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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Watch Evolution in Action

page: 8
32
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2016 @ 12:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Gyo01

Viruses are an intermediate stage in the evolution of what we call life. They found a great, mean niche and have exploited it to the full. No need to evolve further.




posted on Sep, 11 2016 @ 12:35 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

Which claim's more extraordinary? Evolution or God?



posted on Sep, 11 2016 @ 01:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Gyo01

Viruses are an intermediate stage in the evolution of what we call life. They found a great, mean niche and have exploited it to the full. No need to evolve further.
I was pretty sure a virus such as aids and ebola was a single strain of DNA or RNA wrapped in a protein bubble which is why people think they were made by man. They are very, VERY far from life but seem to be able to "know" what to do when it gets to where it needs to be and not have to eat or reproduce in an asexual manner or sexual manner. I think E. Coli is a bacteria, I seriously think. I think that is what you were referring to. I used to call bacteria viruses too until a year or two ago, and I guess it's okay too still unless were in a lab or something. The ones we call bugs cause the look like bugs in a microscope, moving around and stuff. I'm gonna go re-research, to make sure I got this right but I have something I gotta do.



posted on Sep, 11 2016 @ 01:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: whereislogic

Which claim's more extraordinary? Evolution or God?
Lol. Good one!



posted on Sep, 11 2016 @ 01:35 PM
link   
science.howstuffworks.com...

Nevermind, I found a great link explaining it.



posted on Sep, 11 2016 @ 02:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax
Which claims do you want me to compare? And of what use would this 'in the eye of the beholder' kind of discussion be in relation to finding out the truth of a matter?

Regarding what I was responding to:

Not that anyone is ever going to present any logical evidence (not the usual discrediting tricks) that addresses the issues with the 'chemistry did it' argument mentioned in the video above (I'm paraphrasing obviously).
edit on 11-9-2016 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2016 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

I agree completely.



posted on Sep, 11 2016 @ 03:42 PM
link   
I'm still tripping over that hyper-evolved human Area 51 video from a few days ago. Lol. Nonetheless this topic.



posted on Sep, 11 2016 @ 03:48 PM
link   
Amazing stuff , looking at the video, I remember this total new civilization in my refrigerator when I got back from vacation I believe they were on the brink of launching their first probe. But all hell broke loose that day with chloride a total civilization wiped out in one hour in my refrigerator ..



posted on Sep, 11 2016 @ 03:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Yeah but the problem is the mutation never, ever, ever mutates into something better, it ALWAYS de-evolves, no new information is EVER added into a virus mutation
Sorry to make it look like false science but it is false science

Also makes Darwinism look redundant, evolution by mutation, not natural selection as supposed
discovermagazine.com...

Its not evidence of evolution, its just phony science

Why not show empirical evidence rather than phony evidence

Why do people hate science, why do those who support evolution manipulate and abuse science in this way.


Strawman. Re read what the Op typed.

If a set of switches are not switched on then explain how the organism gained a new trait?
Seems logical to assume new information was added.
Limbo



posted on Sep, 11 2016 @ 06:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax




Viruses are an intermediate stage in the evolution of what we call life.

Intermediate between what? And as far as I understand, they are still evolving (quite rapidly compared to self reproducing organizims).



posted on Sep, 11 2016 @ 08:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Show proof of this
No seriously, you are claiming that the OP is not as it seems. Thus please prove your statement.



posted on Sep, 11 2016 @ 09:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

Why bother dude...

seriously...




posted on Sep, 11 2016 @ 10:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Gyo01


a virus such as aids and ebola was a single strain of DNA or RNA wrapped in a protein bubble

Yes, pretty much every virus answers to that description. Some have a few extra components, but nothing fundamentally different.


They are very, VERY far from life

On the contrary, they differ from life only in lacking their own on-board genetic transcription and replication apparatus.


people think they were made by man.

I’m sure those people are wrong. We can find traces of ancient viral infections in the genomes of modern organisms, even humans. There is a whole field of biology, paleovirology, that studies ancient viruses.


I think E. Coli is a bacteria, I seriously think. I think that is what you were referring to.

No, I’m quite clear in my mind what a virus is, and how it differs from a bacterium.

*


a reply to: VP740


Intermediate between what?

Between primitive molecular replicators that build copies of themselves from the ambient environment and fully-equipped survival machines with built-in transcription and replication equipment.

I didn’t mean they were intermediate in time. As far I understand the current state of thinking on the subject, prokaryotes probably evolved first. Some of them subsequently evolved a way to avoid the costs of building their own reproductive gear by borrowing another organism’s — at a cost to the organism, obviously, which is why viruses cause ‘disease’.


they are still evolving (quite rapidly compared to self reproducing organizims)

Everything is still evolving. Viruses can evolve fast, but their genomes are usually small, and the number of possible viable mutations is not really very great. Bacteria like Helicobacter pylori can evolve as fast as viruses.



posted on Sep, 11 2016 @ 10:58 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic


Which claims do you want me to compare?

The respective claims regarding the cause of the diversity of biological life: evolution by natural selection and the imagination of a divine creator.

