It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Cool. Someone is on the ball. Thanks Nate, for being on topic.
originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Ghost147
Glad you can also admit you are no expert...
originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Ghost147
How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate?
How did lucky accidents create even one of the components, let alone 10 or 20 or 30 at the same time, often in a necessary programmed sequence...
originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Ghost147
I see you have been digging into your friends list...
originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Ghost147
That's even more desperate then your false accusations...
originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Ghost147
Shouldn't be trying to make an example of me then whine about thread being derailed...
originally posted by: wisvol
Blimey, I sure wish someone would try to answer the OP's question.
Maybe more spam would have the same effect?
Probably not
originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: TerryDon79
Well if it has progressed enough you should be able to provide an explanation...
Can you share with us Darwins birth and death dates?
originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: TerryDon79
Why didn't he know what he was talking about either?
“we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations
I recommend you actually take some courses on evolutionary biology
Soliciting opinions on the internet is fun,but probably not the best idea if you intend to learn anything.
I don't have much to add as Ghost147 pretty much summed it up for me.
originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: NateTheAnimator
I have taken evolutionary biology classes in HS and UC.
originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: NateTheAnimator
I don't read from that author any more, but glad to know he summed it up for you.
originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: NateTheAnimator
If you'd be so kind as to share your own version of his light I'd be most obliged, assuming it does address the thread's point.
I have taken evolutionary biology classes in HS and UC. Disagreement isn't always based solely on ignorance.
I don't read from that author any more, but glad to know he summed it up for you.
If you'd be so kind as to share your own version of his light I'd be most obliged, assuming it does address the thread's point.
originally posted by: wisvol
From a purely objective standpoint, the issue of an organized group seeking to diminish or replace a widely accepted scientific topic with one of pure philosophy and faith fits the description of a "conspiracy".
one of this website's owners
Species are correlated to each other, and may not be causal to each other.
No sane person would ignore the evolution of an individual, a group, a species, a phylum, a theory, or anything else : everything constantly changes and evolves in various ways, and none of it shows speciation to me so far.
I doubt that the origin of all species is primordial soup, and I doubt that our ancestry include fish. Here is partly why:
The idea that the origin of all species is primordial soup, and that species become other species over time, are pushed by public services and their convinced students, and serve key social purposes from inception.
The idea that species become other species, but so slow you can't see it, when presented as fact to youth, can and does have lasting consequences including and unfortunately not limited to -either consciously or not- logically following this idea into its consequences for our own, assuming perennity.
To say this differently, people do not incrementally become different species, which is a racist's and an authoritarian's wet dream.
divide
Other consequences of the idea that fish become people over time include justification of empires as naturally selected to do what empires do, which coincidentally also serves "tptb"'s goals.
conquer
Every child differs from their parents in ways not inclusive of the child's species.
A species is defined biologically as "a group whose offspring is fertile". This is from my university's textbook, any better definition is welcome.
How do you think an animal would have mutant offspring both unable to breed with the herd (a new species) and able to breed with their own new species, examples of which are available somehow?
If the herd's environment prompts similar ATCG syntax change deep enough to preclude interbreeding in enough young, what environments prompt this on people?
In other words, if "junk DNA" activates in fish in times of drought to turn them into frogs (some guy sold books about this), what does the human junk DNA do? Science-fiction has "fiction" in it and it's still cool.
Again, every child differs in some ways from its parents, but giving birth to a different species? Really?
Because in order for fish to become people incrementally, quite a few mothers would have had to give birth to different species, so that would be a recurring thing, which come on.
This theory on the origin of species cut into the popularity of a previous view, according to which people originate from the source of everything else (call it bang if you must, this too shall pass) and definitely not the contrary as opening quote suggests.
In regards to your question in the OP. When you say origins of species are you referring to Darwin's book or the hypothesis of abiogenesis? If it's the latter than you're off base again.
Ghost147 is probably the go to guy on ATS for everything Science related, so shutting him out because you dislike his responses is incredibly obtuse on your part.