Darwin's theory of our species and its application is pseudoscience used to exploit the weak and po

reply to post by kyviecaldges


As far as i have understood the works of Darwin, he never intended his works to serve as a creation theory. If we take a look at the leftwing political establishment , it’s no big secret that they always have despised religion(Christianity in particular). Thus they have been looking for ways and methods to get rid of it ever since. That’s how they eventually hijacked Darwin’s work . They saw it as a tool , and they immediately went to work to modify (and basically re-write it) , so it would function as a theory that explained how everything in the physical world came into being through evolution. They only claimed that this process took millions of years. In this way nobody could really prove it wrong.

As long as it was backed by science , it was rock solid. Few people really believe in this theory. It only serves as a political tool to get rid of Christianity, and that’s why most people quietly accept this theory . They do it because they hate Christianity even more.

It is well known that the multitude of organizations out there (doing some kind of science) are basically all owned by the political establishment. Thus everybody that works in these organizations are payed by this political establishment, and in this way they are under their control. Thus they all support the evolution theory (whether they like it or not). If they didn’t do that, they would not be able to get jobs in any of those organizations. Thus mainstream science stands up as some sort of guarantists that cannot be proved wrong (because they are after all scientists!) .Thus mainstream science function more or less as a police force, guarding these politician’s theories by all means and at any time. What a powerful and ugly system it is.

In this way we sadly all loose. We pretty much all know this theory is dead wrong, but we are unable to get through with new ideas as they are effectively held back and ridiculed by this political establishment and mainstream science (and the religious establishment as well).

The last years, some signs have however appeared , that things (perhaps) is about to change, allowing more freedom to express new ideas and theories and views in public. Let’s hope it will change even more, because what we basically have today is an official creation theory that’s beyond hopeless.

reply to post by kyviecaldges


Here's an idea:

Okay, so perhaps time to go deeper. We’re not half human and half ‘alien’ – we have some DNA that is alien to this planet – 223 genes to be precise. The modern day ‘father’ of the Human Genome project is Dr. Francis Crick who together with his partner James Watson, won the Nobel Prize when they accurately deciphered the structure of the DNA molecule. But what has since been hushed up by ‘official science, are some of the stated conclusions that Francis Crick subsequently made. He shocked the scientific world back in 1953 when in one of his books he said this… ”In today’s global economy an ‘official science’ which denies the analytical study of spiritual phenomena, as a legitimate context for understanding human reality, has been created over time. The ‘science’ which is legitimated by institutions that are closely linked to this global economy, tends to seek to analyze only certain aspects of ‘materiality’. Prioritised subjects by this ‘official science’ are limited to areas which complement the agenda of constituencies of individuals who seek to manipulate the ‘recognized’ body of human knowledge for power and control. That scientific prioritisation context, has notably sought to exclude extraterrestrial relationships to humanity, in order to keep humanity ignorant of its apparent potential ‘locked’ heritage within its own DNA.” Dr Francis Crick More recently, renowned scientists around the world are quietly investigating this extra terrestrial “exo science” and having to do it ‘off-the-radar-screen’ of official channels which (it is clear) are purposely trying to suppress the work. In the Human Genome project, it has been shown that at least 223 human genes have no counterpart here on earth – which greatly calls into question the progressive evolving ‘natural selection’ theory for mankind. We are the only species here having these genes. The proof is there. Official Science can trace the time when Humans first appeared on earth 200,000 years ago. It can do this through the female ‘mitochondrial DNA’ which traces us ALL back to the original “Eve” ancestor. Our DNA is passed on through what are known as “Chromosomes” , which are really like the branches of a tree each holding collections of genes. All humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes (46 in total). In each pair, one chromosome is inherited from our mother and the other our father. Now this number 46 is crucial to the human origin story. Our genetics are about 97% equivalent to that of a Chimpanzee, great Ape or “Hominoid”, which were the naturally evolving pre-human lineage on earth. The difficulty official science has always had in relation to the natural evolution theory for mankind, is that Hominoids all have 48 Chromosomes. Why is it then that we are supposedly more evolved, yet we only have 46?

Modern science claims this happened naturally…then why hasn’t it happened in other species and why not again in humans?

Here are a couple of links:


youtu.be..." target="_blank" class="postlink">youtu.be...

youtu.be..." target="_blank" class="postlink">youtu.be...

When Official Science delved deeper, it realised that the reason we have two less, is because the second and third chromosomes have been fused into one. It tries to explain this by saying such a mutation could happen naturally and points to other evidence in nature such as butterflies. Indeed such spontaneous mutation can happen, but what they’re not saying (and quietly brushing under the carpet), is that although this ‘mutation’ offers no natural evolutionary advantage whatsoever, it appears in EVERY SINGLE HUMAN! How could that be? This fusing of the chromosomes is not what makes us human, and it does not offer any ‘natural’ evolutionary advantage. Yet we all have the mutation? If we supposedly evolved from Hominoids (like Neanderthal) and this mutation offers no advantage, then you’d expect to see some humans with 48 chromosomes and some with 46, but not ALL with 46!

