Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Transitional evolutionary forms


  • Please log in to reply
70 replies to this topic

#61    Insight

Insight

    Soldier of the New World Re-order

  • Member
  • 2,844 posts
  • Joined:18 Nov 2004
  • Location:Right here!

  • When the people fight against the elite, it's an act of terror.
    When the elite terrorizes the people, it's called justice.

Posted 08 December 2004 - 09:48 AM


The reason your argument is flawed, lies in the very essence of the DNA structure. In ALL living organisms DNA (or RNA)

RNA is different than DNA:

RNA is a molecule present in the cells of all living beings and is essential for the synthesis of proteins . There are different types of RNA, including messenger RNA (mRNA), and transfer RNA (tRNA). mRNA transmits information encoded in DNA, while tRNA uses this information to manufacture proteins.


But that is really besides the point.

is actually composed of the same basic building blocks (nucleic acids).  The "New" material, that you base your whole objection on, does not actually exist as a concept at all.  All species characteristics derive from the variable combinations of those building blocks.  There is NO new material to be inserted to the genetic code.

Yes, charactoristics of a SPECIES. This is why humans look different from each other. But no matter how many times a human reproduces, they could never become something outside the human species. Either above or below it.

Also, a question I have never asked: Is de-evolution possible? Is it possible for mankind to de-evolve back into apes?

So you are saying that all DNA in all living things has the same code, but only with different variations?

Do you mean that a chicken and a rat have the exact same materials in their DNA, merely a differently arranged pattern?


This is how it is possible "transfer" certain traits between species in modern biology eg anti-freeze gene.  This is also how its possible random mutations can even make a human in the long run to develop gills should that carries an evolutionary advantage (that directly influnces his success to propagate)

Would a human with gills be anything more than a human with gills? A race of gill men, still completely classified as Human? Where do we get to the part where we stop being human and start being something else above human?

I understand what you are saying, but I don't see how it goes against my main argument. Variation is species cannot cause new species to form. How do also account for the 99% rate of mutations being detrimental, debilitating, or deadly?

How could something as complex and foreign as a gill ever mutate and evolve on a human? Wouldn't there be some incredible need for it, ie world wide sustained flood? And how would the mutation carry on throughout reproduction as to develope more efficiantly every time? How long would this take before a fully functioning gill could be formed?


When the people fight against the elite, it's an act of terror.
When the elite terrorizes the people, it's called justice.


Evil wears many masks, but none so dangerous as the mask of virtue.

#62    Insight

Insight

    Soldier of the New World Re-order

  • Member
  • 2,844 posts
  • Joined:18 Nov 2004
  • Location:Right here!

  • When the people fight against the elite, it's an act of terror.
    When the elite terrorizes the people, it's called justice.

Posted 08 December 2004 - 09:48 AM

Anyways, I am trying to limit this thread to me and aquatus1, but I guess a few more questions and arguments couldn't hurt. *sighs*

When the people fight against the elite, it's an act of terror.
When the elite terrorizes the people, it's called justice.


Evil wears many masks, but none so dangerous as the mask of virtue.

#63    Asterix

Asterix

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 670 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2004

  • By Belenos and Toutatis!

Posted 08 December 2004 - 12:51 PM

QUOTE(Insight @ Dec 8 2004, 11:48 AM)
Anyways, I am trying to limit this thread to me and aquatus1, but I guess a few more questions and arguments couldn't hurt. *sighs*

View Post



I don't think it's very polite to say "I am trying to limit this thread to me and aquatus1" This is a post, anybody could participate. If you want to tell something specific to aquatus, send him a PM. Or if you want a debate, that is yet another thing.

But I believe a normal post should be open for all

Posted Image
There are two kinds of idiots - those who don't take action because they have received a threat, and those who think they are taking action because they have issued a threat.
Paulo Coelho

#64    Bio-Mage

Bio-Mage

    Mutant Gene Nullifier

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,879 posts
  • Joined:04 Dec 2004
  • Location:Where no man has gone before...

  • Fear not...for I am watchful.

Posted 08 December 2004 - 01:06 PM

Insight,

I am quite aware that RNA and DNA are different, the reason I mentioned both is beacuse not all organisms have DNA. Still however you should know that they are very similar.  Only one base and their alignment in space is what really differentiates them. As for the different types of other RNA you mentioned they are purely intermediate functional forms...and by the way there is more forms...like nRNA (nucleosomes). But if you know points beside points then you know that all  mention on them is irrelevant...

