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.

 

Which came first dinosaur or the egg

page: 12
5
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 12:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: ssenerawa

originally posted by: smirkley
All procreating animals create eggs.

The question might be, which was the first animal that laid eggs as opposed to carrying their embryos inside themselves.
It was no first that did it, anything that does it had to already been that way in the beginning, can't evolve to lay eggs


Yes, something can evolve to lay eggs. That's the whole thing with evolution, it changes what was to what is.


This is the answer, if Evolution is true.

DNA supposedly ended this debate because at some point what was in the egg was different than what laid it. And since time only moves forward, the EGG came first.

Rather simple, really.




posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 12:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: ssenerawa
a reply to: Barcs

Micro and macro or very different as are evolution and mutation. One depends on external factors and the other depends on internal factors and genes responsible for the structure of an animal.


This is the arguement for evolution. And let me know if it's 100% correct in your honest opinion.

"In other words, beaks changed as the birds developed different tastes for fruits, seeds, or insects picked from the ground or cacti. Long, pointed beaks made some of them more fit for picking seeds out of cactus fruits. Shorter, stouter beaks served best for eating seeds found on the ground."

news.harvard.edu...


No they aren't otherwise you would be able to show the specific mechanism that prevents a divergence of species and explain why some species can disregard boundaries and successfully crossbreed (which would be impossible if micro and macro were separate processes.) Not only that but if macro was it's own process, all divergence between populations in a single generation. This is contrary to what has been proven.



posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 12:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: ssenerawa
a reply to: peter vlar

They haven't been "evolving". They've been mutating.


And mutations are one of the mechanisms of biological evolution. Therefore if something has mutated across every single taxonomic rank, for hundreds of millions of years, then these things have evolved.
Yes I agree, when the context of evolution is used accordingly and not as if it was a derivative of external and/or environmental factors.



posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 12:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Cypress

double post refer to next post.
edit on 1-9-2016 by ssenerawa because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-9-2016 by ssenerawa because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 12:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Cypress

originally posted by: ssenerawa
a reply to: Barcs

Micro and macro or very different as are evolution and mutation. One depends on external factors and the other depends on internal factors and genes responsible for the structure of an animal.


This is the arguement for evolution. And let me know if it's 100% correct in your honest opinion.

"In other words, beaks changed as the birds developed different tastes for fruits, seeds, or insects picked from the ground or cacti. Long, pointed beaks made some of them more fit for picking seeds out of cactus fruits. Shorter, stouter beaks served best for eating seeds found on the ground."

news.harvard.edu...


No they aren't otherwise you would be able to show the specific mechanism that prevents a divergence of species and explain why some species can disregard boundaries and successfully crossbreed (which would be impossible if micro and macro were separate processes.) Not only that but if macro was it's own process, all divergence between populations in a single generation. This is contrary to what has been proven.
Exactly, I agree but only tend to call it micro to engage in a different veiw because evolution in it's on regard is looked at mostly entirely different along with a faulty perspective



posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 12:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: ssenerawa

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: ssenerawa
a reply to: Barcs

The fact that you can't answer the information question without dancing, indirectly proves my point.


What about the fact that you ignored the majority of my post, including where I asked you to define the word "information"?

If the answer is unknown, I can give you an opinion, but can't state with any certainty when the first "information" originated. I mentioned the brain because the majority of information is learned and created using it. Until you give me a clear definition of information, I can't really do much but speculate.

Information in the same context as when you used it to prove your point prior



Which point? I brought up multiple points, but you didn't address most of them. I am not the one that first brought up the word, "information." That was you, so again, please define it so I can better understand your points instead of what seems like a lazy attempt to throw it back in my face and avoid discussing as much as possible.

I don't remember proving any points about information aside from the fact that we don't know the origins. I might have misunderstood what you meant by it when I first said that info comes from a brain first, but it seems you are using it in a different sense when referencing DNA code. Please clarify.


Yes I agree, when the context of evolution is used accordingly and not as if it was a derivative of external and/or environmental factors.

