Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

Cool. I cite Berkeley. You cite Youtube.

Seems legit…

Argue the claims please.

Sure. Here ya go.
" Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism, but mutations do not “try” to supply what the organism “needs.” … In this respect, mutations are random — whether a particular mutation happens or not is unrelated to how useful that mutation would be."

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/mutations_07

 

[buffalo]

Sure. Here ya go.

OK, you can stick with the past. Your choice. There is plenty of literature now on cell directed mutations. You can no longer say you were not informed.

 

[edwest]

It can’t. A harmonious relationship must exist between creatures and their environment, unless a massive asteroid comes along, but even that does not explain away the cooperative relationship that must be there.

 

[edwest]

Thank you. That makes a great deal of sense.

 

[edwest]

Please don’t hurt me…

 

[Rubee]

If you want to call it code, fine with me. But it’s also just an acid chain.

Lol. So? My computer is also just electricity and some metal and plastic. I don’t “want” to call it code. It is a code.

RNA viruses lack DNA, if that’s what you’re talking about here…

Ok, thank you for the info. Could you explain what in the world this has to do with the fact that chemicals don’t spoof code?

Nothing miraculous to it. A mutation occurs, usually during reproduction.

It’s great you have the answer so many are looking for about how the DNA was formed. Could you please tell me how mutations created RNA then DNA?

 

[Vonsalza]

Lol. So? My computer is also just electricity and some metal and plastic. I don’t “want” to call it code. It is a code.

It’s no more a “code” than H+H+O=Water is a code. Again, if you want to find that miraculous, fine with me. But that doesn’t automatically infer anything greater than what it, itself, is.

Ok, thank you for the info. Could you explain what in the world this has to do with the fact that chemicals don’t spoof code?

They’re not “spoofing” anything. Chemistry is a natural phenomenon. I’m not sure what else to tell ya.

It’s great you have the answer so many are looking for about how the DNA was formed. Could you please tell me how mutations created RNA then DNA?

Listen, what you’re doing is looking at the present product of nearly 4 billion years of evolution. As its so convuluted and complex at this point, it’s ok to not fully understand it at first glance.

Take the first nuclear reactors. They were just piles of radioactive material - something a relatively uneducated person could look at and grasp with relative ease.

Fast forward a mere 70 years. If I walked into a modern nuclear reactor, I’d have no idea how it mechanically worked without years of training.

Same concept.

As for the rise of RNA and the later rise of DNA, these are established theories that dominate their fields and your Google works just as well as mine. The info is out there and easily obtainable.

Go get it.

 

[edwest]

“RNA therefore has all the properties required of a molecule that could catalyze its own synthesis (Figure 6-92). Although self-replicating systems of RNA molecules have not been found in nature, scientists are hopeful that they can be constructed in the laboratory. While this demonstration would not prove that self-replicating RNA molecules were essential in the origin of life on Earth, it would certainly suggest that such a scenario is possible.”

 

[Techno2000]

It can’t. A harmonious relationship must exist between creatures and their environment, unless a massive asteroid comes along, but even that does not explain away the cooperative relationship that must be there.

Right ,everything is connected together, if you affect one part of an ecosystem , you will affect the other parts. I love these magical vague environmental changes that could transform entire ecosystems alway for the better, until it produce 10 million perfect species.

 

[Elf01]

I love these magical vague environmental changes that could transform entire ecosystems alway for the better, until it produce 10 million perfect species.

The organisms that could not adapt to the change died.

 

[Techno2000]

Techno2000:

I love these magical vague environmental changes that could transform entire ecosystems alway for the better, until it produce 10 million perfect species.

The organisms that could not adapt yo the change died.

What kind of change, please be more specific.

 

[buffalo]

Nonrandom directed mutations confirmed​

Abstract

The neo-Darwinian theory of evolution by natural selection of random mutations should be consigned to history where it belongs;electromagnetic intercommunication and resonance may be involved in activating and mutating just the right genes

An obsolete theory challenged by directed mutations

How does the cell know which genes to mutate?