Secondly, the characteristics of one species does NOT necessarily restrict a certain ability to a species. As to become something different above and beyond...that is non existent as concept too. There is no higher form as such, only the most advantageous for any given time.  Humans can accumulate new characteristics but the process is usually a very long process taking thousants of years or millions to fully become distinct to their previous status.

De-evolution may be possible although if it occurs its not really de-evolution as such.  Humans CANNOT become apes because apes are an existing today's species. They could resemble the characteristics perhaps (like hair pattern) but they would be classified as hominides (greek misused word for resembling human but not quite).  In humans I cannot think though any scenario that our improved intelligence and perception would not come in handy. Perhaps developing traits of supposingly inferior species (like excess hair...again) is what you would see (if ever because we manipulate our environment enough not to need that).

Answering to you DNA between species, you are correct. Rats and chicken and human have same DNA elements but different arrangement more or less. Different gene numbers though is the main reason why things are so variable as welll.

Which brings us to the gill question. Humans developing gills is a bit extreme but serving as an example, the long process of evolutionary traits could even accomodate that IF it was necessary. However again you are correct to say that most mutation end up being raher useless. In fact even a good one could still be useless if its not  really a huge advantage. Still the mutation needs to occur  frequently enough in a population to be genetcally viable.  In other words the process will not be a straight forward one. A lot of changes in a human body will need to be made to accomodate gills, the organ itself will not suffice even if fully functional.

Taxonomy wise though the separation of species is entirely conceptual.  Officially there is no one way to separate between species. Usually its the difference in biochemistry procedures, or a certain prominent trair that alters life style (feeding, mating etc). But in that context you can separate between existing human varieties too.  Who knows though...by the time we develop gills there will be no more "air breathing" humans around tongue.gif

Evolution is not a clear concept.  There is still extensive research on the way it influences life and so none is really qualified to say much. However some facts we need to be aware, if we are to make senseof anything. Even more if we try to discover how we came into being.  





"Because you're worth it..... "

#65    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 19,897 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 08 December 2004 - 01:48 PM

I personally have no problem with anyone coming onto this thread and asking questions or offering advice, however I do think it is worth a read through the thread in order to find any particular person's standing at this point.  Insight, for instance, is willingly learning the step by step foundations which will eventually allow her to understand the basics of scientific methodology, and from there be in a better position to understand the nature of evolution.  To begin debate at this time about the very minute details of the process is of little help, since they cannot be considered in the context of the whole.  This is the major weakness in creationism in general; the inability to consider a process beyond its own personal workings and the relation it has to the entire system.  One sees it in the speciation argument, the DNA argument, and even the thermodynamics argument.  Only by learning how science views data as a whole can one understand why science makes the claims that it does.

QUOTE
5) The explanation offered must be a verifiable event i.e. a logical path must lead from the data to the result.


This is an issue which almost any paranormal or supernatural phenomena tends to overlook.  The essential problem with trying to find an explanation for crop circles, ghosts, or gods, is that the questions being asked is "How do the exist?".  Science, however, must always begin at the beginning.  The first question must be "Does it exist?".  Before one can begin to explain a phenomena, there must be a clear indication that the phenomena exists.  At a bare minimum, this requires a reliable, repeatable event.  Without this, all else is speculation.

But let us say that you do have a reliable, repeatable event.  At this point, one makes a hypothesis, which is a temporary explanation of how the phenomena could work.  One has to collect all the evidence that pertains to that phenomena.  That does indeed mean all the evidence.  One cannot pick and choose what one needs in order to support the hypothesis.  Also, remember that one is not trying to support the resulting phenomena; that should already have been established.  Rather, one is trying to find an explanation of it.

Let us take, as an example the Great Flood.  The creationist stance is that this is in the bible, therefore it occured, and all evidence that supports it is valid and all that does not is, by definition, not valid.  Already, we are beginning at the end.  One cannot take a result (the Great Flood), and assume that it happened, and base everything off of that.  This is putting the result before the evidence.  Likewise, one cannot pick and choose which evidence one uses to support it.  Note that there isn't a hypothesis either.  The explanation for the phenomena of the Great Flood is missing; all the evidence is dedicated to supporting the phenomena, not the hypothesis.

The scientific approach is to take the idea of a great flood into consideration.  We do not assume that it is true, but rather that it is an alleged phenomena which needs an explanation.  Our hypothesis, our explanation of how a world-wide flood would occur, is formed.  In order for a Great Flood to have happened, certain things would have to result from it.  We would expect to see certain physical effects on the Earth and on the flora and fauna.  We start looking for this evidence, this "missing link", that needs to exists in order for the theory to be valid.  If we cannot answer these questions, then we are forced to rework the hypothesis.  Some element of it, be it the time scale, the actual event, the scope, whatever, must be incorrect, and we have to allow for it.