! I think this is somewhat incorrect because we developed larger craniums, developed the ability of speech, lost body hair etc seemingly overnight. So the fusion of chromosomes 2 and 3 were critical.

But when you delve deeper into the chromosome story it gets even more curious. Each chromosome has three parts to it: both ends and a middle. Now in eight of the other human chromosomes, there has been an inversion of the middle part – it’s been ‘spun around’. Again, these inversions offer no natural evolutionary advantage – they don’t change the genetic material – yet ALL eight supposed ‘mutations’ appear in ALL humans. Now you don’t need to be a mathematician to know, that the odds for all nine mutations to happen spontaneously, where no natural evolutionary advantage was gained, and for that to happen to both the original human male and female, at exactly the same time, and in exactly the same place, and for them to breed and produce the entire human offspring is so unlikely, the odds are literally zillions to one! So why then are there these so called nine ‘mutations’? I believe it’s quite simple. If you were an advanced race intending to seed humanity on earth, yes you’d take a majority of the genetics from the most suitable species – from Hominoids. If you wanted them to be bright, smart and cosmically connected, you’d feed in some of your own DNA. But then the last thing you’d want, is interbreeding between human and hominoid – that would dilute the new evolution and risk turning it backwards. These nine changes that were made, meant that if interbreeding did happen (and the fossil records show that in places it did), then there is a vastly increased likelihood of pre-birth miscarriages happening. The nine changes they’d introduced, ensured the new human species remained human. I believe in the times immediately ahead of us, it will be shown beyond doubt that the seeding of Humanity was anything but natural!

This is an interesting theory and it does seem to make a lot of sense. IF aliens do exist, this would be a very feasible history as to our origins. I tend to agree!!!!

Google 'Darwin's bulldog' and then google 'Aldous Huxley/The Beatles and Tavistock'.
Did you know that Huxley 'died' on the 22nd of November 1963?

We really are so much more!
(For those with eyes to see).

boymonkey74
reply to post by kyviecaldges

 

Not supported by science? how about genetics?

This is a piece done by 60 minutes exposing the flaws in using sequenced DNA in order to determine ancestry.
Watch the piece. Please. Watch it.



When DNA is sequenced the ability to determine the ancestry of an individual is totally and completely dependent upon the ability to analyze the sequenced DNA by using separate and unknown companies that all present similar results from their analysis of the same sequenced DNA.
That is called repeatability. It's called science and it is not happening.

This is not happening. It's a crap shoot at best.

This is a quote from the clip. It begins at the 3:23 mark and in response to a company that analyzes DNA seqeunces in order to determine the ancestry of Black Americans and tribes in Africa to which they belong, and she quotes a scientist skeptical of the procedure-

Hank Greely is concerned that the science isn't really there yet. For, for you to be giving them the name of a tribe.

The representative of the company then said-

I think for most companies. I, I would be concerned, too.

Watch. Please watch.

You might try to make the point that this might be a fallacy of false comparison, but this comparison is most definitely applicable.
Using DNA to establish any type of ancestral history can only be possible if evolution, as we are taught, is THE definition of life, which is an object with a direction and this direction can be understood, seen, validated, and its structure has been analyzed and understood to the point that we can produce congruent and repeatable results, by a variety of measurable means.

That is science. That is how it works.

The very topic of epigenetics complicates the current absurdity that is the act of even defining a mutation. It is essentially impossible. No one knows what will happen.
The idea of a mutation is that it simply changes. We don't know how or when or why or what even will result, but we do know that it sometimes happens and that is about it, unless we place the template of evolution over mutation.

If I blindly buy this evolution thing then hey, it does makes sense some of the time... if you think about it. But sometimes it doesn't, but that doesn't matter because a mutation produces something that we have no idea what it will do until it does anyway. A crap shoot.

This is from wikipedia. Think about it and don't just believe we 'know' and you will see how brainwashed you are.

In genetics, a mutation is a change of the nucleotide sequence of the genome of an organism, virus, or extrachromosomal genetic element. Mutations result from unrepaired damage to DNA or to RNA genomes (typically caused by radiation or chemical mutagens), errors in the process of replication, or from the insertion or deletion of segments of DNA by mobile genetic elements. Mutations may or may not produce discernible changes in the observable characteristics (phenotype) of an organism. Mutations play a part in both normal and abnormal biological processes including: evolution, cancer, and the development of the immune system.

link

Mutation is the unknown.
They say it right there. "mutations may or may not produce discernible changes in the observable characteristics of an organism." They have no idea what it does. It's magic dust. Truly.
However, if we apply this construct called "evolutionary theory", then we know that it plays a part in both normal and abnormal biological processes that include (unsurprisingly) evolution, cancer, which is the growth of uncontrollable mutated cells, and the development of the immune system, which deals with dangers to homeostasis, the norm, and mutations are a change from the norm.

Let's look at this newspeak statement for a second.
George Orwell saw it coming, and Public relations has risen the somehow effective art of miscommunication to a whole new level.

