Proof that evolution is the only answer

a reply to: Masterjaden

LMAO! Nothing was assumed. A land species of cricket got trapped in a watery cave system and isolated there. The species developed characteristics that suited the dark watery environment and became a new species. That is just one example of many that shows natural selection in action. Is it not an assumption in the first to place to dismiss this and say that the traits came from gene flow from another species in the cave?

Natural selection is pretty much common sense. Organisms adapt to a given environment over time. You can deny it, but you don't have any evidence of an alternative theory so you might as well be singing Bohemian Rhapsody.

a reply to: cooperton

Sorry for the delay - will have to answer tomorrow or Saturday - but will answer.

a reply to: Barcs

ok, let's say for a moment that I concede that natural selection exists and that your proposed evidence of the crickets is 100% accurate that they had none of those traits and there were no crickets already trapped that had those traits, either latently or otherwise. That still is not empirical evidence of evolutionary theory. That is evidence of adaptation to changing environments. (BTW, you didn't address the point I was making there and I do NOT concede that point without actually seeing the study myself).

To exptrapolate that out to the degree necessary to support even common ancestral links between beetles and crickets, let alone dinosaurs and birds, let alone minerals/lightning and bananas requires faith and belief, not empirical science.

Until you can understand that point, there is no moving forward; you will simply continue to be impaired by the paradigms teaching you what is and isn't and will be unable to rationally and logically evaluate for yourself.

Jaden

a reply to: TerryDon79

You don't seem to understand what conclusions can be made from experimentation, which is EXACTLY why I asked what you think can be known from the atomic clock experiments.

Jaden

p.s. modern science has way too much focus on statemented facts(that are anything but) rather than logical evaluation. There needs to be MUCH more focus on logical evaluation in modern society than there is. Do you not understand that the paradigms by their very nature WANT people to just accept them. This might be in some cases subconscious, or conscious on the parts of those furthering the paradigms, but it IS the case nonetheless...

originally posted by: Masterjaden
ok, let's say for a moment that I concede that natural selection exists and that your proposed evidence of the crickets is 100% accurate that they had none of those traits and there were no crickets already trapped that had those traits, either latently or otherwise. That still is not empirical evidence of evolutionary theory. That is evidence of adaptation to changing environments. (BTW, you didn't address the point I was making there and I do NOT concede that point without actually seeing the study myself).

I searched for the study but could not find it because all of the articles about this do not mention the species name. There is a thread about these swimming crickets already in this section, however.

www.bbc.co.uk...

Adapting to environments is precisely what evolution is. It's the accumulation of small changes (shut up photoneffect I'm not going off on a tangent about semantics) and that is one example of many. Evolution is not big sudden change, it is the accumulation of numerous small changes that lead to a new species, and eventually lead to bigger differences. If you think that accumulation stops despite it being observed and verified in real time experiments, then you need to provide evidence of why. Just saying it doesn't count because it's a small change is pure ignorance. There is tons of evidence out there to support long term evolution, you just can't watch it in real time because it takes LONG. What about all that other evidence?

To exptrapolate that out to the degree necessary to support even common ancestral links between beetles and crickets, let alone dinosaurs and birds, let alone minerals/lightning and bananas requires faith and belief, not empirical science.

First off to claim anything about minerals or lightning is a strawman. That is not evolution. Second, we can prove relation via genetics. Your basic paternity test is confirmation. You can compare genomes of any 2 organism on earth today and figure how related they are. If geneticists could not do this, then paternity tests wouldn't be accepted in court as empirical proof of relation.

Until you can understand that point, there is no moving forward; you will simply continue to be impaired by the paradigms teaching you what is and isn't and will be unable to rationally and logically evaluate for yourself.

Your point is pure BS, and is merely creationist conjecture. There is no micro or macro evolution, only evolution. Adaptation over multiple generations in a population IS evolution. Until you can understand this point, there will be no moving forward because your version of evolution is a straw man.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: TerryDon79

Hello TerryDon79.
Would you be able to layout the current framework of evolutionary theory as defined by the MES ?

I didn't think so

a reply to: Barcs

Just post the scientific research about the crickets Barcs, and lets debate those points instead. Fair enough?

originally posted by: Barcs

Adapting to environments is precisely what evolution is.

no. When I go up to higher altitudes my epigenome is changed to attend to the altered oxygen levels - this is adaptation and is in no way evolution.

