Evolution

[webolife]

The path to understanding is not right or wrong, it's just right, left, straight ahead, or turn around.

"Ontology recapitulates phylogeny" is an assumption of [macro]evolution. Any embryologist, or even a good observer looking at the photographic evidence [not Haeckel's faked drawings], can tell a chicken from a human, pig, fish, rabbit or whatever, from the earliest embryonic stages of development. And the DNA distinguishes them before any embryonic stages start. The fact that "vestigial" DNA can be stimulated electrically is no evidence of evolution, other than the micro-type. If we find common design among various organisms [the similarity between hemoglobin and chlorophyll is one of my little favorites], this rather gravitates AWAY FROM random variation over eons of time in my view.

Adaptation is based on "informed choice", ie an abundance of original information from which to select, ie. find utility in surviving some condition. Organisms [except humans] don't assess their environment, figure out how to
"adapt", then alter their DNA sequencing to make themselves evolve, although that is how the outmoded lingo of Lamarck persists in evolutionary circles to this day. Either they have the "right stuff" or they die without offspring. This is the stuff of microevolution. And it happens in generations you can count on your fingers, not over millions of years.

[JaJa]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_O._Becker

Having observed in his clinical practice that broken bones sometimes failed to grow together, he set out to study experimentally why, and if external physical conditions could improve the growth. He found that a DC current through the broken bone (about 1 nanoampere) would greatly improve the growth and fusion of the bones. During this work, Becker found it significant that lower animals had much better regeneration capabilities: Salamanders could regrow lost limbs, while frogs seemed to be a little too high on the evolutionary ladder to achieve this regeneration. He studied these animals for years in order to find out why evolution caused impaired regeneration capabilities, and whether electric fields or currents could stimulate regeneration. His experiments and theorizing could be regarded as a continuation of the similar work of Harold Saxton Burr. Becker thought, like Burr, that some sort of field encompassed the body, governing and stimulating regeneration. He found that an electrostatic field, positive away from the limb stump, could enable regeneration of a frog limb.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Body_Electric

He suspected that electric fields played an important role for controlling the regeneration process, and therefore mapped the electric potentials at various body parts during the regeneration.

[JohnMT]

Could someone please tell me whether anything has actually 'evolved' at all'?

I asked this question before, but without any meaningful reply.

Cheers,

John

[tholden]

Could someone please tell me whether anything has actually 'evolved' at all'?

I asked this question before, but without any meaningful reply.

Cheers,

John

MICRO-evolution, yes; MACRO-evolution (which is what the so-called Theory of Evolution is about), no. There's zero evidence of it on the planet.

[Jarvamundo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Body_Electric

A must read

[JohnMT]

tholden wrote:

MICRO-evolution, yes; MACRO-evolution (which is what the so-called Theory of Evolution is about), no. There's zero evidence of it on the planet.

Well I agree with you in part, at least as far as MACRO-evolution is concerned, but surely the same must also apply to MICRO'-evolution too.

Surely, one cannot have this 'evolution' thing/assumption just one way, devoid of the other.

BTW, the so-called 'Theory of Evolution' is just a mere Assumption, as you correctly pointed out.

So, may I ask this humble question to all once again, in accordance with this thread ie:

"Could someone please tell me whether anything has actually 'evolved' at all'?"

Cheers,

John

[webolife]

I earlier pointed out the modern day example of "superwimp" bacteria such as MRSA in the sterilized environment of a hospital. The various "kills 99.99 % of bacteria" soaps and compounds so prevalent in modern medical practice, and widespread use of antibiotics have done their job, leaving only the .01% of resistant bacteria to remain and thrive in the otherwise sterile environment of a hospital or human body. These "new" strains of dangerous bacteria by definition of "resistant", have always existed but were poor competitors in a more florally diverse environment. So micro-evolution "gave rise" to the new strains by selecting genes from an originally "rich" genome that enable resistance. Nothing really new, as you said, but an alteration in the population. Same goes for the famous Peppered Moths of Mancester, England, second to Darwin's finches the poster children of Darwinism. The only truly "promised" result of this type of evolution is speciation, or the division of a "parent" species into several sub-species or varieties; which if/when isolated and inbred become over just a few generations distinct species by the virtue of the definition that the varieties no longer naturally interbreed with viable offspring. This is not to deny that a scientist or husbandman can't come along and hybridize distinct species or even in some cases restore an original genome. Ultimately the final end of speciation is extinction, as an isolated inbred population encounters an environmental shift for which they no longer have the rich genetic potential to survive. This cycle of variation/adaptation is theoretically happening in many different genera or species, but is not the same beast as the simple-to-complex chimera of macro-evolution. I'm too tired to writing this kind of poetry. Good night for now.