Exactly, I agree but only tend to call it micro to engage in a different veiw because evolution in it's on regard is looked at mostly entirely different along with a faulty perspective


By whom? The only people looking at it with a faulty perspective are the deniers. It's not a different view. External factors like natural selection apply in both cases, and I explained this already.


edit on 9 1 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 01:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: ssenerawa

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: ssenerawa
a reply to: peter vlar

They haven't been "evolving". They've been mutating.


And mutations are one of the mechanisms of biological evolution. Therefore if something has mutated across every single taxonomic rank, for hundreds of millions of years, then these things have evolved.



Yes I agree, when the context of evolution is used accordingly and not as if it was a derivative of external and/or environmental factors.


When the context of evolution is used accordingly? What does this even mean? What context do YOU feel applied and why? For the record, mutations can be the result of external or environmental factors. Natural
Selection is also an external factor in relation to the population evolving. The further down this rabbit hole I follow this thread, the more disjointed and off the rails it seems to become because you give the impression that you haven't obtained any of your knowledge regarding MES from science based sources or education. So if you could clarify exactly what you're trying to get it that would be great.



posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 02:07 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

Yes, you're correct I see your point, something external causing it to mutate it from inside out would be an external factor.

What I'm merely attempting to point out is that the intricate complexity of life and the intricate structures of life derive from the vigorously compact information that resides in DNA.



posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

And by accordingly I meant how it was being used in our conversation, Many of the earlier posters didn't regard the perspective of the theory of evolution in the same light

...I couldn't think of a different way except using micro and macro in my bold attempt to prove my point..
edit on 1-9-2016 by ssenerawa because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 02:30 PM
link   
When you said this

Barcs - "Asking about the origin of information is a bit silly because human brains have also evolved slowly over time, increasing in cranial capacity over the past 3+ million years. The origin of information started with the first brain to evolve in an organism, which started as a simpler neural network."

Then I stated that, the first information wouldn't have come from the first brain, and that It would've come from the first DNA that had the information of which a brain can be derived.
edit on 1-9-2016 by ssenerawa because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 03:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: ssenerawa
a reply to: peter vlar

And by accordingly I meant how it was being used in our conversation, Many of the earlier posters didn't regard the perspective of the theory of evolution in the same light

...I couldn't think of a different way except using micro and macro in my bold attempt to prove my point..


Thanks for the clarification.



posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 03:22 PM
link   
a reply to: ssenerawa

For the 3rd time, please define the word "information." I already explained that I likely misunderstood what you meant by information when I wrote that... or at least I think I did, but your failure to provide a definition after multiple requests kind of shows me that you really aren't interesting in discussing anything. If that's the case, then tell me now and I'll kindly bow out of the thread and save us from going in circles for the next 10 pages.
edit on 9 1 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 11:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs


What is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things,
edit on 2-9-2016 by ssenerawa because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2016 @ 11:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: ssenerawa
a reply to: Barcs
What is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things,


Okay, so that pretty much covers anything in the universe that has been studied by humans, which would make the origin of "information", the big bang, since scientists can represent the sequence of the expansion with diagrams and charts, it would technically be the first information, rather than DNA or the first brain.
edit on 9 2 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 11:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

The logistics of evolving neural systems through the proposed mechanisms of the theory are a logical impossibility.

1) How could a DNA mutation lead to an increase in neural tissue involving neurons and their required support cells?
2) How could this same mutation also orchestrate the organization of these hypothetical new neurons and support cells during embryonic development?
3) How, also, could this same mutation increase cranial capacity to allow for the increase in brain size?

With one of the above missing, the mutation is lethal at worst and erroneous at best. ... There are around 100 billion neurons in the brain and around 1 trillion glial cells in the brain all working in an intricate and interdependent manner which is adaptable and self-healing and can perpetuate without failing for over 100 years - how the hell could this evolve, according to your perverse theory?



originally posted by: barcs

1. Evolution
2. Evolution
3. Evolution


Did you notice the following?

“God-of-the-Gaps”?