It's the accumulation of small changes and that is one example of many. Evolution is not big sudden change, it is the accumulation of numerous small changes that lead to a new species

There is often a disconnect on this idea from theory to reality. All changes are theorized to occur through genetic mutation - that means that all changes must be based on altering the genetic code and thus protein chains. Titin, a protein in muscle, can be as long as 36,000 amino acids - that's around 108,000 nucleotides of code for one tertiary protein! How could this have evolved through mutation over time? It is completely unfathomable - especially when considering that an incomplete protein sequence leads to a worthless protein; not to mention the necessary chaperone proteins to ensure proper folding of said protein...

You really need to analyze the hard science behind the theorized mechanisms. Like Masterjaden said, there needs to be more logical analysis of the feasibility of these mainstream theories.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Barcs

Adapting to environments is precisely what evolution is.

no. When I go up to higher altitudes my epigenome is changed to attend to the altered oxygen levels - this is adaptation and is in no way evolution.

Oh, all of a sudden adaptation means something else? Funny how you guys always do this. We give examples of evolution in a population and it gets dismissed as "Hey! That's not evolution, that's adaptation!" Then when we point out that adaptation is part of evolution, you change the definition of adaptation to mean something entirely different than in does in the example we gave. You guys really need to come up with a new gimmick. It used to be fun trying to figure out your arguments and how to debunk them. Now it's just redundant because your arguments do not evolve.

Evolution applies to populations and passing down of genes. It's not about one individual temporarily adapting to an environment.

You really need to analyze the hard science behind the theorized mechanisms. Like Masterjaden said, there needs to be more logical analysis of the feasibility of these mainstream theories.

Please offer citations on this protein folding and how it negates evolution. Posting big numbers doesn't help, the genome is HUGE. Break it down with the math on why it would take too long for small changes to accumulate, and show scientific research that makes this conclusion. I'm all ears, but I'm certainly not just taking your word for it, or believing a creationist website here. I want the full math broken down and a citation of resources. Thanks.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

I didn't do it because I haven't been here much. I'm also finding this thread a major waste of time as none of the deniers are even arguing. All they're doing is denying without any counter evidence.

So, try googling what you seek. I'm not gonna be posting on this thread again.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Barcs
Just post the scientific research about the crickets Barcs, and lets debate those points instead. Fair enough?

I spent a good amount of time digging, but had no luck finding the paper, although I found dozens of articles, like the one I posted to Jaden above. The problem is it's tough to search these data bases of research papers without the species name. Based on the articles it seems that nothing has happened since the initial discovery, maybe a work in progress.

originally posted by: Barcs

Oh, all of a sudden adaptation means something else?

Research epigenetics. Our adaptation mechanisms should not be confused with evolution. Whether they are population-based adaptation such as bottleneck and allele drift, or individual epigenetic changes, this is not evolution - they are adaptation mechanisms that are working with preset genes.

originally posted by: Barcs

Please offer citations on this protein folding and how it negates evolution.

You have to think for your self on this one. Which came first the protein that needed folding, or the protein that folded it? Either is irrelevant without the other.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Barcs

Oh, all of a sudden adaptation means something else?

Research epigenetics. Our adaptation mechanisms should not be confused with evolution. Whether they are population-based adaptation such as bottleneck and allele drift, or individual epigenetic changes, this is not evolution - they are adaptation mechanisms that are working with preset genes.

Can you support any of these claims with proper citations or are we to simply take your word that this is how things work? Let's look at your example from above where you claim that it is merely an epigenetic and temporary adaptation that allows someone to acclimate to higher altitudes. If it is in fact an epigenetic change, why then are levels of acclimation different for each person and not consistent across the board? If it were in fact, just an epigenetic change as you describe, you would expect the same dormant genes to be tapped into in each person attempting to acclimate to high elevations. This simply is not the case and altitude sickness is extremely common. Even at relatively low elevations like Denver Colorado where the 02 levels are 17% lower than they are at sea level, people suffer from altitude sickness.

Even in people who are able to successfully acclimate from sea level to a high altitude, their physiological processes and responses are never operating at the levels they do at sea level. Women across the board, have difficult deliveries as well as very high rates of miscarriage because of the hypoxia that is inherent due to reduced 02 levels and the decreased atmospheric density at altitudes above 2 miles.