[Levatio]

To go along with weboflife..

Micro-evolution is in effect a misleading term. I'm going to try to explain it simple (perhaps too simple?).

The various "kills 99.99 % of bacteria" soaps and compounds so prevalent in modern medical practice, and widespread use of antibiotics have done their job, leaving only the .01% of resistant bacteria to remain and thrive in the otherwise sterile environment of a hospital or human body. These "new" strains of dangerous bacteria by definition of "resistant", have always existed but were poor competitors in a more florally diverse environment.

This goes the same as for the Italian wall lizards. Some already have an digestion system and jaw suitable for the new environment. In wich they were introduced. As the ones who did not had those, died, just like the bacteria. The rest who did had the key charistics, were able to live on. The same goes for the famous ´Darwin birds´.

Getting my point?

Lets say, we have a large population of birds. 95% Has a beak suitable for eating small nuts, 5% has a beak suitable for eating larger nuts and lets say, berries. Then something happens, humans start to chop trees wich grow small nuts. 95% of the population dies, the other 5% is able to live on and can rapidly grow on. And voila, a new 'subspecies' has arrived.

However, where the difference of beak size/shape comes from, lies either in DNA, electrical fields or unknown.

Greetings.

[JohnMT]

Hi Levatio and all,

In my understanding, whether micro or macro, there appears to be no evidence of 'Evolution' whatsoever.

John

[webolife]

John MT, you are right in your thinking. Micro-evolution results only in the "evolution" of population statistics, in variety-specific information loss, and eventual extinction; in fact it is sometimes referred to as de-volution. So the general term [of evolution as "change"] might apply, but nothing of the simple-to-complex theory survives a hard look at the actually evidence, genetically, paleontologically, or logically.

[Orthogonal]

John MT, you are right in your thinking. Micro-evolution results only in the "evolution" of population statistics, in variety-specific information loss, and eventual extinction; in fact it is sometimes referred to as de-volution. So the general term [of evolution as "change"] might apply, but nothing of the simple-to-complex theory survives a hard look at the actually evidence, genetically, paleontologically, or logically.

I see a lot of talk about the supposed flaws or lack of evidence for evolution, but I have yet to see you post on what the source of our incredible biodiversity is. You speak of drug resistant bacteria as evidence against evolution, but that argument does not make sense. Are you saying this bacteria has always existed and just has not built the numbers necessary to cause infections due to the prevalence of other bacteria? It has been demonstrated in numerous labaratory experiments that nascent characteristics can appear in bacteria through evolution.

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/200 ... evolve.ars

I don't see what is so hard to accept about macro-evolution. The incredible diversity is broken down very simply from phylogony -> class -> order -> family -> genus - species in very logical steps and similar traits. Is phylogeny just coincidental? What about atavism?

I consider the endogenous retrovirus to be the smoking gun for evolution. The appearance of ERV's in genetic sequences at exactly the same place as other family or genus species is extremely solid proof of evolution.

[webolife]

Just lost two hours of post to the internet connection demons.

I'll try to recycle a few thoughts and come back to this later:
1. Atavism is a characteristic of micrevolution, showing relationship within a family or genus, and speak nothing of macroevolution aka phylogeny, but rather attest to the prevalence of the relationship of structure to function, an affirmation of design as much as descendency by some mystical evolutionary enhancement process.
2. Cladism, a characteristic of modern taxonomy of living things, has been organized in order to highlight similarities between organsisms, with phylogeny as a driving premise. Using the clads as evidence for evolution is simply circular reasoning.
3. ERVs insert at positions in the genetic code that are predetermined by the code of the ERV, as is true also of most genes, so of course they would [must?] be found in those positions in the DNA of family/generic/special cousins. Epigenetic studies persist in demonstrating the plasticity of gene expression within a biologic family, while at the same time affirming the stability of the genetic code.
4. In addition, genetic studies demonstrate the irreducible complexity of the protein synthesis process, described elsewhere on this thread. Evolutionists dislike this term so much they are willing to argue circles around themselves to protect themselves from the simple truth that both chicken and egg were necessary from the beginning.

[JaJa]

I see a lot of talk about the supposed flaws or lack of evidence for evolution, but I have yet to see you post on what the source of our incredible biodiversity is.