Of course it makes sense that it is included in evolution, but only if you buy into the framework of evolutionary theory.
Cancer involves mutated cells simply because it is a collection of mutated cells that sometimes results in death, but sometime not.
We are talking about mutations.
And the immune system. This is plainly obvious. The very idea of a mutation is that it is a change from the norm. This would mean, in many cases, a change that produces a hazard to life. It is the body's immune system that protects it from threats caused by mutations and maintains the body's normal operations, or homeostasis.

Are you beginning to see how mind bogglingly complex this is. I don't care if we use computers to chart crapola.

When a random element is the very foundation of the theory, then it can never be validated.
That statement is self-evident.

And then when you thrown in epigenetics. Wow.

In biology, and specifically genetics, epigenetics is the study of heritable changes in gene activity which are not caused by changes in the DNA sequence."

link

So now the mutation that we don't understand, has some unknown cousin that produces the exact same unknown results of mutation, but we do know that it is not mutation of the DNA sequence.

At the absolute best peak information gathering moment, if we were to analyze it all, every single A,G, C, and T. Let's look at all of them. all of them, bring it on-
Then all we would know are possibilities.
That is it, and try to define a possibility and then tell me what happened.
Does that at all sound confusing to you?

Looking at DNA to determine evolution, which is supposedly able to be tracked, is like looking at an alphabet and trying to figure out what the people, or garden ants, or what ever thing used the alphabet looked like.

Genes only present expressions, and epigenetics throws the curve even higher.

You and the entire scientific establishment are basing an entire theory upon a concept that can't even be defined and to top it off, this undefinable concept has a bizzaro cousin that does the same thing while not at all doing the same thing.

I could continue with the absurdity, but it requires me to actually think.

This is some thing that very few people do.

It would be much easier to simply not question this nutshow and believe evolution from a common ancestor.
We are the product of millions upon millions of different individuals. All copulating over time to continually produce offspring with each having different environmental influences that influence gene expression, as well as the pandora's box of epigenetics, and a company can sequence TWO individual's DNA responsible for this supposedly highly evolved product.

Companies can only trace less than .1% of an individual's ancestry through DNA.

Did you catch that?
Because if not then let me repeat what I just stated.
LESS THAN .1 PERCENT. That is point one percent. LESS than point one percent.
That is straight from the film.

I live in New Orleans and it is almost 2 in the morning. I will return.

Cheers.

reply to post by kyviecaldges


Good points on mutations. It seems if one really understands how they work, they would realize there is no chance for evolution. There are too many bad mutations compared to "good" mutations. That they would overtake them. Almost overwhelmingly when a person gets a mutation it damages them, we call it cancer, etc.

The broom remember reading in my Biology book back in High School about an experiment in fruit flies. That scientists were able to mutate them. As a matter-of-fact blurb, helping to mislead the weary and unsuspecting student to take that to mean that scientists have proven evolution because they mutated the fruit fly.

I told my biology teacher, in front of the class, that the school text-book was misleading. And she asked me to expand. I explained that fruit flies indeed had been experimented on over a number of decades, being bombarded with X rays, etc. But what the science text-book left out was that the result was fruit flies that were malformed, too many heads, warped wings, distortions of all sorts. But never anything beneficial. EVER.

But that wasn't the most damning piece of evidence that was hidden from the student. Rather the fact that they found that within the DNA a code was built, so that successive generations of fruit flies would repair the genetic damage, and thus after several generations normal fruit flies began to produce again.

The DNA has a built-in error-proof process that is passed on from one mutated species to the next that corrects the mutation. So really they didn't prove evolution at all.

She got real quiet. Actually she didn't know about the real study. Quit deceptive, if you ask most people. But you have to ask yourself a serious question. If they had facts and truth, why do they need subterfuge, and misleading quotes to get you to believe their theories?

Actually that science teacher was very dogmatic about evolution. But after the entire school-year with her, I remember after class one day she called myself and my twin brother and commented on how well-behaved and intelligent we were compared to the rest of the class. Then she said something very interesting. She said all her life she had just accepted evolution as fact because that was what she had been taught, but that the information we brought to class to constantly share with her about things relating from the schools own textbook had made her rethink her entire life view.

There is a lot of reason and logic behind the disbelief in the fairy tale evolution theory. The problem of mutations is one of many that no one has ever satisfactorily answered. Rather those who put their blind faith in it do so with no solid ground. For that is what it is chance. And what does it mean other than you cannot know the outcome to begin with?

And if life is programmed to root out mutations, and there are 1,000,000 to 1 bad mutations to good (basically there are no good mutations) how could natural selection come about?

Sure they will come and try to argue as to how chance doesn't matter, it just takes millions of years for chance to think of these brilliant ideas. Yet not even billions upon billions of years are enough time for even the most basic of chances to have come about to create the most crude of life-forms they say formed and multiplied and changed miraculously into all that we see today in a mere millions of years.