Alternatively (and ideally), one doesn't begin with a flood story at all.  The purest form of science is to allow the evidence to lead you to the conclusion.  If we first find the evidence that points to a single catastrophic flood, then we can conclude that such an event occurred, regardless of whatever tribal myth or religious text contains the story.

This pre-requisite is the trickiest to understand, as it involves some fine hair-splitting.   I encourage you to ask questions.


#66    Bio-Mage

Bio-Mage

    Mutant Gene Nullifier

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,879 posts
  • Joined:04 Dec 2004
  • Location:Where no man has gone before...

  • Fear not...for I am watchful.

Posted 08 December 2004 - 03:17 PM

Aquatus,

No disrespect here but that is a long post to state the obvious. Of course people will use the info they think its appropriate for their argument.  I'll be damned if I had to quote ALL the literature relating to a subject. You can only hope to outline the things that directly relate to the question at hand.

This thread addresses evolution and consequently DNA and species argument IS the foundation of this subject.  Evolution is a fact in nature. We only disagree on the degree it affects life.  

It would be really good to take things from the beggining, I agree its a lot wiser. Yet if we are to act on this,  then all research needs to stop until we can answer the "does it really exists" question as nothing else will really matter...tongue.gif

I believe sometimes you do need to investigate the smaller pieces to complete the puzzle. Going directly to the source is quite impossible for most things.  I read the other day for example that they theorise that the universe is a giant computer creation - go figure - (probably some crazy mathematician that watched Martix a few times too many) does that really though goes to the true begging? I think not....who created the computer ...and in turn who created the creator? All this is a mirror in mirror infinite thinking which pretty much ensures, there is no "base" as such to start from.

I have to admit however that when speaking about mythological aspects in real terms, it would serve us better if we prove the occurance in the first place. Its only logical after all.... original.gif

"Because you're worth it..... "

#67    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 19,897 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 08 December 2004 - 04:29 PM

QUOTE
No disrespect here but that is a long post to state the obvious. Of course people will use the info they think its appropriate for their argument. I'll be damned if I had to quote ALL the literature relating to a subject. You can only hope to outline the things that directly relate to the question at hand.


Sorry, Bio-mage, but what is obvious to you or I is not as obvious to others.  What I am doing for Insight is explaining, in sequence, the specific pre-requisites that are required for a theory to be considered scientific.  This one is fifth (and last) on the list.  It is considerably important, as you and I know, but it must be emphasized for someone who has grown up with the research methods of the fundamentalist creationists.

Here is a quote from the foremost creationist websight, Answers in Genesis

QUOTE
By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.


This is one among many statements directly tied into their Mission, Vision, Guiding Principles.  It states, outright, that any data pertaining to the phenomena that does not support the conclusion is inherently wrong and must be ignored.  This is a direct violation of the fifth pre-requisite, and one of the many things that invalidates creationism as a valid scientific theory.  A person who bases their research and verification methodology on such principles does indeed need to have this point clarified, or else they will, as has happened and will happen in so many of these posts, apply the principles of belief-based research into science, not knowing or understanding the difference between the two.

QUOTE
This thread addresses evolution and consequently DNA and species argument IS the foundation of this subject. Evolution is a fact in nature. We only disagree on the degree it affects life.


Yes, I agree, however trying to learn the foundations of evolution without understanding the basics of the science it is founded on will only lead to more questions.  The more questions a person encounters, the more reluctant they are to continue until those questions get answered.

QUOTE
It would be really good to take things from the beggining, I agree its a lot wiser. Yet if we are to act on this, then all research needs to stop until we can answer the "does it really exists" question as nothing else will really matter.


The great majority of research has already answered this question, primarily because it is the very first question a grant committee will ask when requesting funding.  Those that have alternate sources of funding, such as certain government agencies, would do well to follow this as well, to save themselves several years worth of research and investigation into how effective a phenomena is, only to find out the phenomena doesn't seem to exist.

QUOTE
I believe sometimes you do need to investigate the smaller pieces to complete the puzzle.


Most definitely.  However, completing the puzzle is the last step.  The first thing you need to do is understand the big picture (literally, in this case).


#68    Insight

Insight

    Soldier of the New World Re-order

  • Member
  • 2,844 posts
  • Joined:18 Nov 2004
  • Location:Right here!

  • When the people fight against the elite, it's an act of terror.
    When the elite terrorizes the people, it's called justice.

