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.

 

James M Tour on Origins of Life

page: 3
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 03:57 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

How about no. He is not wrong that no one understands the chemistry of evolution completely. But as I said, we don't understand gravity either, yet there it is. There is ample evidence that evolution occurs. There is evidence it was not divinely mandated.

So save your money, and read those papers.




posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 04:36 PM
link   
Oh and a scientist rebuts Dr Tour, just for some balance


sandwalk.blogspot.co.nz...
edit on 19-7-2016 by Noinden because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 09:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: TzarChasm

This has absolutely nothing to do with the chemical pathways involved in macroevolution.


here is a macroevolution link.

evolution.berkeley.edu...
edit on 19-7-2016 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 09:40 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

I feel you are going to get the same reply, that that is not the chemistry of macroevolution. What he (?) f ails to get is that the chemistry for evolution is not different, no matter the scale.



posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 10:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

I am beginning to question your credentials. If you are truly a synthetic chemist with also some time spent studying biology there is no way you can believe this statement because its simply not true.



posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 10:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Noinden

I am beginning to question your credentials. If you are truly a synthetic chemist with also some time spent studying biology there is no way you can believe this statement because its simply not true.


do YOU have any credentials??



posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 01:05 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

For biology and chemistry no, but I never claimed too. I can however read and understand information, and what he just said is completely false.



posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 03:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: TzarChasm

For biology and chemistry no, but I never claimed too. I can however read and understand information, and what he just said is completely false.


So you have no credentials but know for a fact that he's wrong. Interesting. How do you know this?



posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 05:45 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Then you don't understand science at all. HOW things change chemically are not going to matter on a time scale. It is one reaction at a time. That is Chemistry.

I reiterate, there is no macro or micro evolution. There is just evolution. The false scale is a tool for those who can't grok the idea. As has been mentioned to you, micro evolution and macro evolution are simply a timescale. Much like geological drift, or as someone pointed out, a receding hairline.



posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 05:46 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Show how this is completley false.

The chemistry for changes in DNA (that is what evolution is) is known. As I stated it does not matter the timescale.

So demonstrate that this is wrong.



posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 05:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

He beleives that I am wrong
Remember gnosis trumps eidein in faith. He only can function via faith, as the OP demonstrates , the science was not something that was understood.



posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 11:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

You can mutate DNA indefinitely but never get a new morphological innovation.

What your are saying is new information, form, and structure arise from natural selection acting on random mutations arising at a very low level within the biological hierarchy. However, the body-plan formation during embryological development and major morphological innovation during the history of life depend upon a specificity of arrangement at a much higher level of the organizational hierarchy (Paraphrase from Darwin's Doubt). At this level DNA alone is not enough. We need new epigenetic information, not only that hundreds of epigenetic mutations would need to occur before any benefit was realized. First tagging machines need to be built, or adapted from other machines. These machines then need to know where to place the tags in the entire genome. This would also have to be done for the machines that remove and move the tags. In other words, it is not good enough merely to evolve the machines. These machines must also know where to place the tags. Then the machines that interpret the tags would have to do so correctly. They would have to know what the tag means. This is entirely independent of DNA. So obviously the chemistry will be different.


The biological machinery described above is not inheritable unless is evolves in the germline. In the germline it doesn’t do any good. Only when it is a passed on to the descendants can it help .The epigenetics capability likely won’t help because this capability gives the organism the ability to respond to a wide range of environmental conditions that probably won’t even occur in the organism’s lifetime. In other words, we must believe that a statistically impossible capability arose by chance and though the majority of it wasn’t helpful, it was preserved anyway.

Then we go back to Eric Davidon "“There is always an observable consequence if a dGRN (developmental gene regulatory network) subcircuit is interrupted. Since these consequences are always catastrophically bad, flexibility is minimal, and since the subcircuits are all interconnected, the whole network partakes of the quality that there is only one way for things to work. And indeed the embryos of each species develop in only one way.”

Any mutations to the regulatory regions of DNA are always found to be catastrophically bad.

Then we can also go to Johnathan Wells:
"Excerpt: Embryo development (ontogeny) depends on developmental gene regulatory networks (dGRNs), but dGRNs depend on pre-existing spatial anisotropies that are defined by early embryonic axes, and those axes are established long before the embryo’s dGRNs are put in place.,,,
DNA sequences do not specify the final functional forms of most membrane components. Still less does DNA specify the spatial arrangements of those components. Yet their spatial arrangements carry essential ontogenetic information. The fact that membrane patterns carry ontogenetic information that is not specified by DNA poses a problem for any theory of evolution (such as Neo-Darwinism) that attributes the origin of evolutionary novelties to changes in a genetic program—-whether at the level of DNA sequences or dGRNs."

bio-complexity.org...

All this to say. You are simply using a trivial statement like Macroevolution is just microevolution over time, and then telling everyone the chemistry is the same? There is no dispute that the chemistry involved in getting from cell to light sensitive cell to eye ball is not just slight chemical changes in the genetic code.



posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 11:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Because I can read and understand information.



posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 11:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden




He beleives that I am wrong Remember gnosis trumps eidein in faith. He only can function via faith, as the OP demonstrates , the science was not something that was understood.


I didn't say I didn't understand it, but I can't give an accurate synopsis so I said I can't tell you what its about. You continue to bring this up even though I have already told you my reason for putting that statement.



posted on Jul, 21 2016 @ 12:07 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Do you understand what what a "mutation in DNA" is? If you think you do, your discussion is not very well thought out. I will also note, once again, you are citing, large tracts of information, without an ounce of understanding. I would also note a great deal of cut and paste has occurred in your argument.

Mutations in DNA, which lead to evolution (and again your dichotomy of micro and macro is meaningless, it is the same chemistry involved, and the timescale which is different), are the same.

You have a codon change, which codes for a different amino acid, and you lead to mutation in physical function. Thus if you look at the various forms of hemoglobin which are out there, they are almost exclusively simple one amino acid change, which leads to a massive change in function. We've had this discussion before.

Quite simply, on the topic of this thread. We understand a lot of the chemistry involved in mutations. Also we understand the biochemistry. As Macro and Micro evolution are false demarcations. Your thread is wrong.



posted on Jul, 21 2016 @ 12:08 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

You state "I cannot tell you what this video is about." this means you do not understand it.



posted on Jul, 21 2016 @ 12:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

Yup ok. Nice job addressing the science . I am done.



posted on Jul, 21 2016 @ 11:30 AM
link   
you cant even explain what the science says, but you expect the forum to refute your understanding of it.

yup, okay.



posted on Jul, 21 2016 @ 01:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Barcs

Because I can read and understand information.


You could have fooled me. From what I'm reading you are just parroting claims other people have made with no understanding of why they are right or wrong. Then you cited a known creationist propaganda site (bio-complexity.org) to back it up.



posted on Jul, 21 2016 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I've spoken to the science. You ignored it. Run along.




top topics



 
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join