Information about exposure to electrostatic fields has been put forward in this thread.

http://www.urzeit-code.com/index.php?id=23

Swiss journalist Luc Bürgin unveils the secret of a sensational biological discovery at the pharmaceutical giant Ciba (now Novartis), which unfortunately has been ignored by the experts up to the present day. In laboratory experiments the researchers there Dr. Guido Ebner and Heinz Schürch exposed cereal seeds and fish eggs to an "electrostatic field" – in other words, to a high voltage field, in which no current flows.

Unexpectedly primeval organisms grew out of these seeds and eggs: a fern that no botanist was able to identify; primeval corn with up to twelve ears per stalk; wheat that was ready to be harvested in just four to six weeks. And giant trout, extinct in Europe for 130 years, with so-called salmon hooks. It was as if these organisms accessed their own genetic memories on command in the electric field, a phenomenon, which the English biochemist, Rupert Sheldrake, for instance believes is possible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_O._Becker

Having observed in his clinical practice that broken bones sometimes failed to grow together, he set out to study experimentally why, and if external physical conditions could improve the growth. He found that a DC current through the broken bone (about 1 nanoampere) would greatly improve the growth and fusion of the bones. During this work, Becker found it significant that lower animals had much better regeneration capabilities: Salamanders could regrow lost limbs, while frogs seemed to be a little too high on the evolutionary ladder to achieve this regeneration. He studied these animals for years in order to find out why evolution caused impaired regeneration capabilities, and whether electric fields or currents could stimulate regeneration. His experiments and theorizing could be regarded as a continuation of the similar work of Harold Saxton Burr. Becker thought, like Burr, that some sort of field encompassed the body, governing and stimulating regeneration. He found that an electrostatic field, positive away from the limb stump, could enable regeneration of a frog limb.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Body_Electric

He suspected that electric fields played an important role for controlling the regeneration process, and therefore mapped the electric potentials at various body parts during the regeneration.

You speak of drug resistant bacteria as evidence against evolution, but that argument does not make sense. Are you saying this bacteria has always existed and just has not built the numbers necessary to cause infections due to the prevalence of other bacteria? It has been demonstrated in numerous labaratory experiments that nascent characteristics can appear in bacteria through evolution.

Are there examples of bacteria mutating into different organisms for example. This would be fairly easy to observe when we consider the huge speed at which bacteria mutates, technically we could watch thousands of generations of bacteria in a very short time frame. Bacteria would be a strong candidate as an early ancestor and therefore would have had billions of years (if we are to believe consensus theory) to transmute into something else, i.e. demonstrate that one thing can transmute into lots of different things and thus provide the framework for this huge bio-diversity. There must be hundreds, thousands, or even millions of bacteria in various stages of transmutations since those early days going through changes that we can observe as a running commentary and use as evidence for micro to macro evolution.

I don't see what is so hard to accept about macro-evolution.

With a common ancestor, we humans, along with all other species would have been bacteria at some point, therefore I assume this process of changing from one thing to another is an ongoing process or has evolution simply stopped? I appreciate we might not be able to see these changes (at a larger macro scale) because changes take place over a huge period of time (according to consensus) but I don't see why we shouldn't be able to observe these super fast changes/mutations taking place at the molecular level. Like I said there should be a running observation if evolution is still taking place.

The incredible diversity is broken down very simply...

What are your thoughts on electrostatic fields and spontaneous evolution?

I consider the endogenous retrovirus to be the smoking gun for evolution.

I would consider bacteria (if a common ancestor) continually mutating (at various stages) into cells, tissue, organs, systems, etc, as solid proof of evolution as this would demonstrate we are capable of transmuting from one thing into many other things over a long period of time. Bacteria have had billions of years after all.

The appearance of ERV's in genetic sequences at exactly the same place as other family or genus species is extremely solid proof of evolution.

I do not dispute things evolve – look at foetus to newborn baby. Nine months of initial evolving and then a lifetime of growing/evolving into adults. However, we don’t evolve physically into something else during this period (we most certainly can evolve psychologically).

Perhaps you would like to expand on why you believe ERV’s to be solid proof of evolution.

[Orthogonal]

Please clarify what you mean by electrostatic field. What is the physical interaction that causes the speciation? I'm still trying to digest what you are claiming is happening. Are you arguing that "evolution" is a spontaneous and dramatic change due to some electrostatic (or electromagnetic?) phenomena? Instead of genetic drift, random mutation and natural selection we see rapid macro changes that immediately fill a specific niche? Something akin to a horse giving birth to a llama?