Actually just today I saw a thread on this website that shows a fly with the design of ants within it's two wings. And many of them were glorying over how evolution is wondrous in creating the design of ants in its wings. Really? Evolution created the pattern of ants in the wings of a fly? How?

reply to post by Broom

Actually just today I saw a thread on this website that show a fly with the design of ants within it's two wings. And many of them were glorying over how evolution is wondrous in creating the design of ants in its wings. Really? Evolution created the pattern of ants in the wings of a fly? How?

i have to admit. I haven't read the entire thread yet. I literally wrote the OP and then went to work and came home, read a couple of posts and had to respond to the sheer idiocy that is pervasive in this dogmatic belief in evolution.

My brain is shutting down, but I did read your post thoroughly and I must compliment you on standing up to to your teacher.
This is a battle. I see it all the time. Dogmatic thinking is viral. Horribly viral. I see it here at ATS continually and it irritates me, but I have to keep telling myself that we are the products of a purposely pitiful public school system.
We are not taught logic, or reason, or civics and it is plainly apparent. And very much on purpose.
Thanks for the reply.

Sleep is both awesome and bothersome.
When I get involved in something, I want to stay hyper-focused but sleep greatly complicates that.
But I really love a good, deep, restful sleep.

I need it now. See you in the morning.

Broom
reply to post by kyviecaldges

 

Good points on mutations. It seems if one really understands how they work, they would realize there is no chance for evolution. There are too many bad mutations compared to "good" mutations. That they would overtake them. Almost overwhelmingly when a person gets a mutation it damages them, we call it cancer, etc.

Beneficial mutations are commonly observed. They are common enough to be problems in the cases of antibiotic resistance in disease-causing organisms and pesticide resistance in agricultural pests. The vast majority of mutations are neutral, neither harmful nor beneficial. Other examples include the following: • Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon (Prijambada et al. 1995).
Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones (FAO/IAEA 1977).
Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS (Dean et al. 1996; Sullivan et al. 2001) or to heart disease (Long 1994; Weisgraber et al. 1983).
A mutation in humans makes bones strong (Boyden et al. 2002).
Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity (Moffat 2000).
In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as a ribozyme

I told my biology teacher, in front of the class, that the school text-book was misleading. And she asked me to expand. I explained that fruit flies indeed had been experimented on over a number of decades, being bombarded with X rays, etc. But what the science text-book left out was that the result was fruit flies that were malformed, too many heads, warped wings, distortions of all sorts. But never anything beneficial. EVER.
But that wasn't the most damning piece of evidence that was hidden from the student. Rather the fact that they found that within the DNA a code was built, so that successive generations of fruit flies would repair the genetic damage, and thus after several generations normal fruit flies began to produce again.

The DNA has a built-in error-proof process that is passed on from one mutated species to the next that corrects the mutation. So really they didn't prove evolution at all.

An experiment with E. coli found that about 1 in 150 newly arising mutations and 1 in 10 functional mutations are beneficial. The harmful mutations do not survive long, and the beneficial mutations survive much longer, so when you consider only surviving mutations, most are beneficial.

[ If they had facts and truth, why do they need subterfuge, and misleading quotes to get you to believe their theories?

one could ask the same about your misleading information as well

There is a lot of reason and logic behind the disbelief in the fairy tale evolution theory. The problem of mutations is one of many that no one has ever satisfactorily answered. Rather those who put their blind faith in it do so with no solid ground. For that is what it is chance. And what does it mean other than you cannot know the outcome to begin with?

And if life is programmed to root out mutations, and there are 1,000,000 to 1 bad mutations to good (basically there are no good mutations) how could natural selection come about?

again, you're completely wrong about harmful vs beneficial mutations. I don't think its much a matter of the question being satisfactorily answered as much as it is that it hasn't been understood.

Sure they will come and try to argue as to how chance doesn't matter, it just takes millions of years for chance to think of these brilliant ideas. Yet not even billions upon billions of years are enough time for even the most basic of chances to have come about to create the most crude of life-forms they say formed and multiplied and changed miraculously into all that we see today in a mere millions of years.

edit on 14-11-2013 by Broom because: (no reason given)

It's a lot less chance than it is environmental stresses. this is why some mutations are beneficial in one environment and harmful in another. A polar bear would not do well in a warmer climate, a black bear would do less well in the arctic for example. Not understanding a process doesn't make it wrong.

reply to post by peter vlar


Bad mutations beat out good mutations 1,000,000 to 1. You may consider good mutations as fairly common. But the truth of the matter is that the bad one far outweigh the good ones. There is no way natural selection could move forward that way.

In any event can you show one single mutation that has evolved one species from another? We've had over a century of study. Perhaps if we give you another century? Perhaps a thousand years. A million. What if you still don't observe this fairy-tale changing from one species to another. What then?

Broom
reply to post by peter vlar

 

Bad mutations beat out good mutations 1,000,000 to 1. You may consider good mutations as fairly common. But the truth of the matter is that the bad one far outweigh the good ones. There is no way natural selection could move forward that way.

without something to back up your statement it unfortunately must be relegated to 'personal opinion'. The data just doesn't support your supposition.

In any event can you show one single mutation that has evolved one species from another? We've had over a century of study. Perhaps if we give you another century? Perhaps a thousand years. A million. What if you still don't observe this fairy-tale changing from one species to another. What then?