This is in stark contrast to people born with the EPAS1(along with roughly 10 more adapttive mutations) mutation from Tibet, Nepal and Northern India. This is an actual genetic mutation that in combination with natural selection, allows for these people to thrive at altitudes as high as 3 miles above sea level. They don't suffer from the same limitations as people born at sea level without the EPSA1 mutation who have to try to acclimate to the higher altitudes. There is nothing epigenetic about these native Tibetans et al. Another point to note is that the mutation that allows people who live at high altitudes in the Himalayan region to thrive is a completely different mutation than that which allows people native to the Andes to thrive at higher altitudes. Not only is the mutation different, the physiology of HOW these mutations work, is completely different as well.

In the Himalayas, the physiological response from the EPAS1 mutation is to breathe faster to take in more oxygen along with broader arteries and capillaries, which allows for much higher rates of blood flow and consequently, greater amounts of oxygen delivered to their muscles. This is despite the fact that they have relatively normal hemoglobin levels.

In the Andes, the response is to produce more hemoglobin stemming from completely different adaptive mutations. From a stody on the Colla people of the Argentinian Highlands-

This study evaluates genetic and phenotypic variation in the Colla population living in the Argentinean Andes above 3500 m and compares it to the nearby lowland Wichí group in an attempt to pinpoint evolutionary mechanisms underlying adaptation to high altitude hypoxia. We genotyped 730,525 SNPs in 25 individuals from each population. In genome-wide scans of extended haplotype homozygosity Collas showed the strongest signal around VEGFB, which plays an essential role in the ischemic heart, and ELTD1, another gene crucial for heart development and prevention of cardiac hypertrophy. Moreover, pathway enrichment analysis showed an overrepresentation of pathways associated with cardiac morphology. Taken together, these findings suggest that Colla highlanders may have evolved a toolkit of adaptative mechanisms resulting in cardiac reinforcement, most likely to counteract the adverse effects of the permanently increased haematocrit and associated shear forces that characterise the Andean response to hypoxia. Regulation of cerebral vascular flow also appears to be part of the adaptive response in Collas. These findings are not only relevant to understand the evolution of hypoxia protection in high altitude populations but may also suggest new avenues for medical research into conditions where hypoxia constitutes a detrimental factor.

Colla Study

anthro.palomar.edu...

evolution.berkeley.edu...

originally posted by: Barcs

Please offer citations on this protein folding and how it negates evolution.

You have to think for your self on this one. Which came first the protein that needed folding, or the protein that folded it? Either is irrelevant without the other.

What exactly is the point of making claims that you refuse to support? It seems a little dishonest from where I'm sitting. You have a laundry list of unsupported claims and now you're attempting to redefine how Biologists and Anthropologists define adaptation simply to suit your own argument which has no basis in science. This is all too common with people on ATS who essentially copy and paste the entirety of their positions from YEC websites. They think that they can decide how science should operate and attempt define everything from their own biased perspective because the science does not support their religious views. You don't refute the actual science, you make claims, sometimes from a point of absolute ignorance and then push the onus of support off on anyone and everyone else. It's a terribly disingenuous approach. Adaptation is defined precisely in evolutionary biology. If you choose to redefine it, then you've walked right off the ledge and are being hypocritical as you lob insults and make charges against people who have studied these fields and how they engage in that work. Meanwhile, you refuse to support your own opinions. What exactly is the point of engaging in a discussion of this nature if you are going to do so from such a dishonest vantage point? Raggedyman I expect this from. I had hoped for a little more from you though. It's too bad because you're not an obvious troll like other posters and you're not an imbecile either. I guess an honest dialogue is too much to ask for period at this point from ATS participants.

you guys trying to find god in a petri-dish is hysterical!

ya think the guy has no life at all?

when did the subject of god first come up, more important, why?

you're not going to find him in a petri-dish-
but you will feel him when you look into the eyes of someone you love.

feel grateful and thank him.

a reply to: loveguy

when did the subject of god first come up, more important, why?

When Mr. Urgh got hit by lighting?
Because, what the heck is lightning?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: loveguy

when did the subject of god first come up, more important, why?