I am afraid I have better things to do that to watch an hour-long video. If you can’t make your case in your own words, succintly and clearly, with citations from the literature where necessary, you’re not worth talking to as far as I’m concerned.



posted on Sep, 11 2016 @ 11:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Yeah but the problem is the mutation never, ever, ever mutates into something better, it ALWAYS de-evolves, no new information is EVER added into a virus mutation
Sorry to make it look like false science but it is false science

Also makes Darwinism look redundant, evolution by mutation, not natural selection as supposed
discovermagazine.com...

Its not evidence of evolution, its just phony science

Why not show empirical evidence rather than phony evidence

Why do people hate science, why do those who support evolution manipulate and abuse science in this way.


Duplications do occur, duplicate and randomly change, and it will sample all possible patterns of finite size. The number of possible patterns of a particular finite size is finite, not infinite.

Information is not created nor destroyed. Even simple numbers such as pi are said to already contain all possible information.

Randomly sampling an ever increasing in size finite pattern will generate all possible information.



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 01:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax
it's 8 minutes, not that the length actually matters to you or will make any difference in your demonstration of 2 Timothy 4:3,4.

I find the behaviour of human beings and especially on ATS about these subjects quite extraordinary. Just like the extraordinary descriptions of it in the bible.

The claim you mentioned regarding "evolution by natural selection" is still too vague for me to evaluate. For all I know you're just using the word "evolution" to refer to "change (over time)".

The cause of the diversity of biological life being a divine creator is also a somewhat limited explanation, but it's pretty extraordinary already, then again, I'm also aware of a lot of extraordinary evidence in relation to that subject. As well as the mechanisms that exist that can cause more diversity after the initial diversity.

Btw, you can't get diversity of biological life without getting biological life first (or at the same time, with "first" I'm actually thinking more of a logical pathway, not timewise), it seems that's also missing from your cause or explanation: "evolution by natural selection"; assuming you are using the word "evolution" in the way I'm used to seeing from fans of evolutionary philosophies, excluding what Haldane and Oparin referred to as "the chemical evolution theory of life" and Huxley referred to as "the hypothesis of abiogenesis" also described in dictionaries, on wikipedia and other encyclopedias as simply "chemical evolution": a claim (or set of claims) that at first glance seemed about as extraordinary as some claims regarding God. Upon further investigation, I'd have to say they are both more extraordinary as well as vague. In my opinion (based on the evidence I've gathered) they are also more misleading, confusing, deceptive, dishonest, wildly speculative, illogical, nonsensible, unreasonable, propagandistic, biased, self-deluding and I think I'll just leave it there otherwise I can keep going.

The above claims and stories regarding the subject of "chemical evolution"/abiogenesis is what I was thinking about when responding to Woodcarver saying:

However life is created by chemistry.

Which is justified to think about in my opinion regardless of how Woodcarver meant that line, since that is what other people will think about as well when reading such a sentence on a thread like this in a forum like this (just saying that before Woodcarver feels like arguing that that's not what he was talking about).

Here's a list of variations or rephrasing of the same argument regarding the subject of the origin of life (including one that has been used a long time ago):

Chemistry did (designed and/or created) it
The laws of chemistry or nature did it
Nature did it
Mother Nature did it
Gaia+primordial forces did it, or Gaia's primordial forces (I think Zeus was somehow involved as well, or in some variations of Greek Pagan philosophy)

The first 3 are Pantheism in the closet, the 4th could be both, the 5th is Pantheism which is also found amongst fans of New Age philosophy and (if rephrased slightly) Buddhists, Hindus and if rephrased again the rest of the religions and philosophical movements in places like China and Japan.
edit on 12-9-2016 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 04:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax
Here's another place you can find a variation of the same argument:

While most modern witches are followers of a nature-oriented, polytheistic faith, some worship a great mother-goddess, viewed in a triple role of maiden, mother, and crone, representing the basic stages of life. Her lover is a god with horns. Other witches worship a god and goddess together. One writer says: “The Goddess and God are seen as a manifestation of the feminine and masculine forces of nature. Each [having] unique characteristics that when combined result in the harmonious creation of life.

Source: What You Should Know About Witchcraft
At the very end of this video there's a short mention of this whole Trinity, Trimurti, triple role god or gods concept:

edit on 12-9-2016 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 07:38 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

I didn’t say anything about the origins of life. But if we’re talking about current thinking about the processes of abiogenesis, I find it orders of magnitude more plausible than the idea of a mysterious super-powerful creator. Because they contain chains of process, of cause and effect. Speculative, but based firmly on what is already known.


Pantheism which is also found amongst fans of New Age philosophy and (if rephrased slightly) Buddhists, Hindus and if rephrased again the rest of the religions and philosophical movements in places like China and Japan.

I am South Asian and live surrounded by Buddhists, Hindus and Asian religious and philosophical movements. I am sympathetic to the pantheism of people like Spinoza but see no effective difference between it and atheism.

Pantheism exists in at least one branch of Hindu thinking, but since there are about as many schools of Hindu philosophy as there were among the Greeks, the fact that one lot stumbled on pantheism means very little. Care to try making a more knowledgeable (and less stereotypical) statement about any Asian philosophies you may have studied?



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 07:38 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

Superstitious piffle.




top topics



 
32
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join