I haven't observed your birth or existence, therefore you must not be real. By your criteria then, nothing in the world can be understood with any certainty. All life shows a fundamental unity in the mechanisms of replication, heritability, catalysis, and metabolism.
Common descent predicts a nested hierarchy pattern, or groups within groups. We see just such an arrangement in a unique, consistent, well-defined hierarchy, the so-called tree of life.
Different lines of evidence give the same arrangement of the tree of life. We get essentially the same results whether we look at morphological, biochemical, or genetic traits.
Fossil animals fit in the same tree of life. We find several cases of transitional forms in the fossil record.
The fossils appear in a chronological order, showing change consistent with common descent over hundreds of millions of years and inconsistent with sudden creation.
Many organisms show rudimentary, vestigial characters, such as sightless eyes or wings useless for flight.
Atavisms sometimes occur. An atavism is the reappearance of a character present in a distant ancestor but lost in the organism's immediate ancestors. We only see atavisms consistent with organisms' evolutionary histories.
Ontogeny (embryology and developmental biology) gives information about the historical pathway of an organism's evolution. For example, as embryos whales and many snakes develop hind limbs that are reabsorbed before birth.
The distribution of species is consistent with their evolutionary history. For example, marsupials are mostly limited to Australia, and the exceptions are explained by continental drift. Remote islands often have species groups that are highly diverse in habits and general appearance but closely related genetically. Squirrel diversity coincides with tectonic and sea level changes (Mercer and Roth 2003). Such consistency still holds when the distribution of fossil species is included.
Evolution predicts that new structures are adapted from other structures that already exist, and thus similarity in structures should reflect evolutionary history rather than function. We see this frequently. For example, human hands, bat wings, horse legs, whale flippers, and mole forelimbs all have similar bone structure despite their different functions.
The same principle applies on a molecular level. Humans share a large percentage of their genes, probably more than 70 percent, with a fruit fly or a nematode worm.
When two organisms evolve the same function independently, different structures are often recruited. For example, wings of birds, bats, pterosaurs, and insects all have different structures. Gliding has been implemented in many additional ways. Again, this applies on a molecular level, too.
The constraints of evolutionary history sometimes lead to suboptimal structures and functions. For example, the human throat and respiratory system make it impossible to breathe and swallow at the same time and make us susceptible to choking.
Suboptimality appears also on the molecular level. For example, much DNA is nonfunctional.
Some nonfunctional DNA, such as certain transposons, pseudogenes, and endogenous viruses, show a pattern of inheritance indicating common ancestry.
Speciation has been observed.
The day-to-day aspects of evolution -- heritable genetic change, morphological variation and change, functional change, and natural selection -- are seen to occur at rates consistent with common descent.

Furthermore, the different lines of evidence are consistent; they all point to the same big picture. For example, evidence from gene duplications in the yeast genome shows that its ability to ferment glucose evolved about eighty million years ago. Fossil evidence shows that fermentable fruits became prominent about the same time. Genetic evidence for major change around that time also is found in fruiting plants and fruit flies

reply to post by peter vlar


This is pointless. Just because you didn't observe my birth doesn't equate to we have not observed procreation. We have. And 100% of the time it has been of the same kind. You know that. You're just not being honest, or useing logic.

reply to post by kyviecaldges


So I sat down and watched the video you included and have to say that the very end where the person who uploaded it claims DNA is a hoax because African-Americans are indigenous to north America was mind-blowingly laughable but the real issue I have is that you're using consumer level, inexpensive and very basic DNA sequencing to disprove the accuracy of DNA testing as a whole. The reason those companies have such small samples to work from as well as miniscule amounts of DNA to sequence from is due to cost prohibitiveness. Essentially, due to contaminants the testing needs to be done repeatedly to remove bacterial DNA fragments etc from the test sample. It would cost tens of thousands of dollars and require a much longer timeframe within which to produce results putting them out of business. These companies are almost the scientific version of a 900 number psychic hotline. Again, this is only in regards to "consumer" level testing from the companies mentioned in the 60 min episode. In an actual scientific setting(not that what they're doing for mass populace isn't science) where peoples careers can hinge on having the data pass muster via peer review, the scrutiny to sequencing is much higher, far more thorough and very detailed. The Human Genome Project has a massive database to work from now and additionally, there is a newer technique that will help not just hard science but these "consumer based" DNA sequencing companies that makes the purification of samples much less expensive and will lead to better results all around especially at the consumer level.

news.sciencemag.org...

reply to post by Broom


how good of you to ignore the data and take personal umbrage with my comment that hit a little too close to the mark. You're entitled to your opinion, no matter how wrong it is. Just be honest and say its your opinion as opposed to touting it as fact with nothing to support it.

reply to post by peter vlar


You obviously do not understand my argument. Either that, or you are purposely trying derail this thread by getting me to argue a point that I was not trying to make.

I don't fall for the straw man.

My argument stated that you can map the human genome. But all you will get are possibilities

No one knows how alleles will respond to the environment, until it happens.
You can guess at probabilities, but probability is NOT validity.