When Mr. Urgh got hit by lighting?
Because, what the heck is lightning?

hi phage. thanks for the smile.

lightning? did that evolve from some prehistoric form of heavy rain hates light rain?
mr. urgh is one tough dude surviving that, or someone upstairs likes him?

sorry-
just in a funny mood today.
take care

originally posted by: cooperton
a reply to: Phantom423

Thanks for that. From what I've read, the term for initial lead concentration is called "common lead". But they avoid the question of how to the isotopic ratio that would have been present millions, and billions of years ago. I understand mass spectrometry is very accurate, and that is not what I am disputing, because I am well aware we can accurately measure isotopic ratios. One of the nicer things about carbon-dating is that we have a reasonable estimate of initial C-14 in the system due to presently observed C-14 atmospheric levels.

But for Uranium-Lead dating I see no reliable way to estimate, let alone know, the initial isotopic ratios. and without such a certainty, I don't see how they can be certain about any dates that result from this method.

I understand your question to be how do you determine the initial ratio of U/Pb in rock samples. Here's how it's done:

238U to 206Pb and 235U to 207Pb have parallel decay routes which makes them ideal for dating minerals. The U/Pb dating method uses the zircon crystal (there are also several others) as a baseline for determining the initial amount of uranium in a particular crystal.

The rationale for the method is the crystal structure of zircon. The zircon core will hold uranium but rejects lead. When the zircon crystal is formed, uranium (if there is any), in the core is isolated and is at its initial state. Therefore, any 206Pb or 207Pb that is found in the crystal and outside the core is radiogenic, meaning it is a decay product of the uranium in the core. Therefore, when the ratio of uranium to radiogenic lead is measured versus the remaining uranium in the core, the age of the zircon can be established. In practice, many samples of zircon are analyzed and a "p" value is determined which ensures that the final calculation falls within an acceptable standard deviation or standard error band. That's a universal method in most sciences.

Zircon can contain other contaminants which could interfere with a standard mass spec evaporation analysis. This problem led to the development of the ion-microprobe which collimates the ions, separates them and makes them distinguishable. The collimated (parallel, single file) ions are counted and sorted and uranuim/Pb measured against the remaining uranium in the core.

There are other instruments involved in the analysis but essentially it's the nature of the zircon crystal whose core rejects lead but holds uranium which allows for the calculation of the initial state of uranium.

originally posted by: peter vlar
Let's look at your example from above where you claim that it is merely an epigenetic and temporary adaptation that allows someone to acclimate to higher altitudes. If it is in fact an epigenetic change, why then are levels of acclimation different for each person and not consistent across the board? If it were in fact, just an epigenetic change as you describe, you would expect the same dormant genes to be tapped into in each person attempting to acclimate to high elevations. This simply is not the case and altitude sickness is extremely common. Even at relatively low elevations like Denver Colorado where the 02 levels are 17% lower than they are at sea level, people suffer from altitude sickness.

So you are making the claim that altitude adaptation is evolution? What's your point with this?

evidence indicates that it is an epigenetic adaptation. Erythropoietin epigenetic mechanisms to acclimate to high altitudes: Erythropoietin in high altitudes,
altering erythropoietin levels

hence why people can acclimate to higher altitudes.

Even in people who are able to successfully acclimate from sea level to a high altitude, their physiological processes and responses are never operating at the levels they do at sea level.

Baseless. Altitude acclimation is a dynamic process and can return to normal levels once you return to sea level: altering erythropoietin levels

This is in stark contrast to people born with the EPAS1(along with roughly 10 more adapttive mutations) mutation

Proof this is a mutation rather than an alternate allele?

from Tibet, Nepal and Northern India. This is an actual genetic mutation that in combination with natural selection, allows for these people to thrive at altitudes as high as 3 miles above sea level. They don't suffer from the same limitations as people born at sea level without the EPSA1 mutation who have to try to acclimate to the higher altitudes.

What do you have to say about the people who move to high altitude climates and have no problem?

There is nothing epigenetic about these native Tibetans et al.

If that were true they would have trouble acclimating to lower altitudes, which you would need proof of.

Another point to note is that the mutation that allows people who live at high altitudes in the Himalayan region to thrive is a completely different mutation than that which allows people native to the Andes to thrive at higher altitudes. Not only is the mutation different, the physiology of HOW these mutations work, is completely different as well.

Source?