Some object that God is arbitrarily inserted “as an explanatory fix” wherever there is no provable scientific explanation. In other words, the claim is that such a divine Designer becomes the “God-of-the-gaps,” as if “God” were a magic word to use whenever men cannot figure things out. But what are the gaps referred to here? Are they merely small and insignificant gaps in our knowledge? No, they are real chasms of plausibility that exist in Darwinian evolution. They are fundamental breaches in aspects of biology that the theory of evolution has been incapable of bridging. In all fairness, evolutionists who rely on unsupported assertions effectively make the Darwinian theory their “God-of-the-gaps.”


Evolution did it (Nature found a way, Nature did it, Mother Nature did it), or just for short apparently: Evolution.

Even after already letting him know that such an answer wouldn't cut it by bringing it up yourself why it's hard for you to believe "evolution" is the answer (however that answer was intended).

Oh, source was: Admire the Design; Learn About the Designer
edit on 5-9-2016 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 11:25 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

I see you are still having trouble laying out your argument. Let me know when you have one. I figured you conceded but you are back. Surely you have something better than distracting away from my last posts to you that clearly pointed out how you are using the equivocation fallacy to justify your opinion on design.

BTW, Evolution has already been observed and demonstrated, comparing it to god of the gaps is laughable, regardless of what the JW propaganda site preaches to you.
edit on 9 5 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 12:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

We were talking about the origin of biotic life, and how abiotic matter came to be biotic many millions of years after the Big Bang, not the origin of the universe, way to deflect.

And please don't say "well the origin of the universe was the origin of life" which would be true, but it holds no substance in regards to our conversation



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 01:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

youre perspective could be equivocated to saying the origin of this post is a keyboard. true in a sense but it wasn't until I arranged each letter specifically and into a particular sequence, that it could be regarded as information.


As far as we know, The Big Bang was essentially chaos that a billion nuclear explosions in one wouldn't compare to

The origin of information in DNA is and would be, much more intricate.

edit on 6-9-2016 by ssenerawa because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 08:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs
I got tired of repeatedly having to point out your dishonest debate tactics.

But have fun in pretending I don't have an argument or trouble laying it out (or that I conceded or don't have an answer or reply when I'm not making comments, including trying to give that impression to others) just because you're good at twisting whatever I'm saying and projection while you demonstrate your promise of elaborating on "something very simple..." wasn't genuine at all, even if you would admit I fulfilled your requirements (as if I have to first, which of course you were always going to deny or try to debate before we get to discussing details about your comment containing the mysterious and vague "something very simple...").

You may continue your storytelling of supposed "most likely" scenarios/storylines. It doesn't bother me, I was just curious if cooperton noticed what you were doing there. Perhaps that's why he left the thread as well (possibly temporarily like me, as in not commenting, cause it's just not worth the effort when people are being that unreasonable, surely he made it very clear that the answer "evolution" wasn't going to cut it since that is what he was asking questions about).

I'm inclined to think (or I suspect) I might be able to do a more reasonable defence of evolutionary philosophies than making it that obvious what techniques you're using and how serious you take anyone's search for truth (what is the case, the reality of a matter) when making comments and asking questions on ATS.

Of course, reason doesn't rule this world. Propaganda and its techniques is often way more effective on the way people think about certain subjects, and thus also more popular (perceived as better or even more reasonable at times).
edit on 6-9-2016 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 09:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
Why can't RNA world hypothesis have merit? What about DNA self assembly experiments and the likes? ...
It's based on what you want to be true.

Hey, that's convenient, leaving out some things and I've let you answer part of your own questions (that's what happens if you project a lot, or perhaps better described as 'pot calling the kettle black'). Here's the rest of it that you've no doubt seen before and preferred to deny by zooming in on and debate a word such as "information" to distract from the main considerations regarding that topic, demonstrating this comment of mine.

And here's the Professor Emeritus of Biology that worked on this subject of these self-organizational scenarios mentioned in the video above at 1:40 and later in more detail at 2:35, his studies changed his mind on the matter. Starts at 0:39.

And one reminder regarding the Stephen Meyer video and what he says at 0:35, if the ribozyme machine is doing the copying (which is its purpose and function in living cells), the RNA molecule (string of nucleotides) that is not a ribozyme is not copying itself now is it? But he isn't specifying the research he's referring to. But I suspect it to be more of the reverse engineering experiments that I'm used to seeing.
edit on 6-9-2016 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
5
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join