And any computer, no matter the company, no matter the project, and no matter the vast amount of money backing, when sequencing one individual's DNA it will only yield data to analyze from the DNA of only TWO individuals. Ever. That is all that is possible because that is all we inherit.
We inherit all the DNA possible to be sequenced from only TWO people (although now it is being made possible to mix the DNA from 3 people)

Currently, we are able to generate and analyze data from an individual's DNA, and that data will only contain the sequenced DNA that was inherited by the individual's mother and the father. ONLY THE MOTHER AND FATHER.
We cannot go back further in time than that. We can't know what their grandfather or great grandfather's DNA looked like when sequenced. And every generation further back becomes exponentially larger, meaning that our heritage is so intermingled and unknown that it is a crapshoot to figure it out and our current beliefs on evolution are an easy out for scientists who fail to remember that you should NEVER SPECULATE BEYOND THE DATA.

And that is every single bit of what an evolutionary biologist does. They speculate. That is all they can do, because all DNA represents is a set of possibilities.
I swear that I can repeat that a bajillion times, but if your brainwashing is strong enough. This will NEVER sink in your mind.

This is the entire reason for the focus on mitochondrial DNA. Because mitochondrial comes solely from the mother.
That leaves the rest of this mess of data in an unknown category. It is hard to know if the DNA came from the mother or the father.

In humans, mitochondrial DNA can be assessed as the smallest chromosome coding for only 37 genes and containing only about 16,600 base pairs

link

Pay very close attention if you actually read the link, because this very statement is made next.

The DNA sequence of mtDNA has been determined from a large number of organisms and individuals (including some organisms that are extinct), and the comparison of those DNA sequences represents a mainstay of phylogenetics, in that it allows biologists to elucidate the evolutionary relationships among species.

link

This statement reeks of confirmation bias....
DNA is nothing but a impossibly long laundry list of possibilities.
So scientists are using the smallest number of different base pairs, 16,600, to elucidate evolution, which means to make clear. Elucidate does NOT validate. It makes something clear. Like when the US of A elucidated to the population that weapons of mass destruction were in Iraq. It didn't actually mean they had weapons of mass destruction. What they were making clear was their reason for randomly killing mass numbers of innocent civilians.

DNA can not be used to PROVE evolution.

Scientists are simply unable to make sense of the many, many probabilities.

And in my opinion they never will truly understand evolution because it is designed to be the riddle, that is a mystery surrounded by an enigma.

You tried to make a point.
You tried to make a point that I am not making.
And then you tried to make me argue that point.

It is not going to work.

I know how to debate.

Try harder next time.

I am going back to sleep. Come back with better game.

reply to post by peter vlar

without something to back up your statement it unfortunately must be relegated to 'personal opinion'. The data just doesn't support your supposition.

Please son. Every single thing that you type is personal opinion.

You will never find data confirming or denying the number of "good" versus "bad" mutations because mutations by nature cause infertility, spontaneous abortion, or still born babies. When the very nature of a thing is designed to create an unknowable result then it is totally impossible to ascribe any degree of validity to unknowable results.

Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?

The very nature of a mutation is an enigma and yet it is the foundation for this fairy tale dream that real live scientists, and others, like yourself, cling to because facing a reality of the unknown is uncomfortable.
It is in our nature to make models of the processes around us. That is how we solve problems, abstract thinking skills.

But the map is not the territory.

You dogmatic science types forget that.

I just got up. Let me get some coffee in me and wake up because it's time to parse the absurd logic that has permeated my thread.

kyviecaldges
reply to post by peter vlar

 

You obviously do not understand my argument. Either that, or you are purposely trying derail this thread by getting me to argue a point that I was not trying to make.

Not in the least. I was addressing the video that you yourself posted and attempted to utilize as support for your thesis.

I don't fall for the straw man.

why bother when its more fun to create one of your own.

My argument stated that you can map the human genome. But all you will get are possibilities

No one knows how alleles will respond to the environment, until it happens.
You can guess at probabilities, but probability is NOT validity.
And any computer, no matter the company, no matter the project, and no matter the vast amount of money backing, when sequencing one individual's DNA it will only yield data to analyze from the DNA of only TWO individuals. Ever. That is all that is possible because that is all we inherit.
We inherit all the DNA possible to be sequenced from only TWO people (although now it is being made possible to mix the DNA from 3 people)

and my argument was simply that you're incorrect in your argument and there are now newer capabilities for better
sequencing. you're using old data.

Currently, we are able to generate and analyze data from an individual's DNA, and that data will only contain the sequenced DNA that was inherited by the individual's mother and the father. ONLY THE MOTHER AND FATHER.

I should hope so, I'd be rather disillusioned to suddenly discover I had a 3rd parent this whole time.

We cannot go back further in time than that. We can't know what their grandfather or great grandfather's DNA looked like when sequenced. And every generation further back becomes exponentially larger, meaning that our heritage is so intermingled and unknown that it is a crapshoot to figure it out and our current beliefs on evolution are an easy out for scientists who fail to remember that you should NEVER SPECULATE BEYOND THE DATA.

excellent advice about not speculating beyond what the data shows, perhaps self application of that policy is in order

And that is every single bit of what an evolutionary biologist does. They speculate. That is all they can do, because all DNA represents is a set of possibilities.
I swear that I can repeat that a bajillion times, but if your brainwashing is strong enough. This will NEVER sink in your mind.