In the Himalayas, the physiological response from the EPAS1 mutation is to breathe faster to take in more oxygen along with broader arteries and capillaries

Yet vasodilation and vasoconstriction (expansion and contraction of blood vessels) is a known epigenetic mechanism that can alter arterial diameter: epigenetics of vasoconstriction/vasodilation

, which allows for much higher rates of blood flow and consequently, greater amounts of oxygen delivered to their muscles. This is despite the fact that they have relatively normal hemoglobin levels.

Which most humans have the necessary epigenetic mechanisms to do as well. i.e. anyone who has ever climbed a mountain.

In the Andes, the response is to produce more hemoglobin stemming from completely different adaptive mutations. From a stody on the Colla people of the Argentinian Highlands-

This study evaluates genetic and phenotypic variation in the Colla population living in the Argentinean Andes above 3500 m and compares it to the nearby lowland Wichí group in an attempt to pinpoint evolutionary mechanisms underlying adaptation to high altitude hypoxia. We genotyped 730,525 SNPs in 25 individuals from each population. In genome-wide scans of extended haplotype homozygosity Collas showed the strongest signal around VEGFB, which plays an essential role in the ischemic heart, and ELTD1, another gene crucial for heart development and prevention of cardiac hypertrophy. Moreover, pathway enrichment analysis showed an overrepresentation of pathways associated with cardiac morphology. Taken together, these findings suggest that Colla highlanders may have evolved a toolkit of adaptative mechanisms resulting in cardiac reinforcement, most likely to counteract the adverse effects of the permanently increased haematocrit and associated shear forces that characterise the Andean response to hypoxia. Regulation of cerebral vascular flow also appears to be part of the adaptive response in Collas. These findings are not only relevant to understand the evolution of hypoxia protection in high altitude populations but may also suggest new avenues for medical research into conditions where hypoxia constitutes a detrimental factor.

Colla Study

VEGFB is a source of this adaptability - VEGFB is tightly regulated by epigenetic mechanisms: methylation (epigenetic) patterns in VEGFB

ELTD1 is the other source of adaptability mentioned in your quote - ELTD1 is also tightly regulated by epigenetic mechanisms: ELTD1 hypermethylation (epigenetic control)

This is exactly my point. People are mistaking epigenetic mechanisms for evolution.

originally posted by: Phantom423

I understand your question to be how do you determine the initial ratio of U/Pb in rock samples. Here's how it's done:

238U to 206Pb and 235U to 207Pb have parallel decay routes which makes them ideal for dating minerals. The U/Pb dating method uses the zircon crystal (there are also several others) as a baseline for determining the initial amount of uranium in a particular crystal.

The rationale for the method is the crystal structure of zircon. The zircon core will hold uranium but rejects lead. When the zircon crystal is formed, uranium (if there is any), in the core is isolated and is at its initial state. Therefore, any 206Pb or 207Pb that is found in the crystal and outside the core is radiogenic, meaning it is a decay product of the uranium in the core. Therefore, when the ratio of uranium to radiogenic lead is measured versus the remaining uranium in the core, the age of the zircon can be established. In practice, many samples of zircon are analyzed and a "p" value is determined which ensures that the final calculation falls within an acceptable standard deviation or standard error band. That's a universal method in most sciences.

Zircon can contain other contaminants which could interfere with a standard mass spec evaporation analysis. This problem led to the development of the ion-microprobe which collimates the ions, separates them and makes them distinguishable. The collimated (parallel, single file) ions are counted and sorted and uranuim/Pb measured against the remaining uranium in the core.

There are other instruments involved in the analysis but essentially it's the nature of the zircon crystal whose core rejects lead but holds uranium which allows for the calculation of the initial state of uranium.

This process of zircon indicating initial uranium-lead concentration would be hard to observe due to the long half life of uranium, but I wouldn't doubt it could be observable and reproducible. Do you know of any experiments that observe zircon to be a clear indicator of uranium-lead initial concentration? I've been looking my self and have not found any (which is not me implying there is no evidence of such - I am genuinely curious).

originally posted by: loveguy

you're not going to find him in a petri-dish-
but you will feel him when you look into the eyes of someone you love.

feel grateful and thank him.

UGH! Can you prove this with peer-reviewed papers? Is there any evidence that God exists in the spiritual connection of a lover and the beloved? Until you can present FACTUAL EVIDENCE for such a case, your comment is erroneous at best, and misleading at worst.

Just kidding of course Thanks for the comment.