I would consider bacteria (if a common ancestor) continually mutating (at various stages) into cells, tissue, organs, systems, etc, as solid proof of evolution as this would demonstrate we are capable of transmuting from one thing into many other things over a long period of time. Bacteria have had billions of years after all.

Are there examples of bacteria mutating into different organisms for example. This would be fairly easy to observe when we consider the huge speed at which bacteria mutates, technically we could watch thousands of generations of bacteria in a very short time frame. Bacteria would be a strong candidate as an early ancestor and therefore would have had billions of years (if we are to believe consensus theory) to transmute into something else

Evolution describes how information can be gained, but it doesn't preclude information loss or "devolution" due to changes in environment. The standard theory purports that life adapts to environments. If an environment is relatively stable, we would expect the species to also remain fairly constant over long periods of time. This is why we don't see massive changes in bacteria since they are so well adapted to a specific niche. However, as was demonstrated in the lab (article I linked), they can evolve nascent characteristics based on changes to the environment. To evolve even further complexity would require that a lab expose the bacteria to numerous environments and other changes, although it is not clear what environments would encourage what changes. It would be a very long and strenuous test. Perhaps still beyond current capabilities but possible.

With a common ancestor, we humans, along with all other species would have been bacteria at some point, therefore I assume this process of changing from one thing to another is an ongoing process or has evolution simply stopped? I appreciate we might not be able to see these changes (at a larger macro scale) because changes take place over a huge period of time (according to consensus) but I don't see why we shouldn't be able to observe these super fast changes/mutations taking place at the molecular level. Like I said there should be a running observation if evolution is still taking place.

Speciation can be hard to define exactly because there are numerous species that are biologically capable of reproduction but do not recognize each other as viable mating companions. The fact that a Tiger and Lion or a Horse and Donkey can produce a viable offspring is evidence of common ancestor (or is this micro evolution). It shows the progression.

Initially species will differentiate enough that they are capable of full reproduction and offspring capable of reproduction, but do not recognize each other as mates. Sometimes mating does occur and the two species merge or hybridize back into one. If the process continues tt will further diverge until the species can still reproduce, but with difficulty. Often having offspring that are sterile or have numerous other physiological problems. Finally they diverge enough that reproduction is no longer possible.

I do not dispute things evolve – look at foetus to newborn baby. Nine months of initial evolving and then a lifetime of growing/evolving into adults. However, we don’t evolve physically into something else during this period (we most certainly can evolve psychologically).

Perhaps you would like to expand on why you believe ERV’s to be solid proof of evolution.

Physiological changes throw aging is not what I'm talking about by evolution. Evolution with ERV happens when an ERV inserts itself into a gamete cell (egg or sperm) dna before fertilization. If the ERV inserts into a somatic cell very little or nothing will happen. If that ERV infected egg or sperm becomes an embryo, that ERV is now part of the genome of that animal and will inhabit every single cell in its body. There is one of three possibilities at this point. 1)the ERV may do nothing to the host and it continues on its life normally and passes it on to its posterity. 2) The ERV may have some small or large advantageous physiological trait that is beneficial to the host and is passed on to posterity by natural selection. 3) The change is deleterious to the host causing death or a host of other problems. There have been numerous studies on this subject and it is becoming widely accepted that ERV's played a crucial role in the development of mammals to go from laying eggs to carrying it as placenta and having live births among other things.

The argument that webolife puts forth about ERV's having specific markers in the DNA to attach themselves too is still a non-starter. I'm not sure if that is really the case, but that doesn't matter anyway. You can trace genus lineages on ERV's only. You can see the ERV's that are in human's, chimps, gorilla's and orangutan's and see the number drop off the further away from common ancestor. This branching effect cannot be explained away by what webolife stated as "ERVs insert at positions in the genetic code that are predetermined by the code of the ERV, as is true also of most genes, so of course they would [must?] be found in those positions in the DNA of family/generic/special cousins."

[JaJa]

Please clarify what you mean by electrostatic field.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrostatics

What is the physical interaction that causes the speciation?

