crustacean Daphnia pulex, or water flea. By comparison, humans have about 23,000 genes. Daphnia is the first crustacean to have its genome sequenced.
Source
So a microscopic crustacean is more genetically complex than humans are.
The number of genes an organism has has no bearing on evolution whatsoever. Sometimes evolution discards genes, other times it adds them.
This is a really weak argument.
originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: TinfoilTP
You are not understanding entropy. By your standard this:
Should be vastly superior to this:
When, in fact, the opposite is absolutely true.
By analysing the DNA of 125 human populations around the world, the scientists have produced the most detailed map of human genetic diversity yet produced.
They found humans appear to have lost around 15.8 million base pairs after separating from apes early in our evolutionary history in Africa, around 13 million years ago.
All you showed in your two pictures was an example of non equal scales. If the computer at the bottom was scaled to the upper computer it would dwarf it and show that it is obviously more complicated.
Genome size can increase by duplication, insertion, or polyploidization. Recombinationcan lead to both DNA loss or gain. Genomes can also shrink because of deletions.
A famous example for such gene decay is the genome of Mycobacterium leprae, the causative agent of leprosy. M.leprae has lost many once-functional genes over time due to the formation of pseudogenes.
An example of increasing genome size over time is seen in filamentous plant pathogens. These plant pathogen genomes have been growing larger over the years due to repeat-driven expansion.
originally posted by: boymonkey74
OP give up you are just embarrassing yourself.
originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: TinfoilTP
You got me here. I conce....
Oh wait...
Humans LOST DNA as they evolved: Early species had the equivalent of thousands more genes than we do now
By analysing the DNA of 125 human populations around the world, the scientists have produced the most detailed map of human genetic diversity yet produced.
They found humans appear to have lost around 15.8 million base pairs after separating from apes early in our evolutionary history in Africa, around 13 million years ago.
There you go, the same species showing less genetic complexity as it evolved.
You should really research things before you post them. Your conclusion was wrong because you started out with a faulty premise.
originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: TinfoilTP
All you showed in your two pictures was an example of non equal scales. If the computer at the bottom was scaled to the upper computer it would dwarf it and show that it is obviously more complicated.
What does this even mean? Are you saying that if the computer on the bottom was changed to be bigger than the one at the top then it would be bigger? Well, no duh. Thing is, the computer on the bottom at its current/simpler scale is more efficient and better than the one at the top. You can't just make your own rules.
Since evolution goes from the simple to the complex, this contradicts the model.
Evolutionists start wringing your hands and wiping off those beads of sweat on your brows, and come up with some comical malarkey to dismiss this