DNA is just one aspect of how we verify evolutionary theory. repeat whatever you like however many times you like but standing in the corner with your fingers in your ears won't change anything. the difference I see here is that your mind is made up whereas I'm simply following the evidence. there's no preprogrammed supposition on my end and believe it or not, I'm often happy to be wrong. Incorrect answers lead us to the right ones in many cases. that's the beauty of science. you can quote mine all day long though if it makes you happier.

This is the entire reason for the focus on mitochondrial DNA. Because mitochondrial comes solely from the mother.
That leaves the rest of this mess of data in an unknown category. It is hard to know if the DNA came from the mother or the father.

unknown by who? You? Maybe so, but your own misunderstanding doesn't disprove anything.
Pay very close attention if you actually read the link, because this very statement is made next.

The DNA sequence of mtDNA has been determined from a large number of organisms and individuals (including some organisms that are extinct), and the comparison of those DNA sequences represents a mainstay of phylogenetics, in that it allows biologists to elucidate the evolutionary relationships among species.

link

This statement reeks of confirmation bias....
DNA is nothing but a impossibly long laundry list of possibilities.
So scientists are using the smallest number of different base pairs, 16,600, to elucidate evolution, which means to make clear. Elucidate does NOT validate. It makes something clear. Like when the US of A elucidated to the population that weapons of mass destruction were in Iraq. It didn't actually mean they had weapons of mass destruction. What they were making clear was their reason for randomly killing mass numbers of innocent civilians.

Elucidate also means "to explain". The US never elucidated, or made clear anything regarding WMD's to all of America. They merely attempted to convince just enough of congress to allow the folly to move forward and it was done in a rush. Science is not on anyone's time table. Peer review can take years and the work is gone over by multiple people who's sole desire is to show you how wrong you are and why they are right. It's rather disheartening when you're work is rejected. Beyond that, there is far more to this than can be gleaned from a very basic Wikipedia rendition.

[DNA can not be used to PROVE evolution.

Alone, no. But in conjunction with all the other data we have it certainly contributes its fair share towards proving it. See, in Anthropology we don't rely on one source and say 'Eureka, that's settled'

[Scientists are simply unable to make sense of the many, many probabilities.

So how does that work for the rest of science? If anthropologists and evolutionary biologists are so inept then the rest of science must be just as inept as they are educated at the same institutions. Or is it just evolution that's flawed? What is your personal explanation? I'm genuinely curious.

[And in my opinion they never will truly understand evolution because it is designed to be the riddle, that is a mystery surrounded by an enigma.

you talk of confirmation bias regarding elucidation by anthropologists yet your own words indicate you attack this with presupposition and not an open mind. I don't like to assume but since you're the one who claims evolutions was designed as a riddle it's not a huge stretch to assume you're arguing from a religious perspective. I'll pause my judgment until confirmation though.

You tried to make a point.

Actually it wasn't an attempt, you just didn't agree

You tried to make a point that I am not making.

No, I addressed a specific item that you posted as support for an incorrect assumption.

And then you tried to make me argue that point.

I'm just attempting to have a conversation, I'm not holding a gun to anyone's head. You can address or ignore what you wish to.

It is not going to work.

judging by your vitriol, I disagree

I know how to debate.

Yay for you?

[Try harder next time.

Why bother? your mind is made up, there is nothing that will alter your perception here. That is worse than confirmation bias.

I am going back to sleep. Come back with better game.

edit on 14/11/2013 by kyviecaldges because: Because I made a stupid error. That is why we edit.

Nacirema
reply to post by kyviecaldges

 

Okay, I'll break it down for you.

Darwin proposed an explanation for evolution by natural selection. This is only one theory to explain the fact of evolution (allele frequencies do change in populations over time - this has been documented). Most important, evolution is not just strictly Darwinism. It was synthesized with population genetics decades ago by Julian Huxley and other distinguished evolutionary biologists.

First of all, thank you for the sincere reply. I am very sorry that I didn't get back to you before I began a back and forth with an individual who has absolutely no interest in engaging in a successful Hegelian dialectic.

I really hate it when people try to derail a thread.

I must clarify my stance. It is not an easy task considering the subject, evolution, and my belief that this heavily promoted academic view of the evolution of our species is used as one of many ways in keepin' the man down.

First, I know that a procedure exists in nature that displays many of the attributes that scientists call evolution.
The work done by Gregor Mendal is undeniable, but if you actually observe what he was doing- all he did was show that a pattern of irrational random behavior exists in nature that we can only understand after the fact.
The very nature of genetics and the continued existence of DNA as an object in the universe relies on its random nature to stay strong.
And the more we look into the expression of alleles, the more we find that processes completely outside of the framework of DNA itself are causing lasing generational effects that are no different than the idea of mutations that are the metaphorical holy grail when trying to describe in a tactile sense, what happens when we jump from one cell to two to three to a bajillion.