Posted 12 December 2004 - 09:49 AM


I personally have no problem with anyone coming onto this thread and asking questions or offering advice, however I do think it is worth a read through the thread in order to find any particular person's standing at this point.  Insight, for instance, is willingly learning the step by step foundations which will eventually allow her


Whoooooa, dude, I am not a "her". I a guy! *laughs* As far as I know, it does say Male underneath my avatar. *laughs* No hard feelings though. *laughs again*




Let us take, as an example the Great Flood.  The creationist stance is that this is in the bible, therefore it occured, and all evidence that supports it is valid and all that does not is, by definition, not valid.  Already, we are beginning at the end.  One cannot take a result (the Great Flood), and assume that it happened, and base everything off of that.  This is putting the result before the evidence.  Likewise, one cannot pick and choose which evidence one uses to support it.  Note that there isn't a hypothesis either.  The explanation for the phenomena of the Great Flood is missing; all the evidence is dedicated to supporting the phenomena, not the hypothesis.

Even though we have not yet disscussed the final pre-requisit, or the others as a whole, I have gained insight as to how to further discuss and argue my beliefs. I can also see a few errors in judgment and statement which I made in my pervious posts. And besides all that, I have been doing side research as to how to go about backing up my claims. Aleady I have a better definition of what I believe to be true, and what I believe to be fact.

Let us take, as an example the Great Flood. The creationist stance is that this is in the bible, therefore it occured, and all evidence that supports it is valid and all that does not is, by definition, not valid. Already, we are beginning at the end.

A common flaw in arguing our points is to assume others have a concept of a divine God and his workings. If I approach you at a supernatural level, and you appreach me at a scientiffic level, neither of us will understand the other. I can better take this into consideration now. And I hope you can also do the same.

One cannot take a result (the Great Flood), and assume that it happened, and base everything off of that. This is putting the result before the evidence. Likewise, one cannot pick and choose which evidence one uses to support it.

This is where faith and science conflict. My God says to put faith into him. Faith requires no evidence of facts to support it. Many outside of my faith believe this is a weakness. Scientiffically, it may be. But spiritually, it is a solid foundation, and a rock on which to build my fortress. Undertanding this for people outside of the faith is nearly impossible because they have not lived it, thus, they know not of it's purpose, meaning, or function. I could try to make this clear to you, but will choose to do so at another time. Just food for thought.

Note that there isn't a hypothesis either. The explanation for the phenomena of the Great Flood is missing; all the evidence is dedicated to supporting the phenomena, not the hypothesis.

I understand this. It's as if creationists and evolutionists come from opposite sides of reasoning and speculation. This creates barriers for sure. We each try to follow our meathods for gathering "fact" from opposite sides of the process. Am I right?


Alternatively (and ideally), one doesn't begin with a flood story at all.  The purest form of science is to allow the evidence to lead you to the conclusion.

Of course, knowing what you are looking for will create a masisve head start into ever finding it. If no one ever thinks to look for evidence of a great flood, no one will find it unless one stumbles upon huge evidence. It would be a long process for minds to collaborate facts to lead up to the hypothesis os a great flood ever happening.


If we first find the evidence that points to a single catastrophic flood, then we can conclude that such an event occurred, regardless of whatever tribal myth or religious text contains the story.

herein lies speculation between minds as to what evidence could be able to support a theory of a great flood. Some would not accept evidence others provided inevitably. Perhaps this would not be a damning limiter, or, perhaps it would. Most likely though, people in the same professions would end up studying the suposed phenomena and would be on the same level. personal bias or personal understanding could only hold out for so far.

I'd like to see the summary sentences of each pre-requisite listed, if you don't mind. Now that we have gone into deeper detail regrading such, I will have background to consider when I see each summery statement. I will be easier for me to line up the process.

I'll post further questions and comments after I have a little more time to allow things to sink in. Talk to you soon.

When the people fight against the elite, it's an act of terror.
When the elite terrorizes the people, it's called justice.


Evil wears many masks, but none so dangerous as the mask of virtue.

#69    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 19,897 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 12 December 2004 - 02:44 PM

QUOTE
Whoooooa, dude, I am not a "her". I a guy! *laughs* As far as I know, it does say Male underneath my avatar. *laughs* No hard feelings though. *laughs again*


My bad!  My bad completely!  I am so sorry; I deliberatly went and checked just to make sure (I usually assume members are guys), and I messed up in a large way.  Mea culpa, mea culpa.

QUOTE
Even though we have not yet disscussed the final pre-requisit, or the others as a whole, I have gained insight as to how to further discuss and argue my beliefs.