Physical interaction..? We can look at ‘information’ interaction, i.e. how information can be gained by DNA or be used to change DNA not through genetic drift, random mutation or natural selection but through modulation of laser light and radio waves.

http://www.rexresearch.com/gajarev/gajarev.htm

DNA programming

The most astonishing experiment that was performed by Garjajev’s group is the reprogramming of the DNA codon sequences using modulated laser light. From their discovered grammatical syntax of the DNA language they were able to modulate coherent laser light and even radio waves and add semantics (meaning) to the carrier wave. In this way they were able to reprogram in vivo DNA in living organisms, by using the correct resonant frequencies of DNA. The most impressive discovery made so far is that spoken language can be modulated to the carrier wave with the same reprogramming effect. Now this is a baffling and stunning scientific discovery! Our own DNA can simply be reprogrammed by human speech, supposing that the words are modulated on the correct carrier frequencies!

Whereas western science uses complicated bio chemical processes to cut and paste DNA triplets in the DNA molecule, Russian scientist use modulated laser light to do exactly the same thing. The Russians have proven to be very successful in repairing damaged DNA material in vivo!
Laser light therapies based on Garjajev’s findings are already applied in some European academic hospitals with success on various sorts of skin cancer. The cancer is cured without any remaining scars.
I'm still trying to digest what you are claiming is happening.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroporation

Electroporation, or electropermeabilization, is a significant increase in the electrical conductivity and permeability of the cell plasma membrane caused by an externally applied electrical field. It is usually used in molecular biology as a way of introducing some substance into a cell, such as loading it with a molecular probe, a drug that can change the cell's function, or a piece of coding DNA

Are you arguing that "evolution" is a spontaneous and dramatic change due to some electrostatic (or electromagnetic?) phenomena?

I’m not arguing anything. I pointed out other alternatives that attempt to explain bio-diversity on earth had been posted on this thread. You might find the following TPOD article interesting as well.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2010/arch10/100630biology.htm

Experiments with electrostatic fields might illuminate biological diversity [...]

Something akin to a horse giving birth to a llama?

No. Something akin to:

According to author Luc Bürgin, "In laboratory experiments the researchers there Dr. Guido Ebner and Heinz Schürch exposed cereal seeds and fish eggs to an 'electrostatic field' – in other words, to a high voltage field, in which no current flows. Unexpectedly primeval organisms grew out of these seeds and eggs: a fern that no botanist was able to identify; primeval corn with up to twelve ears per stalk; wheat that was ready to be harvested in just four to six weeks. And giant trout, extinct in Europe for 130 years, with so-called salmon hooks. It was as if these organisms accessed their own genetic memories on command in the electric field, a phenomenon, which the English biochemist, Rupert Sheldrake, for instance believes is possible."

Evolution describes how information can be gained

Laser and radio wave modulation also shows how information can be gained by DNA without resorting to genetic drift, random mutation or natural selection, or heaps of time.

I’d be interested in your views on how evolution accounts for lizards and salamanders being able to re-generate limbs. Considering humans are supposed to be at the top of the evolutionary tree why haven’t we and other species evolved with the same magical trait?

The standard theory purports that life adapts to environments. If an environment is relatively stable, we would expect the species to also remain fairly constant over long periods of time. This is why we don't see massive changes in bacteria since they are so well adapted to a specific niche.

I'm sorry but what is relatively stable supposed to mean. We have no way of reverse engineering planetary environments millions or billions of years. If bacteria have been around since the dawn of time this means they would be a common ancestor according to Darwin. The rate at which bacteria mutate we should expect to see a zoo of strange intermediates both past and present.

To evolve even further complexity would require that a lab expose the bacteria to numerous environments and other changes, although it is not clear what environments would encourage what changes. It would be a very long and strenuous test. Perhaps still beyond current capabilities but possible.

How much more time do we need and what can we expose bacteria to that it hasn't already been exposed to over the life-span of the earth? Bacteria has been subjected to millions/billions of years of different environments and planetary changes but we do not observe them in the process of speciation (at any stage). From the dawn of time until now has been a very long and strenuous test and yet this apparent common ancestor only mutates into different strains of bacteria and not something else. Are we to assume that because we are in a relatively stable environment that bacteria has simply stopped evolving.

Maybe they are pre-occupied mutating to stay one step ahead of anti-biotics?

Speciation can be hard to define exactly [...]

To show evolution from a common ancestor we should be able to observe bacteria continually mutating into something that will go on to be a cell, tissue, and organ, a cat, dog or even human. Bacteria should be branching off into all sorts of wonderful avenues.

There have been numerous studies on this subject and it is becoming widely accepted that ERV's played a crucial role in the development of mammals to go from laying eggs to carrying it as placenta and having live births among other things.

What do these same studies say about information transfer to DNA via laser light or radio waves?