Mutations.

We don't know.

Additionally, since you don't "believe" (I'm not sure what belief has to do with a scientific theory) in evolution by natural selection, you must, by extension, reject the copious amount of microbiological, paleontological, embryological, biogeographical, and comparative anatomical data that have been accumulated in the last century and a half.

I don't believe or disbelieve data. Data is the undeniable but it can only be seen, processed, and analyzed subjectively.
We process it, always, through our individual mind and that is what makes this process difficult.

And with all of the data that you can present, statistics has a dirty little secret. They are called outliers.
Vast amounts of data are simply ignored because they fall outside of the spectrum of believability.

And when you ask me if I deny the analysis of the bio-embryo-microbio-paleological and comparative anatomical data, I ask you about the outliers, most prominent in the fossil record, that make the evolution of our species according to Neo-Darwinians IMPOSSIBLE.

The only thing that I ask you to clarify to me is the unexplained exponential evolution toward greater brain mass, greatly increasing cellular complexity and exponentially increasing intelligence, thus making us the creatures that we are today.

Do you really think that the act of eating cooked meat CAUSED our crainial capacity to explode.

How is that even possible when mutations are responsible for evolution?

If you actually buy that cooked meat hoo-ha then you become a Neo-Lamarckian.

But maybe Lamarck was right. In epigenetics, the environment can cause lasting generational mutations.

Wow. It all seems a bit ad hoc hypothesis to me.

But I am just a guy that refuses to use winky emoticons when I know that I trumped you.

reply to post by peter vlar


I am not going to respond to this because you are totally derailing the thread by posting long rambling posts that parse individual paragraphs and sentences.
This is a great way to throw off a thread- so I ask you ONE question.

The same question that I just proposed.

Explain the unexplained exponential evolution toward greater brain mass, greatly increasing cellular complexity and exponentially increasing intelligence, thus making us the creatures that we are today.
Explain the missing link.

Because without it. Your theory doesn't fly.
It is based upon an idea that is completely random and its the randomness that is actually responsible for continued survival.
Random cannot be understood, especially when the goal is to create the highest number of random possibilities for continued survival.

Please stop derailing my thread and stick to the topic in readable posts that make this worth my time.

reply to post by kyviecaldges


There is no such thing as a missing link...did you even read his post?
Funny how Peter has to explain things very slowly in his many threads explaining evolution...
Anyhow I will not waste my time either in this thread because it is hogwash.
Enjoy.

reply to post by AliceBleachWhite


I am trying to get back to responding to each well thought opinion.

Pardon my time frame, but I like to actually think about what I type and I do a good bit of editing before I post as well.

You made several excellent points, and you absolutely responded to an issue where I was purposely vague.
Cranial capacity.
Homo Erectus was, in fact, an average of 900 cc.
Modern humans average 1300cc, and we are using less of our brain and it is shrinking.

If humans are so smart, why are their brains shrinking?

Interesting article that seems to make the whole darwinian evolution thing make absolutely zero sense.

And when I say that, I mean that we are taught. It is beaten over our heads everyday that this is real. That this happened.
The wealthy can keep their money even if they get it through the creation of systems that compel slavery.
They brainwash us with this crap.
They can combine equity and criminal law into one jurisdiction thus forcing compelled behavior, which in itself is criminal, unless we agree to it.

That is why we agree to go to jail, or to get arrested.
All that is a nice way to take you hostage.

And all of this is based upon this core ideology that the strong survive and that happens through competition.
And we agree to it.
So let me ask you then concerning brain mass.

Homo Erectus did NOT have a comparable brain size to modern humans. Homo Erectus brain size averages 900 cubic centimeters (cc.) The human/Cromagnon brain averages 1,350 cc. Neanderthal brain averaged slightly larger in the 1,400cc range. Modern Humans/Homo Sapiens/Cromagnon encountered and had successful 'relationships' with Neanderthal, such that fertile offspring resulted. This is why EVERYONE on the planet, with small exception of some Subsaharan Africans that never left Africa, have Neanderthal DNA at roughly 3%.

Neanderthals had a brain mass of 1,400 cc. While you could argue that an elephant has a bigger brain than a human, that is a false analogy.
If you buy into this theory of evolution then the LIKE neanderthal, so much like us that we still have 3% of their DNA in our systems, give or take, on a good day, then it stands to reason that they were THAT much more intelligent than we are today.
It sure would take a really strong person with pythagoran-like math skills to build the pyramids, or the many megalithic world sites that are ALL built in perfect astronomical alignments.

Mutations.

boymonkey74
reply to post by kyviecaldges

 

There is no such thing as a missing link...did you even read his post?
Funny how Peter has to explain things very slowly in his many threads explaining evolution...
Anyhow I will not waste my time either in this thread because it is hogwash.
Enjoy.

edit on 14-11-2013 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)

The missing link is a metaphor for the exponential jump in brain mass and the many confounding situations that it presents.

I have covered them in many posts.

I understand why no one addresses them.
Because they cannot be answered with ANY degree of certainty.