Excellent.  I am ready for whatever questions you may have for me.

QUOTE
This is where faith and science conflict. My God says to put faith into him. Faith requires no evidence of facts to support it.


This is true.  Science has one set of requirements, and religious beliefs have another.  It is not really a problem with understanding persay, in much the same way that you now have a better understanding of scientific methodology, but rather of one of respect for others rules and beliefs.  It is just as much an affront to a scientist for a person to claim that certain religious ideas are "fact" and "Theory" (scientific terms) as it is an affront for the devout for a scientists to claim that deities are delusions and frauds.

QUOTE
If no one ever thinks to look for evidence of a great flood, no one will find it unless one stumbles upon huge evidence. It would be a long process for minds to collaborate facts to lead up to the hypothesis os a great flood ever happening.


An extremely long process.  Darwin took almost twenty years compiling his research and studies prior to publixhing anything concerning evolution (and he would have taken longer, except that he was about to get scooped by another scientist).  Most discoveries follow this line.  Research is a hard road, and a lifetime of dedication is just the right price for the immortality of new discovery.

QUOTE
We each try to follow our meathods for gathering "fact" from opposite sides of the process. Am I right?


Well...only to a certain extent.  See, we shown respect by knowing and understanding the reasons the opposite side do things, but we do not necessarily have to agree with them.  Your best friend might well decide that going bunjee-jumping for his birthday would be the right thing to do, but his method for doing so involves a friend of a friend of a friend who once read a pretty good book on the subject.  You might be of the mindset that a better way to go about it is to find a professional bunjee-jumping company to arrange the whole process.  Sure, you understand why he wants to do it, and you may or may not agree with his beliefs (good luck getting me to jump off a perfectly good bridge); it is simply the method that he employs to achieve the end result that you find lacks credibility.

QUOTE
I'd like to see the summary sentences of each pre-requisite listed, if you don't mind. Now that we have gone into deeper detail regrading such, I will have background to consider when I see each summery statement. I will be easier for me to line up the process.


I'm a little short on time as well, so if you don't mind I'll repost a previous post:

QUOTE
1) The first would be that it needs to explain the currently existing data.

2) The second is that it would have to be able to predict future events based on that data, in order to encompass data discovered in the future.

3) The conclusion would have to be logical enough so that an unbiased third party would naturally arrive at the same results.

4) The theory must be falsifiable.

5) The explanation offered must be a verifiable event i.e. a logical path must lead from the data to the result.


QUOTE
1) Any theory needs to explain the imperical evidence concerning the pertinent phenomena. This reflects the nature of theories explaining how things work, rather than how things do not. One does not disprove a theory by showing that it does not work, but rather by presenting a theory that works better.

2) A theory is basically a formal proclamation to the world that one has found a formula which, when a specific set of elements are in place, results in a specific phenomena occurring. Through this formula, one should then be able to use elements that are not yet in place, or that were in place in the past, and be able to predict future or past occurences.

3) Science is, at its core, a method used to strip away the subjective and illogical. A scientific theory cannot depend on a person's personal bias or desires to lead them to the conclusion proposed. Any independant person should have the ability to replicate the theory on their own and be able to arrive (although not necessarily agree with) the same conclusion.

4) Any theory, in order to be considered scientifically provable, must have a means through which it can be unproven. If it cannot be unproven, it cannot be verified, and if it cannot be verified, then it is useless for scientific purposes.

5) In line with that, in science, there is no such thing as Truth. Truth is a philosophical concept of something which is 100% complete and unchangeable. Put more simply, it is an end result. It is innate human nature to support their beliefs, and this is a safeguard against that. One cannot allow the end result to dictate the existence of the evidence; one must allow the existing evidence to form the end result. Science cannot be done backwards.



#70    Mysteryman

Mysteryman

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,868 posts
  • Joined:22 Oct 2004
  • Location:Queens, New York

  • Dinosaurs were created before man. But then it is said that animals were created after Adam & Eve. That is the contrary of religion and science.

Posted 14 December 2004 - 05:35 PM

This is a site related to theory and evolutionary forms of Ape -> Human.

http://www.eadshome.com/transitionalforms.htm

What makes up our planets curiosity, is what makes up the unexplained-mysteries of our planet, Earth.

Posted Image

#71    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 19,897 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 15 December 2004 - 02:09 PM

Not a completely accurate site, I'm afraid.  The first two are pretty good, unfortunately, it perpetuates the myth about Lucy being found in seperate locations, and makes no attempt to differentiate between what is considered an "ape" and what is considered a "human".





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users