The findings indicate that there are numerous mechanisms for the cell to direct

mutations to specific genes and specific sites in these genes, but they give no indication

as to how the cell is able to do that. I suggest that electromagnetic signals are involved.

There are good reasons to suspect that molecules intercommunicate by

electromagnetic signals, and molecules that interact share common frequencies so they

can attract one another through resonance (see [15] The Real Bioinformatics

Revolution, SiS 33). If that is the case, lactose supplied during starvation for example,

will send strong electromagnetic signals to its normal metabolic enzyme, β-

galactosidase, as well as to its gene, lacZ causing it in turn to respond by transcription

and to attract the requisite mutagenic machinery until the gene can be transcribed and

translated into the enzyme that breaks down lactose, thereby restoring normal

metabolic flux. The same applies to other situations of stress and stress relief.

Resonance to electromagnetic signals is very precise, and will have all the appearance

of being directed, particularly if the cell and organism is quantum coherent, as there are

also strong reasons to suspect [7, 16] (The Rainbow And The Worm, ISIS Publication).

This is a testable hypothesis, as the signals could be revealed by appropriately sensitive

detectors and analyzers.

To conclude

Mutations are highly non-random and directed; numerous mechanisms for generating

mutations are involved that appear to be under the control of the cell or organism as a

whole in different environmental contexts, leading to repeatable mutations in specific

genes. These results are contrary to the fundamental neo-Darwinian tenet that evolution

depends on the natural selection of random genetic mutations. I suggest that specific

electromagnetic signals emitted by key molecules that can relieve the stress are

communicated directly to activate the transcription and mutation of the requisite

gene(s).

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258697147_Nonrandom_directed_mutations_confirmedf

 

[edwest]

I don’t think this works. Humans are affected to some degree on the macro and cellular level. But it also includes air pollution, water quality and additives in food. Eating ‘junk food’ can have an effect. I’m not against further research, but electromagnetic pollution from all devices/sources needs to be considered as well.

 

[Hope1960]

I don’t mean to hijack the thread but after 7000+ posts, I wanted to know why you should think that the natural evolution of the UNIVERSE is true?

 

[Vonsalza]

edwest:

It can’t. A harmonious relationship must exist between creatures and their environment, unless a massive asteroid comes along, but even that does not explain away the cooperative relationship that must be there.

Right ,everything is connected together, if you affect one part of an ecosystem , you will affect the other parts. I love these magical vague environmental changes that could transform entire ecosystems alway for the better, until it produce 10 million perfect species.

Well, that’s kinda what happened, man.

The overwhelming majority of the plants and animals on this planet have no fossil record because they’re pretty Johnny-Come-Lately. They continually evolved in response to one another.

And it was always for the better because when it happened for the worse, natural selection killed it off.

 

[Vonsalza]

Elf01:

Techno2000:

I love these magical vague environmental changes that could transform entire ecosystems alway for the better, until it produce 10 million perfect species.

The organisms that could not adapt yo the change died.

What kind of change, please be more specific.

Sure. The KT boundary is a great example.

Before? Gigantic dinosaurs roaming the planet and oceans.

-BOOM!-

After? The colder, less lush environment could not sustain super-large animals. But who could thrive in such a harsh world? The little furry critters the dinosaurs used to snack on.

Enter: The Rise of the Mammals!

That’s right. Your great (x 13 million) grandfather looked sorta like a rat.
If it’s any consolation, he was my great (x 13 million) grandfather too.
(13 million derived using KT boundary of 65 million years ago divided by 5 year reproductive cycle average of all ancestors, just as a guess. Almost certainly a margin of error there).

 

[edwest]

You can buy a pine tree that’s gone missing for millions of years.

 

[Vonsalza]

You can buy a pine tree that’s gone missing for millions of years.

Sure. You can buy a horseshoe crab that’s remained relatively unchanged for almost half a billion - BILLION - years.

Where there’s pressure, there’s change. Where there isn’t much, there is stasis. Or equilibrium. That’s a better word.

 

[edwest]

A living pine tree that’s been missing for 200 million years.

 

[Vonsalza]

A living pine tree that’s been missing for 200 million years.

My horseshoe crab is at least twice as old, Ed.